From the Middle Ages to the Modern Freedom Tent?

Among my three articles in the magazine’s Fall of Regulationcoming out in print and online formats, both are reviews of the latest books, not surprisingly, related to individual freedom.

The first is about Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi The Individualistswhich provides a detailed intellectual history of libertarianism since its birth in the 19th century (see pages 40-43 in the magazine). According to the typology of the authors, which is defensible, libertarianism in its broad sense includes not only strict libertarians but also a modern version of classical libertarianism. It is a serious and well-written book, challenging in many ways to both libertarians and non-libertarians.

One of my criticisms is the neglect of Anthony the Jasay. I write:

There is a great absence in book reviews of contemporary libertarian schools of thought. Nowhere is the work of the economist and political scientist Anthony de Jasay mentioned. In my view, de Jasay basically revived both the critique of the state and the libertarian-libertarian debate. (See “A Conservative Anarchist? Anthony de Jasay, 1925–2019,” Spring 2019.) De Jasay’s work also undermines the relevance of traditional left–right, progressive–conservative distinctions, and sheds new light on political and liberal philosophy. Indeed, he is far from a household name in academia, but his first book, which is boring, The stateit was published forty years ago. Since I did not immediately discover its importance (Buchanan was quick), I cannot cast the first stone.

My review concludes with:

Is libertarianism too big, with too many different people? The authors of The Individualists they believe that “libertarianism is not just a mistake but a different view” and that “the tension between the radical and dissenters is not a mistake but part of libertarian thinking.” It seems that this feature is due to various circumstances in which the main threats to freedom changed. Perhaps it is also because libertarianism is defined along a different dimension than the traditional left-right spectrum: the individual choice/collective choice dimension. In any case, analysis, discussion, peaceful diversity, and tolerance are good things, not small things. Zwolinski and Tomasi’s book is a useful guide to these questions.

This is the second book I am reviewing in this hot issue Regulation defending the Middle Ages as a precursor to classical liberalism: The Ancient Constitution of Liberty: The Political Foundations of Liberation in the West (see pages 51-54 in Regulation online) by two professional economists, Alexander William Salter and Andrew Young. The incipit of my review:

The Middle Ages seem mysterious. The period from the fall of Rome in the 5th century to the 15th century is often—or used to be—referred to as the Dark Ages. However, this era was followed by the Renaissance, the modern era and, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and (to borrow from Deirdre McCloskey) the “Great Enrichment.” There must have been something in the Middle Ages that did not contradict the birth of modernity.

Salter and Young explain what that was. They also argued that we (the West) owe the measure of freedom we lack to the “state power” (one of today’s academic expressions) that developed between the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment, but, on the contrary, to defeated politics. power characterized the High Middle Ages (11th-13th centuries). Let me quote the last few paragraphs of my review:

The medieval constitution did not survive long after the High Middle Ages, mainly because of the shock of the 14th century. The Black Death, a plague or epidemic caused by bacteria, devastated Europe between 1347 and 1351. Depending on the location, it killed between one-eighth and one-third of the population. Another shock was the siege cannon, which produced economies of scale by force and eliminated the relative advantage of fortified areas. Middle-class countries rose with “state power” to produce what we would now call public goods.

State power scholars believe that the privatization of political authority in the High Middle Ages prevented the centralization of the state and the creation of useful state power, especially to support economic growth. They point to a correlation between higher taxes and higher economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. (See “The Chained Leviathan Keeps Roaming and Growing,” Fall 2021, and “A Fashionable Appeal to a Benevolent State,” Winter 2023–2024.) An example of the perverse effects of medieval institutions can be found in guilds, which reduced innovation and competition among artisans. , and existed from the 11th to the 18th century. Local tolls provide another example. Only the modern middle class, is able to overcome these obstacles to great enrichment. Salter and Young consider the conflict of state power as a “great challenge,” which they are trying to meet.

The interpretation of the state’s position on economic development has been challenged by several scholars such as Peter Boettke, Roselino Candela, Vincent Geloso, Ennio Piano, and Salter and Young themselves. Strong countries can be prey as producers of public goods. Historically, state power has often hindered economic development; we need only think of imperial China or, in more recent times, North Korea or the Soviet Union. To support prosperity, the power of the state must be limited by law and a market economy. The government must be slow in exercising its power. The West’s march towards Super-Enrichment suggests that there must be something to prevent imperial power from becoming a victim. Salter and Young argue that this particularity was “the hindrances left behind by the constitutional legacy of medieval Europe.”

Therefore, we cannot explain “modern fortune” outside of the conditions that existed in the High Middle Ages. “The rise of the West must not be seen as an escape from the High Middle Ages,” the authors write, “but as a continuation of the liberal traditions that strengthened in the High Middle Ages.”

Salter and Young’s book confirms that capitalism or, more generally, individual freedom is the daughter of anarchy or, at least, moderate and limited political power. Let us repeat that the Middle Ages were not perfect and humanity had to wait for the classical freedom of the 19th century to have ideas of the benefits that individual freedom can bring.

Sociologist and historian Jean Baechler said the same (emphasis added):