To be clear, this article refers to "modern liberalism," which is based on the ideas of social welfare programs and government intervention to correct systemic inequalities--or "efficiency, integration, and mutual gains" as defined in the article.
The article mentions "the classical doctrine of gains from trade, from Adam Smith and David Ricardo" which is now referred to as "classical liberalism"--now more closely aligned with the term "libertarianism".
The author (rather weakly) argues that "these strands converged on a single animating proposition: that efficiency and peace are not competing objectives, but complementary outcomes of the same structural dynamic. The more deeply economies integrate, the more costly conflict becomes."
The reader is left to try to untangle the author's mix of vague references and partial conclusions to try to make sense of the argument.
Liberalism has and always will be "liberty" at its core, and whether that means cooperation or independence depends upon the benefits to the parties involved. Impososition of rules, dogma, theories, platforms or any other catch-all requirements for liberals to adhere to is in diametric opposition to liberalism--regardless of the century or the authors attempting to redefine it.
jschveibinz•24m ago
The article mentions "the classical doctrine of gains from trade, from Adam Smith and David Ricardo" which is now referred to as "classical liberalism"--now more closely aligned with the term "libertarianism".
The author (rather weakly) argues that "these strands converged on a single animating proposition: that efficiency and peace are not competing objectives, but complementary outcomes of the same structural dynamic. The more deeply economies integrate, the more costly conflict becomes."
The reader is left to try to untangle the author's mix of vague references and partial conclusions to try to make sense of the argument.
Liberalism has and always will be "liberty" at its core, and whether that means cooperation or independence depends upon the benefits to the parties involved. Impososition of rules, dogma, theories, platforms or any other catch-all requirements for liberals to adhere to is in diametric opposition to liberalism--regardless of the century or the authors attempting to redefine it.