解释十九世纪末二十世纪初英国自由主义的干涉主义倾向:第一原则的一个教训

Martin George Holmes
{"title":"解释十九世纪末二十世纪初英国自由主义的干涉主义倾向:第一原则的一个教训","authors":"Martin George Holmes","doi":"10.35297/001c.88314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Traditionally, scholars have portrayed British popular Liberalism as thoroughly laissez-faire, minarchist, and anti-imperialist before the late nineteenth century. After this point, many scholars claim, popular Liberals broke with their traditional policies for humanitarian and pragmatic reasons by funding social welfare programs, regulating the economy, and endorsing imperialism. This article disagrees, contending instead that British popular Liberalism was never sufficiently committed to classical liberalism. A misguided humanitarian impulse arose within the movement that permitted exceptions to laissez-faire at home and interventionism abroad. Popular Liberals believed that because these exceptions were rare and undertaken in good faith, they did not undermine the movement. However, these initial interventions advocated by popular Liberals established a precedent that was exploited whenever further interventions seemed expedient. In the end, this statist trend destroyed the movement.","PeriodicalId":83116,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of libertarian studies","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Explaining the Interventionist Trend of British Liberalism in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries: A Lesson in First Principles\",\"authors\":\"Martin George Holmes\",\"doi\":\"10.35297/001c.88314\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Traditionally, scholars have portrayed British popular Liberalism as thoroughly laissez-faire, minarchist, and anti-imperialist before the late nineteenth century. After this point, many scholars claim, popular Liberals broke with their traditional policies for humanitarian and pragmatic reasons by funding social welfare programs, regulating the economy, and endorsing imperialism. This article disagrees, contending instead that British popular Liberalism was never sufficiently committed to classical liberalism. A misguided humanitarian impulse arose within the movement that permitted exceptions to laissez-faire at home and interventionism abroad. Popular Liberals believed that because these exceptions were rare and undertaken in good faith, they did not undermine the movement. However, these initial interventions advocated by popular Liberals established a precedent that was exploited whenever further interventions seemed expedient. In the end, this statist trend destroyed the movement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83116,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of libertarian studies\",\"volume\":\"58 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of libertarian studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35297/001c.88314\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of libertarian studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35297/001c.88314","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

传统上,学者们在19世纪末之前把英国的大众自由主义描绘成彻底的自由放任主义、小政府主义和反帝国主义。在此之后,许多学者声称,受欢迎的自由党人出于人道主义和务实的原因,通过资助社会福利项目、调节经济和支持帝国主义,打破了他们的传统政策。本文不同意这一观点,而是认为英国的大众自由主义从未充分致力于古典自由主义。运动中出现了一种被误导的人道主义冲动,允许国内的自由放任和国外的干预主义例外。大众自由主义者认为,因为这些例外是罕见的,而且是出于善意而采取的,所以它们不会破坏这场运动。然而,受欢迎的自由主义者倡导的这些最初的干预建立了一个先例,每当进一步的干预似乎是权宜之计时,就会被利用。最终,这种中央集权的趋势摧毁了这场运动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Explaining the Interventionist Trend of British Liberalism in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries: A Lesson in First Principles
Traditionally, scholars have portrayed British popular Liberalism as thoroughly laissez-faire, minarchist, and anti-imperialist before the late nineteenth century. After this point, many scholars claim, popular Liberals broke with their traditional policies for humanitarian and pragmatic reasons by funding social welfare programs, regulating the economy, and endorsing imperialism. This article disagrees, contending instead that British popular Liberalism was never sufficiently committed to classical liberalism. A misguided humanitarian impulse arose within the movement that permitted exceptions to laissez-faire at home and interventionism abroad. Popular Liberals believed that because these exceptions were rare and undertaken in good faith, they did not undermine the movement. However, these initial interventions advocated by popular Liberals established a precedent that was exploited whenever further interventions seemed expedient. In the end, this statist trend destroyed the movement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信