Liberalism’s founding assembly split over ends versus means of freedom

Evidence

The congress attendees disagreed on many points: Is freedom an end in itself (a position defended by Etienne Mantoux and Louis Rougier) or merely a means (espoused by Louis Baudin, Robert Marjolin)? Is liberalism only the rigorous application of the laws of economics (Louis Marlio) or an ideology (Robert Marjolin)? Does liberalism have to take into account the provision of social security (Louis Rougier, Walter Lippmann) or not (Jacques Rueff)? Clear oppositions surfaced several times. With regard to the question of industrial concentration, it was criticized by the economists, whereas the industrialists defended the trusts. Confronting the problem of money, Jacques Rueff or Louis Baudin did not want to see it “directed,” whereas Walter Lippmann preached its management and condemned the legal statute of companies. Thus, the backers of the Colloque Lippmann were not of one mind along many dimensions. — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 278

Categorization

  • XREF: The freedom-as-end-versus-means split anticipates later debates between ordoliberal and classical-liberal camps described elsewhere in this book. — connects to: Early neoliberals split over whether freedom served dignity or stood alone — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 354; A factions split over renewing versus preserving liberalism marked the Colloque’s founding — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 280; True freedom collapses the separation between means and ends — Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity, 124 (+1 more)
  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 278

Broader Connections