Skip to content
Read • Question • ConnectAnthony’s notes & researchReturn with a new question
Anthony’s NotesA personal field guide
From the notebook

Markets, Free Speech and the Common Good

Shapiro vs Knowles

Daily Wire Hosts Debate the Iran War Deal | Friendly Fire

Summary of Arguments (1)

Core Question

The central dispute is not merely about economics, free speech, GDP, or markets. It is about a deeper question:

Are liberal institutions such as markets and free speech self-justifying, or must they be ordered toward a higher conception of the good?

One side argues that free speech, markets, trade, and economic growth are not ultimate ends. They are tools or institutions that should serve truth, human flourishing, family stability, civic virtue, and the common good.

The other side warns that this argument becomes dangerous when it gives political authorities the power to decide which speech, markets, or economic activities serve “the good.” That path can lead to censorship, central planning, cronyism, paternalism, or arbitrary state power.

The deepest tension is between:

  • — the belief that institutions should be understood by their ends or purposes.
  • — the belief that liberty, property, free speech, and markets protect individuals from domination and allow truth and prosperity to emerge.
  • — the belief that society cannot be reduced to abstract calculation, efficiency, or economic metrics.
  • — the belief that private property and markets are legitimate but subordinate to human dignity, solidarity, subsidiarity, and the common good.
  • — the belief that markets coordinate dispersed knowledge better than centralized planners can.
  • — the contemporary critique that liberalism has hollowed out moral, religious, familial, and national life by treating freedom and choice as final goods.

1. The Argument Being Made

The argument can be summarized this way:

  1. Economic growth is good, but it is not the highest good.
  2. Free speech is good, but it is not merely an end in itself.
  3. Markets are useful, but price does not capture every kind of value.
  4. GDP measures economic activity, not moral health.
  5. A society must know something about the good in order to govern itself.
  6. Classical liberalism often forgets this and treats procedures — markets, free speech, choice, trade, efficiency — as if they are the ultimate purpose of society.
  7. Conservatism, from Aristotle through Burke to Catholic social teaching, insists that wealth and liberty must be ordered toward human flourishing.

This is a teleological critique of liberalism.

It does not necessarily reject markets, wealth, or free speech. Rather, it argues that liberal institutions must be placed inside a moral framework.

Core Thesis

Markets and free speech are powerful liberal institutions, but they are not complete moral philosophies. They are means of coordination, discovery, and freedom. They still require a deeper account of human flourishing, virtue, justice, and the common good.

2. The Deepest Foundation: Teleology

What is teleology?

Teleology is the idea that something is understood by its telos, or end/purpose.

A teleological thinker asks:

  • What is human life for?
  • What is politics for?
  • What is wealth for?
  • What is speech for?
  • What is family for?
  • What is the economy for?

This way of thinking comes most famously from Aristotle.

For Aristotle, the purpose of politics is not merely survival, trade, or wealth. The political community exists for the sake of the good life.

Aristotle’s Contribution

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that human beings aim at some final good. That final good is usually translated as happiness, flourishing, or eudaimonia.

In the Politics, Aristotle argues that the city exists not only for living, but for living well. Human beings are political animals because they deliberate together about justice, advantage, nobility, and the good.

This matters because it directly opposes the idea that economic activity can be judged only by production, exchange, or preference satisfaction.

For Aristotle:

  • Wealth is useful, but not ultimate.
  • Trade is necessary, but not the purpose of life.
  • Politics is not merely administration.
  • A good society must form good human beings.
  • The economy is subordinate to ethics and politics.

Aristotle’s basic insight

Wealth is an instrumental good. It is valuable because of what it makes possible, not because it is the final end of human life.

How this applies to the debate

When someone says, “We want growth, but growth must be for something good,” they are making an Aristotelian claim.

They are saying:

Economic life should be judged by whether it contributes to human flourishing, not merely by whether it increases measured output.

This is the strongest part of the postliberal or conservative critique of market liberalism.

Further Research

3. Free Speech: Is It an End or a Means?

The argument claims that the major classical defenders of free speech did not defend speech as an isolated absolute. They defended it because it served higher ends such as:

  • truth,
  • conscience,
  • religious sincerity,
  • moral agency,
  • self-government,
  • public deliberation,
  • resistance to tyranny.

This is largely correct, but it requires nuance.

John Milton: Speech for Truth

Key Text

John Milton — Areopagitica (1644)

Milton argued against government licensing of books. His defense of free expression was not modern secular neutrality. It was a Protestant, truth-seeking argument.

Milton believed truth is strengthened when it confronts error in open contest. Suppressing error can also suppress truth, because fallible authorities may not know the difference.

Connection to the argument

Milton supports the claim that free speech is “for something.” It is for the discovery and vindication of truth.

Limitation

Milton was not a modern free-speech absolutist. His toleration had limits, especially regarding Catholicism. Therefore, he should not be treated as identical to John Stuart Mill or modern First Amendment liberalism.

Further Research

John Locke: Speech, Toleration, and the Limits of Civil Authority

Key Text

John Locke — A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689)

Locke’s argument is not exactly the same as Milton’s. Locke is concerned with the limits of civil authority. The state can regulate civil interests such as life, liberty, health, and property, but it cannot coerce genuine belief.

For Locke, forced religion is irrational because belief cannot be produced by external force.

Connection to the argument

Locke supports the idea that liberty is ordered toward goods such as:

  • sincere conscience,
  • civil peace,
  • proper jurisdiction,
  • limited government.

Limitation

Locke’s toleration was not unlimited. He famously excluded atheists and Catholics from full toleration in ways that modern liberals usually reject. So Locke is a crucial source for liberal toleration, but not a full modern free-speech pluralist.

Further Research

John Stuart Mill: Speech Against Infallibility

Key Text

John Stuart Mill — On Liberty (1859)

Mill gives the most famous liberal defense of freedom of thought and discussion.

His core argument is that silencing opinion assumes infallibility. Even false opinions may contain partial truth, and even true opinions become dead dogma if they are not tested by opposition.

Mill’s defense of speech is deeply instrumental. Speech serves:

  • truth-seeking,
  • intellectual humility,
  • individuality,
  • moral development,
  • social progress.

Connection to the argument

Mill strongly supports the claim that free speech is “for something.” It is for truth, progress, and rational public life.

Limitation

Mill’s conclusion is not that the state should regulate speech according to truth. His conclusion is nearly the opposite: because human beings are fallible, state authorities should almost never silence opinion.

This is where the classical-liberal critique becomes powerful.

Key Distinction

It is one thing to say free speech serves truth.
It is another thing to say the state may censor speech that does not serve truth.
Milton and Mill support the first claim. They do not obviously support the second.

Further Research

4. The Liberal Danger: Procedures Without Ends

The postliberal critique says liberalism often turns procedures into idols.

Examples:

  • Free speech becomes speech for speech’s sake.
  • Choice becomes choice for choice’s sake.
  • Markets become markets for markets’ sake.
  • GDP becomes growth for growth’s sake.
  • Autonomy becomes liberation from all inherited obligations.
  • Toleration becomes inability to judge anything.
  • Neutrality becomes moral emptiness.

This critique does not necessarily deny that liberal institutions are valuable. It argues that they become destructive when detached from substantive moral ends.

The deeper charge against liberalism

Liberalism often claims to be neutral among competing visions of the good. The postliberal critic says this neutrality is impossible. Liberalism itself smuggles in a moral anthropology:

  • the individual as chooser,
  • freedom as non-interference,
  • society as contract,
  • tradition as optional,
  • religion as private preference,
  • markets as preference aggregators,
  • the state as neutral referee.

Postliberals argue that this anthropology gradually dissolves thick social goods such as family, church, nation, duty, hierarchy, sacrifice, and inherited moral order.

Key Idea

The postliberal critique is not simply “liberalism gives people too much freedom.”
It is that liberalism redefines freedom as liberation from unchosen obligations, and then leaves society unable to explain why those obligations matter.

Further Research

5. Burkean Conservatism: Against the Rule of “Economists, Sophisters, and Calculators”

Key Text

Edmund Burke — Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)

Burke’s conservatism is one of the deepest sources behind the critique of reducing society to calculation.

Burke opposed the French Revolution not merely because he disliked change, but because he believed revolutionaries were trying to rebuild society from abstract principles while ignoring:

  • inherited wisdom,
  • custom,
  • religion,
  • social hierarchy,
  • manners,
  • local institutions,
  • historical continuity,
  • human imperfection,
  • unintended consequences.

Burke’s famous phrase says that the “age of chivalry” has been replaced by the age of “sophisters, economists, and calculators.”

What Burke was criticizing

Burke was not saying that economics is useless. He was criticizing a style of politics that treats society as if it can be redesigned by abstract reason alone.

For Burke, society is not a machine. It is an inherited partnership among the living, the dead, and the unborn.

The economy is part of society, but it cannot replace the moral and symbolic order that holds society together.

Connection to the argument

When the speaker says that conservatives have long warned against making an idol out of economics, he is channeling Burke.

The Burkean claim is:

A society cannot survive if it knows how to calculate prices but forgets honor, loyalty, piety, duty, restraint, gratitude, and reverence.

Strength of the Burkean argument

Burke correctly identifies a danger in rationalistic liberalism: the belief that all social goods can be made explicit, measured, priced, and redesigned.

Modern examples include:

  • reducing education to earnings potential,
  • reducing family policy to labor-force participation,
  • reducing art to market value,
  • reducing citizenship to tax contribution,
  • reducing morality to consent,
  • reducing national policy to GDP growth,
  • reducing human dignity to utility.

Weakness of the Burkean argument

Burkean conservatism can become vague nostalgia if it does not explain which inherited institutions deserve preservation and which deserve reform.

Not every tradition is good. Some traditions are unjust, irrational, or corrupt. Burkean prudence is valuable, but it can become an excuse for defending the status quo.

Further Research

6. Carlyle and “The Dismal Science”

The phrase “the dismal science” comes from Thomas Carlyle, not Burke.

Key Text

Thomas Carlyle — “Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question” (1849)

Carlyle used “dismal science” as an attack on liberal political economy. However, the origin of the phrase is morally compromised. Carlyle was attacking economists such as John Stuart Mill partly because they defended freedom and equality against Carlyle’s coercive and racialized views of labor.

This matters because some conservatives use “dismal science” as if it simply means “economics is too cold and calculating.” Historically, Carlyle’s use was more authoritarian.

Connection to the argument

The speaker uses “dismal science” to support the idea that economics is not enough.

That broad idea may be legitimate, but Carlyle is a dangerous source. Burke is a much cleaner source for anti-reductionist conservatism. Aristotle and Catholic social teaching are cleaner still.

Important Historical Correction

“The dismal science” is not merely a noble conservative critique of GDP obsession. Its origin is tied to Carlyle’s reactionary attack on liberal equality and free labor. Use the phrase carefully.

Further Research

7. Catholic Social Teaching: Markets Under the Common Good

Catholic social teaching provides one of the most sophisticated frameworks for saying:

Private property and markets are legitimate, but they are not absolute. Economic life must be ordered toward human dignity and the common good.

This tradition avoids both pure socialism and pure libertarianism.

Key principles

1. Human Dignity

Every person has intrinsic worth because he or she is made in the image of God.

Economic systems must be judged by how they treat persons, especially workers, families, the poor, and the vulnerable.

2. Common Good

The common good is not merely the sum of private preferences. It refers to the social conditions that allow persons and communities to flourish.

3. Private Property

Catholic teaching defends private property. It rejects socialism understood as the abolition of private ownership.

4. Universal Destination of Goods

The goods of the earth are ultimately meant for all. Private property is real, but ownership has a social function.

5. Subsidiarity

Decisions should be made at the lowest competent level. Higher authorities should not absorb the proper functions of families, local communities, churches, businesses, and civil society.

6. Solidarity

Human beings are socially bound to one another. Economic life must recognize mutual obligation, not merely individual choice.

Key Catholic texts

Leo XIII — Rerum Novarum (1891)

This is the foundational modern Catholic social encyclical.

It defends:

  • private property,
  • the dignity of labor,
  • the family,
  • the rights of workers,
  • the legitimacy of associations,
  • criticism of socialism,
  • criticism of exploitative capitalism.

Pius XI — Quadragesimo Anno (1931)

This text develops the principle of subsidiarity and criticizes both socialism and concentrated economic power.

John Paul II — Centesimus Annus (1991)

This text is especially important because John Paul II strongly criticizes communism while also refusing to endorse market absolutism.

He praises the market’s ability to satisfy needs through free exchange, but he also says that many human needs do not find a place on the market.

Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

This is the systematic summary of Catholic social principles.

Connection to the argument

Catholic social teaching supports the claim that:

  • wealth is good but not ultimate,
  • markets are useful but morally bounded,
  • private property is real but socially obligated,
  • economic freedom must be judged by human dignity,
  • civil society and family are prior to the state,
  • the economy exists inside a moral order.

Strength

Catholic social teaching gives a richer moral vocabulary than GDP, efficiency, autonomy, or consent alone.

Weakness

Its principles often require prudential judgment. “Common good,” “solidarity,” and “social responsibility” are powerful concepts, but they can be used vaguely.

The classical-liberal worry is that if these principles are not constrained by constitutionalism, rule of law, and subsidiarity, they can become a justification for expansive state control.

Further Research

8. Liberalism: Why Procedures Matter

The classical-liberal side argues that free speech, markets, property rights, and limited government are not empty procedures. They are safeguards against domination.

Liberalism begins from several concerns:

  • Human beings disagree about the good.
  • Human beings are fallible.
  • Political power is dangerous.
  • Majorities can be tyrannical.
  • Religious and moral authorities can abuse power.
  • Markets coordinate information that no ruler possesses.
  • Free speech allows truth to emerge without official control.
  • Private property gives individuals independence from the state.

Core liberal insight

Liberal institutions exist partly because no person or ruling class can be trusted to define and enforce the good for everyone.

This is why the postliberal critique worries liberals, especially when it says speech and markets must be “for something.” The classical liberal asks:

Who decides what they are for?

That question is not cynical. It is central.

The liberal objection to common-good politics

The classical liberal does not necessarily deny the common good. The objection is that state power can easily claim to act for the common good while actually serving:

  • ruling-class interests,
  • censorship,
  • factional advantage,
  • moral panic,
  • crony capitalism,
  • bureaucratic expansion,
  • religious coercion,
  • ideological conformity.

Liberalism therefore emphasizes procedures:

  • rights,
  • due process,
  • free speech,
  • property,
  • religious liberty,
  • constitutional limits,
  • representative institutions,
  • equal protection,
  • rule of law.

These are not the whole of morality, but they are protections against concentrated power.

Further Research

9. Hayek and the Knowledge Problem

The strongest economic critique of postliberal common-good economics comes from F. A. Hayek. The problem is not merely allocating known resources among known preferences. Relevant knowledge is dispersed across people, places, skills, and moments; much of it is tacit, changing, or discovered only when people confront real choices.

Prices compress some of this knowledge into signals about scarcity, substitution, and opportunity cost. They allow adaptation without requiring every participant to know why conditions changed. When someone says that the economy should serve the common good, Hayek’s challenge is therefore epistemic as well as political:

How will an authority discover which arrangement advances the common good, detect its mistakes, and preserve the local feedback needed to correct them?

A moral goal does not eliminate scarcity, trade-offs, or unintended effects. Wanting higher wages does not make labor more productive; wanting affordable housing does not remove zoning and construction constraints; wanting domestic production does not erase consumer costs.

Key distinction

Hayek explains why comprehensive central direction faces severe knowledge and correction problems. He does not prove that every price is just, every market is competitive, or every market outcome is morally legitimate.

Full concept note

Hayek - Knowledge Problem develops the argument through Hayek’s tin example, tacit knowledge, Mises’s calculation problem, Lange’s market-socialist reply, Coase’s theory of the firm, modern computation and AI, market failure, and Ostrom’s polycentric alternative.

10. Thomas Sowell: Trade-Offs, Not Solutions

Thomas Sowell’s framework is useful for interpreting the critique of postliberal economics.

Key Texts

  • Thomas Sowell — A Conflict of Visions
  • Thomas Sowell — Knowledge and Decisions
  • Thomas Sowell — Basic Economics

Sowell’s core idea

Political debates often divide between two visions:

The constrained vision

Human beings are limited, self-interested, fallible, and prone to abuse power. Therefore, institutions should rely on incentives, trade-offs, evolved rules, and checks on power.

The unconstrained vision

Human nature is more malleable, and society can be rationally improved by enlightened actors with sufficient moral commitment and intelligence.

Connection to the debate

The postliberal side sometimes sounds like the unconstrained vision:

We know the good, so we should reorder markets and speech toward the good.

The classical-liberal side sounds like the constrained vision:

Even if we know some moral truths, we should be cautious about empowering officials to enforce their comprehensive vision of the good.

Sowell’s relevance

Sowell’s most important contribution is that there are no perfect solutions, only trade-offs.

This directly answers the GDP/common-good critique.

Yes, GDP is not the good.
Yes, prices do not capture all value.
Yes, markets are morally incomplete.

But every intervention also has costs:

  • who decides,
  • who pays,
  • who benefits,
  • who is excluded,
  • what incentives change,
  • what unintended consequences follow,
  • what power is created,
  • how that power can be abused.

Further Research

11. GDP, Price, and the Limits of Quantification

One of the strongest arguments in the passage is that GDP and prices do not capture every form of value.

GDP is not moral health

GDP measures economic output. It does not measure whether a society is just, virtuous, beautiful, dignified, cohesive, or spiritually healthy.

GDP can rise because of:

  • addiction treatment,
  • crime prevention,
  • divorce litigation,
  • gambling,
  • pornography,
  • prostitution,
  • disaster recovery,
  • medical spending caused by preventable illness,
  • pollution cleanup,
  • incarceration,
  • social breakdown.

This does not mean GDP is useless. It means GDP is not the same as the good.

Price is not full value

Price measures exchange value under market conditions. It does not measure total human meaning.

A thing can have:

  • exchange value,
  • use value,
  • aesthetic value,
  • moral value,
  • symbolic value,
  • religious value,
  • sentimental value,
  • civic value,
  • familial value.

A wedding ring, a family photograph, a child’s drawing, a national flag, a sacrament, or a battlefield memorial cannot be understood merely by its market price.

The strawberry problem

The example of Japanese strawberries is meant to show that prices do not capture qualitative differences.

The stronger version:

Prices can reflect quality, but price is not identical to quality.

The weaker version:

If two things cost the same, economics cannot understand their qualitative difference.

That weaker version is false.

Economics can analyze quality through:

  • willingness to pay,
  • consumer surplus,
  • product differentiation,
  • scarcity,
  • branding,
  • reputation,
  • luxury markets,
  • hedonic pricing,
  • revealed preference.

But economics still cannot tell us whether the preference is morally good.

The correct conclusion

The correct anti-reductionist conclusion is:

Economics is necessary but not sufficient. It helps us analyze trade-offs, incentives, scarcity, and prices. It does not replace moral philosophy.

Further Research

12. Oscar Wilde: “The Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing”

The line “a cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing” comes from Oscar Wilde’s Lady Windermere’s Fan.

This line is useful because it captures the anti-reductionist critique of economism.

Meaning

The line criticizes a person who can calculate exchange value but cannot perceive moral, aesthetic, spiritual, or personal worth.

Connection to the debate

The speaker uses this line to say:

A society that knows only GDP, price, efficiency, and market output may become materially rich but morally stupid.

That is a powerful criticism.

Limitation

The line should not be mistaken for a refutation of economics. Competent economics does not claim that price is the whole of value.

The actual target is not economics as such. The target is economism.

Economics vs Economism

Economics

The study of scarcity, incentives, trade-offs, production, exchange, and allocation.

Economism

The ideology that economic categories are the highest or only valid categories for understanding human life.

Economics is necessary.
Economism is reductionist.

Further Research

13. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and the American Founding

The passage claims that the American founding tradition, especially Washington and Hamilton, understood economic life as ordered toward higher political purposes.

This is plausible, especially with Hamilton.

George Washington

Washington was not a systematic economist, but his political thought emphasized:

  • public virtue,
  • national unity,
  • religion and morality,
  • public credit,
  • civic restraint,
  • suspicion of faction.

In the Farewell Address, Washington connects political prosperity with religion and morality. He does not treat economic life as separate from moral character.

Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton is more directly relevant to political economy.

Key Text

Alexander Hamilton — Report on Manufactures (1791)

Hamilton argued for manufacturing, public credit, national economic development, and government support for productive capacity.

Hamilton was not a laissez-faire libertarian. He saw political economy as tied to:

  • national independence,
  • military strength,
  • manufacturing capacity,
  • public credit,
  • energetic government,
  • national greatness.

Connection to the debate

Hamilton supports a form of political economy that is not merely consumerist or libertarian. Economic policy can serve national goals.

But Hamilton also operated within a constitutional framework. He was not arguing for unlimited state power to define the good.

Strong interpretation

The American founding did not treat economic growth as an isolated good. Washington and Hamilton tied prosperity to republican virtue, national independence, public credit, and constitutional order.

Weak interpretation

Washington and Hamilton were postliberal critics of market liberalism in the modern sense.

That would be anachronistic.

Further Research

14. Postliberalism and National Conservatism

The modern version of this argument belongs to postliberalism and national conservatism.

Core postliberal claim

Liberalism has succeeded materially but failed morally.

It has produced:

  • affluence without rootedness,
  • autonomy without obligation,
  • choice without formation,
  • rights without duties,
  • markets without moral limits,
  • speech without truth,
  • toleration without standards,
  • secularism without transcendence,
  • globalism without national solidarity.

Core national-conservative claim

The nation, family, religion, and local community are not optional lifestyle preferences. They are necessary foundations of ordered liberty.

Markets should therefore be judged by whether they strengthen or weaken:

  • family formation,
  • national industry,
  • working-class stability,
  • religious life,
  • local communities,
  • public morality,
  • civic cohesion.

Key authors

Patrick Deneen

Argues that liberalism failed because it succeeded: it remade society according to autonomy, individualism, and mastery over nature.

Oren Cass

Argues that economic policy should prioritize production, work, family, and national strength over consumption and cheap goods.

Sohrab Ahmari

Argues against procedural neutrality and for tradition, authority, and moral formation.

Adrian Vermeule

Argues for common-good constitutionalism: law should be interpreted according to the common good, not merely procedural neutrality or originalist restraint.

Yoram Hazony

Defends nationalism, tradition, religion, and inherited constitutional order against liberal universalism.

Strength

Postliberalism correctly identifies that liberal societies often struggle to explain why people should sacrifice for family, nation, religion, or future generations.

Weakness

Postliberalism often underestimates how dangerous concentrated state power can be. It criticizes liberal neutrality but does not always provide stable protections for dissenters, minorities, markets, or unpopular speech.

Further Research

15. The Category-Error Critique

The classical-liberal critique says that postliberals sometimes treat markets and speech as if they are simple tools that can be directed toward the common good by political authority.

This may be a category error.

What is a category error?

A category error occurs when something is treated as if it belongs to the wrong kind of thing.

Example:

  • A hammer is a tool.
  • A market is not a tool in the same way.
  • A bureaucracy can be commanded.
  • A decentralized economy cannot be commanded in the same way.
  • A school curriculum can be designed.
  • Public discourse cannot be centrally designed without censorship.

The economy as emergent order

A market economy is not a single object. It is a decentralized order generated by many interacting agents:

  • consumers,
  • workers,
  • employers,
  • investors,
  • savers,
  • entrepreneurs,
  • households,
  • banks,
  • regulators,
  • suppliers,
  • local communities,
  • global networks.

No one person possesses all the relevant information.

So when someone says, “the economy works for us,” the classical liberal replies:

In one sense, yes. But the economy is not a servant that can simply be ordered around. It is a coordination system. If you interfere with it carelessly, you distort the information and incentives that allow it to function.

Free speech as emergent order

Something similar applies to free speech.

Public discourse is not just a tool that can be aimed at truth by official managers. It is a contest of claims, arguments, errors, corrections, dissent, and discovery.

If the state decides which speech serves truth, then free speech is no longer functioning as free speech. It becomes licensed speech.

Strongest form of the category-error critique

It is valid to say markets and speech should serve human goods.
It is invalid to assume that political authorities can reliably direct markets and speech toward those goods without destroying the very mechanisms that make them useful.

16. The Best Synthesis

The strongest position combines moral realism with institutional humility.

Moral realism about ends

A society should be able to say:

  • truth is better than falsehood,
  • virtue is better than vice,
  • family stability matters,
  • human dignity matters,
  • addiction and exploitation are bad,
  • GDP is not the highest good,
  • price is not the whole of value,
  • markets are not sacred,
  • freedom is not merely choice without limits.

Institutional humility about means

But a society should also recognize:

  • rulers are fallible,
  • power corrupts,
  • bureaucracies have incentives,
  • markets coordinate dispersed knowledge,
  • speech discovers truth through contestation,
  • interventions have unintended consequences,
  • “the common good” can become a blank check,
  • moral certainty does not eliminate trade-offs.

The balanced position

Markets and free speech are not ultimate goods, but they are indispensable institutions. They should be morally evaluated, but not casually subordinated to state control. The goal is not market idolatry or common-good authoritarianism, but a morally serious liberal order sustained by family, religion, civil society, constitutional limits, and local self-government.

17. Strongest Arguments on Each Side

Strongest postliberal / Burkean / Catholic argument

Markets and speech are not self-justifying. A society needs a substantive account of the good. Economic growth, free trade, GDP, and choice cannot tell us what human beings are for.

Weakest postliberal argument

Because economics cannot measure everything, economics is fake or morally irrelevant.

This is false. Economics is not a complete moral philosophy, but it is essential for understanding scarcity, incentives, prices, and trade-offs.

Strongest classical-liberal argument

Even if we know some moral truths, we should be extremely cautious about empowering the state to enforce a comprehensive vision of the good. Free speech and markets are protections against concentrated power and human fallibility.

Weakest classical-liberal argument

Because markets and speech are decentralized discovery mechanisms, they do not need moral evaluation.

This is false. Market outcomes and speech environments can be morally better or worse.

18. Concept Map

graph TB

A[Core Question: What are markets and free speech for?]

A --> B[Teleology]
B --> B1[Aristotle]
B --> B2[Human flourishing]
B --> B3[Politics ordered to the good life]

A --> C[Classical Liberalism]
C --> C1[Locke]
C --> C2[Mill]
C --> C3[Rights, toleration, limited government]
C --> C4[Speech as protection from tyranny]

A --> D[Burkean Conservatism]
D --> D1[Burke]
D --> D2[Tradition and prudence]
D --> D3[Critique of calculators and abstraction]

A --> E[Catholic Social Teaching]
E --> E1[Rerum Novarum]
E --> E2[Centesimus Annus]
E --> E3[Private property plus social obligation]
E --> E4[Subsidiarity and solidarity]

A --> F[Hayekian Economics]
F --> F1[Knowledge problem]
F --> F2[Spontaneous order]
F --> F3[Prices as information]

A --> G[Postliberalism]
G --> G1[Deneen]
G --> G2[Oren Cass]
G --> G3[Common good]
G --> G4[Critique of market idolatry]

A --> H[Best Synthesis]
H --> H1[Moral realism about ends]
H --> H2[Institutional humility about means]
H --> H3[Markets and speech as morally bounded but indispensable]

19. Key Distinctions to Remember

Economics vs Economism

  • Economics: a discipline studying scarcity, incentives, trade-offs, exchange, and production.
  • Economism: the ideological reduction of human life to economic categories.

Markets vs Market Idolatry

  • Markets: decentralized systems for coordinating exchange and information.
  • Market idolatry: treating market outcomes as morally final.

Free Speech vs Speech Absolutism

  • Free speech: institutional protection for truth-seeking, dissent, self-government, and conscience.
  • Speech absolutism: the belief that speech has no relation to truth, virtue, or social order.

Common Good vs Common-Good Statism

  • Common good: the social conditions that allow persons and communities to flourish.
  • Common-good statism: using the language of the common good to justify discretionary state power.

Tradition vs Traditionalism

  • Tradition: inherited practices and wisdom that may deserve respect.
  • Traditionalism: defending inherited practices merely because they are old.

20. Final Judgment

The passage is strongest when it attacks economism, not economics.

It is right that:

  • GDP is not the good.
  • Price is not the whole of value.
  • Free speech serves truth and self-government.
  • Markets require moral and legal boundaries.
  • A society needs an account of human flourishing.
  • Liberal procedures alone cannot tell us what is worth loving, preserving, or sacrificing for.

The passage is weaker when it implies that:

  • economics is fake,
  • prices cannot account for quality,
  • free speech should be subordinated to official truth,
  • the state can reliably order markets toward the common good,
  • Burke, Carlyle, Catholic social teaching, and postliberalism all point in the same direction without tension.

The strongest synthesis is:

A good society needs both moral ends and liberal institutions. Aristotle, Burke, and Catholic social teaching remind us that wealth, markets, and speech must be ordered toward human flourishing. Locke, Mill, Hayek, and Sowell remind us that fallible human beings cannot be trusted with unchecked power to define and enforce the good. The task is to preserve markets and free speech as indispensable institutions while refusing to treat them as idols.

21. Reading Path

Start Here

  1. Aristotle — Nicomachean Ethics
  2. Aristotle — Politics
  3. John Stuart Mill — On Liberty
  4. Edmund Burke — Reflections on the Revolution in France
  5. Hayek — “The Use of Knowledge in Society”
  6. Leo XIII — Rerum Novarum
  7. John Paul II — Centesimus Annus
  8. Thomas Sowell — A Conflict of Visions
  9. Patrick Deneen — Why Liberalism Failed
  10. Oren Cass — The Once and Future Worker

For the specific debate

  • If you want the postliberal side, read Aristotle, Burke, Catholic social teaching, Deneen, Cass, Ahmari, Vermeule.
  • If you want the classical-liberal critique, read Locke, Mill, Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, Berlin.
  • If you want the best synthesis, read Aristotle, Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, Burke, Tocqueville, Hayek, and Catholic social teaching together.

Michael Knowles argument on Free Speech from book Speechless

Yes. Knowles does argue for restricting or controlling speech, but his argument is not the standard liberal argument for “more speech, not less.” His position is closer to conservative moral-order politics: every society enforces speech norms, so the real question is not whether speech will be regulated, but which moral regime will regulate it.

Core argument

Knowles rejects the idea that political correctness is simply “censorship.” He defines political correctness as a standard of speech and behavior along leftist ideological lines. His key move is to say that all societies censor or discipline speech in some way; he gives “chivalry” as an example of a traditional code that also restricts speech and behavior. Therefore, he argues, conservatives are wrong to treat “free speech vs. censorship” as the central question. For him, that is a false dichotomy. The real question is whether society will enforce left-progressive standards or traditional conservative standards.  

His argument becomes explicit near the end of the book: conservatives, he says, must admit the “necessity of just and prudent censorship,” restore prohibitions against obscenity, acknowledge that ostracism and marginalization can be just, and even “suppress ideologies and organizations” that would subvert a conservative moral-political vision.  

So, the answer is: yes, he supports some restriction/control of speech, but he frames it as moral governance, cultural discipline, and the enforcement of truthful/traditional standards, not as arbitrary state repression.

What he is arguing against

Knowles’s enemy is not “speech control” as such. His enemy is left-wing control of speech through political correctness. He argues that political correctness works by changing words in order to change thought and social reality. He says words are not trivial because semantics means meaning itself; language shapes how people distinguish things, think about the world, and conduct politics.  

He especially attacks the leftist claim that speech norms are merely about politeness or inclusion. In his view, politically correct language does not merely soften reality; it conceals, contradicts, or replaces reality. He treats examples such as “social justice,” “same-sex marriage,” “trans woman,” “reproductive rights,” and similar terms as ideological redefinitions rather than neutral language changes.  

That matters because, for Knowles, once the left controls language, it controls the terms of debate before debate even begins. His same-sex marriage example is illustrative: he argues that activists redefined “marriage” first, thereby moving the debate from “What is marriage?” to “Who has the right to marry?”  

Philosophical foundations

1. Aristotelian view of speech and politics

Knowles explicitly invokes Aristotle’s idea that man is a political animal because man has speech, and speech allows humans to distinguish the expedient from the inexpedient and the just from the unjust. He then argues that politics is inseparable from speech: speech is how political order is formed before politics descends into force.  

This is not a libertarian view of speech. It is closer to a classical view: speech is ordered toward truth, justice, moral judgment, and civic life. Therefore, corrupt speech corrupts the political order.

2. Anti-neutrality: no society is value-free

A major philosophical assumption in the book is that neutral liberalism is an illusion. Knowles thinks every regime enforces some conception of the good. If conservatives refuse to articulate and enforce their own moral vision, then the left will impose its own under euphemisms like “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”  

This is why he rejects “free speech” as an abstract slogan. He thinks a society without standards is impossible. Either traditional standards will govern speech, or progressive standards will.

3. Common-good conservatism / post-liberal conservatism

Knowles’s argument aligns strongly with common-good conservatism or post-liberal conservatism. He approvingly references the idea of a public square ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good, contrasting this with “autonomy-maximizing liberalism.”  

This is the philosophical heart of the argument: freedom is not merely the ability to say whatever one wants. Freedom must be ordered toward the good, truth, virtue, and moral formation.

4. Natural-law / Christian moral realism

Knowles says conservatives must begin with moral conscience and recognize that good, evil, virtue, and vice are not just sentiments or social preferences but eternal realities knowable through right reason and revelation.  

That places his argument in a broadly natural-law Christian conservative framework. Speech is not merely individual self-expression; speech has a moral quality because it either aligns with truth or disorders the soul and society.

5. Burkean/traditionalist suspicion of radical linguistic reconstruction

He treats political correctness as an attempt to destroy inherited moral and cultural standards and replace them with artificial ideological standards. This is Burkean in structure: inherited norms are not arbitrary; they carry accumulated civilizational wisdom. Radical language reform is therefore not just semantic tinkering but a revolutionary assault on tradition.

6. Gramsci / Marcuse as the left-wing mirror image

Knowles also grounds his diagnosis of the left in Gramsci, the Frankfurt School, and Marcuse. He presents political correctness as a strategy of cultural hegemony: transform institutions, language, and “common sense,” and political power will follow. In his telling, Gramsci understood that revolution required cultural domination, not merely control over economics or the state.  

He also discusses Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance,” where tolerance is treated as a partisan instrument: tolerate liberating speech, suppress reactionary speech. Knowles sees this as the philosophical ancestor of modern progressive speech control.  

The underlying logic

Knowles’s argument can be reduced to this chain:

  1. Speech shapes thought.
  2. Thought shapes culture.
  3. Culture shapes politics.
  4. No society permits all speech equally.
  5. Therefore, speech norms are inevitable.
  6. The only question is which moral order sets the norms.
  7. Conservatives lose when they defend abstract “free speech” while refusing to defend a substantive moral order.
  8. Therefore, conservatives should enforce traditional standards and use censorship, ostracism, and institutional control prudently.

Important critique

The strongest critique is that Knowles’s position collapses free-speech liberalism into regime conflict. Once he says every society censors and the only question is who controls the standards, the argument can justify the same coercive logic he condemns in political correctness—only with conservative content.

His distinction depends on the claim that his side enforces “truth” while the other side enforces ideological falsehood. That works only if one already accepts his moral, theological, and metaphysical premises. Without those premises, his argument looks less like a defense of free speech and more like a call for right-wing cultural authority over speech norms.

So the clean answer is:

Knowles does not argue for free speech absolutism. He argues that speech is always governed by moral standards, that liberal neutrality is fake, and that conservatives should stop merely opposing censorship in the abstract and instead enforce traditional standards of truth, virtue, obscenity, and the common good.

Args Org

Thesis

The argument is about whether liberal institutions — especially free speech and markets — are enough by themselves, or whether they must be ordered toward a higher moral purpose.

The three major issues are:

  1. Guardrails to free speech — Is free speech an end in itself, or is it for truth, self-government, and moral order?
  2. Social responsibility in economics — Is economic growth enough, or must markets serve human flourishing and the common good?
  3. Liberalism — Does liberalism protect liberty through neutral procedures, or does it dissolve moral order by refusing to name the good?

1. Guardrails to Free Speech

Core Question

Is free speech valuable by itself, or is it valuable because it serves truth, conscience, self-government, and human flourishing?

The postliberal/conservative argument says free speech is not an end in itself. It is “for something.” It exists to serve higher goods such as truth, moral deliberation, and self-government.

The classical-liberal critique says this becomes dangerous if the state claims authority to decide which speech serves truth or the common good.

A. The Postliberal / Moral-Order Argument

The speaker’s argument:

  • Free speech is not merely speech for speech’s sake.
  • The classical defenders of free speech defended it because it served higher ends.
  • Speech should be understood teleologically: by its purpose.
  • That purpose includes truth, rational deliberation, religious conscience, moral formation, and self-government.
  • Therefore, free speech needs “guardrails” so that society does not confuse liberty with license.

Philosophical Roots

This argument comes from:

The idea is that liberty is not mere permission. Liberty is ordered toward the good.

A society that treats speech as totally detached from truth or virtue risks becoming unable to distinguish between:

  • truth and manipulation,
  • liberty and license,
  • dissent and degradation,
  • persuasion and corruption,
  • public debate and social sabotage.

B. John Milton: Free Speech for Truth

Source

John Milton — Areopagitica (1644)

Milton opposed pre-publication censorship. His argument was not that speech has no purpose. His argument was that truth becomes stronger when it openly confronts falsehood.

Milton wrote Areopagitica as an argument against England’s system of pre-publication licensing, where books had to be approved by authorities before they could be printed. His defense of free expression was not based on moral neutrality; he argued that truth is strengthened through open contest with error, and that fallible authorities should not be trusted to decide in advance which ideas may be published.

Connection

Milton supports the claim that speech is “for something.” It is for the discovery and vindication of truth.

Important Qualification

Milton was not a modern free-speech absolutist. His toleration had religious limits. So he supports the idea that speech serves truth, but he does not fully support modern neutral pluralism.

Further Research

C. John Locke: Free Speech, Toleration, and Jurisdiction

Source

John Locke — A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689)

Locke’s argument is not simply “everyone should say anything.” His deeper claim is that the state has limited jurisdiction. The magistrate cannot coerce genuine belief because belief belongs to conscience, not civil force.

Connection

Locke supports free speech and toleration because they serve:

  • religious sincerity,
  • civil peace,
  • limits on state power,
  • protection of conscience.

Important Qualification

Locke was not a full modern pluralist. His toleration excluded some groups, especially atheists and Catholics. Still, he is central to the liberal tradition of limiting state authority over belief.

Further Research

D. John Stuart Mill: Free Speech Against Infallibility

Source

John Stuart Mill — On Liberty (1859)

Mill argues that silencing an opinion assumes one’s own infallibility. Even false opinions can contain partial truth. Even true opinions become dead dogma if they are never challenged.

Connection

Mill strongly supports the idea that speech serves a higher end: truth-seeking and intellectual development.

Important Qualification

Mill does not conclude that authorities should censor falsehood. He concludes almost the opposite: because humans are fallible, we should be extremely cautious about suppressing opinion.

So Mill supports:

Speech is for truth.

But he does not support:

The state may censor speech in the name of truth.

Key Distinction

Saying “free speech serves truth” is not the same as saying “the state should regulate speech according to official truth.”

Further Research

E. The Classical-Liberal Critique of Guardrails

The classical-liberal worry is:

Who decides what counts as proper speech?

If the state decides speech must serve truth, then the state may claim authority to suppress whatever it labels false, harmful, immoral, destabilizing, hateful, or contrary to the common good.

That creates several dangers:

  • censorship,
  • viewpoint discrimination,
  • official ideology,
  • religious coercion,
  • suppression of dissent,
  • elite control over public discourse,
  • moral language used as a cover for power.

The classical-liberal position is not necessarily that speech has no moral purpose. Rather, it says the best way for speech to serve truth is to prevent authorities from controlling it.

F. Strongest and Weakest Versions

Strongest Postliberal Version

Free speech is not morally empty. It serves truth, deliberation, and self-government. A society that cannot distinguish truth from manipulation will eventually lose the conditions of ordered liberty.

Weakest Postliberal Version

Because free speech is “for truth,” authorities should be able to suppress speech they believe does not serve truth.

Strongest Classical-Liberal Version

Speech serves truth best when no authority has the power to decide final truth for everyone. The protection of dissent is necessary because rulers are fallible.

Weakest Classical-Liberal Version

Free speech has no moral purpose and should never be evaluated by its effects on truth, virtue, or civic order.

2. Social Responsibility in Economics

Core Question

Are markets and economic growth good in themselves, or are they good because they serve human flourishing?

The postliberal/conservative argument says economic growth, trade, prices, and markets are valuable, but they are not ultimate. They must be ordered toward the common good.

The classical-liberal critique says that this can become dangerous if political authorities use the common good as an excuse to override markets, property, prices, and voluntary exchange.

A. The Postliberal / Common-Good Argument

The speaker’s argument:

  • Wealth creation is good.
  • Trade is good.
  • Economic growth is good.
  • But wealth and growth are not final ends.
  • GDP does not measure moral health.
  • Price does not measure the full value of a thing.
  • Markets can produce morally bad outcomes.
  • Therefore, the economy must be subordinated to human flourishing and the common good.

This is the meaning behind:

“The economy works for us; we do not work for the economy.”

The strongest version of that claim is:

Economic life exists inside a moral order. Markets are tools, not gods.

B. Aristotle: Wealth Is Instrumental

Sources

  • Aristotle — Nicomachean Ethics
  • Aristotle — Politics

Aristotle argues that wealth is not the final human good. Wealth is useful because it helps people live well, but it is not the same as living well.

In the Politics, Aristotle says the political community exists not merely for life, but for the good life.

Connection

The argument that “growth must be for something” is Aristotelian.

It says:

  • economics is subordinate to ethics,
  • wealth is subordinate to flourishing,
  • politics is about more than exchange,
  • a good society forms good human beings.

Further Research

C. Catholic Social Teaching: Property with Obligation

Sources

  • Leo XIII — Rerum Novarum
  • Pius XI — Quadragesimo Anno
  • John Paul II — Centesimus Annus
  • Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

Catholic social teaching rejects both socialism and market absolutism.

It affirms:

  • private property,
  • markets,
  • the dignity of labor,
  • the family,
  • the common good,
  • subsidiarity,
  • solidarity,
  • the universal destination of goods.

Connection

Catholic social teaching supports the claim that private property is real but not absolute.

Economic life must be judged by:

  • human dignity,
  • family stability,
  • moral order,
  • treatment of workers,
  • protection of the poor,
  • social responsibility,
  • the common good.

Key Tension

Catholic social teaching is not socialism. But it is also not libertarian capitalism.

Its strength is that it gives moral depth to economics.
Its weakness is that its principles often require prudential judgment and can be used vaguely.

Further Research

D. GDP Is Not the Good

The argument says that if society were merely “serving GDP,” it could increase GDP by legalizing or expanding morally destructive industries.

The point is not that GDP is useless.

The point is:

GDP measures economic activity, not moral worth.

GDP can rise because of:

  • gambling,
  • prostitution,
  • pornography,
  • drug sales,
  • divorce litigation,
  • disaster recovery,
  • incarceration,
  • medical spending from preventable illness,
  • pollution cleanup,
  • crime prevention.

Some of these may count as economic activity, but that does not mean they represent moral or social improvement.

Correct Conclusion

GDP is useful but incomplete.

Incorrect Conclusion

GDP is fake or irrelevant.

Further Research

E. Price Is Not the Whole of Value

The argument also says price cannot capture all qualitative differences.

This is partly true.

A price can measure exchange value, but it does not fully measure:

  • moral value,
  • aesthetic value,
  • spiritual value,
  • symbolic value,
  • sentimental value,
  • civic value,
  • familial value.

A wedding ring, national flag, family photograph, religious sacrament, child’s drawing, or battlefield memorial cannot be understood only by its market price.

Where the Argument Is Strong

It is right that price does not equal total value.

Where the Argument Is Weak

It is wrong if it implies economics cannot account for quality.

Economics can analyze quality through:

  • willingness to pay,
  • consumer surplus,
  • brand,
  • scarcity,
  • product differentiation,
  • luxury markets,
  • revealed preference,
  • hedonic pricing.

So the correct view is:

Prices communicate trade-offs, but they do not exhaust meaning.

Further Research

F. Burke and the Critique of “Calculators”

Source

Edmund Burke — Reflections on the Revolution in France

Burke criticized the reduction of politics to abstraction, calculation, and rational redesign.

His famous complaint about the age of “sophisters, economists, and calculators” is a warning against treating society as a machine.

Connection

The economic version of Burke’s argument is:

A society cannot survive if it knows prices but forgets honor, duty, religion, family, reverence, gratitude, and moral inheritance.

Burke was not anti-commerce. He was anti-reductionist.

Strength

Burke reminds us that human societies depend on moral capital that cannot be easily measured.

Weakness

Burkean conservatism can become vague nostalgia if it does not explain which traditions deserve preservation and which deserve reform.

Further Research

G. Hayek and the Market-Process Critique

Sources

  • F. A. Hayek — “The Use of Knowledge in Society”
  • F. A. Hayek — The Road to Serfdom

Hayek argues that markets coordinate dispersed knowledge. No central planner has enough information to direct the economy intelligently.

Prices are not merely numbers. They are signals about scarcity, demand, supply, opportunity cost, and changing conditions.

Connection

Hayek challenges the phrase:

“The economy works for us.”

He would say:

Yes, economic life should serve human beings. But the economy is not a machine that can simply be commanded. It is a decentralized coordination system.

Strength

Hayek is powerful against central planning and vague state control.

Weakness

Hayek does not prove that market outcomes are always morally good. Markets can coordinate preferences efficiently even when those preferences are degrading or destructive.

Key Distinction

Hayek explains why markets are hard to replace.
He does not prove that every market outcome is morally legitimate.

Further Research

H. Strongest and Weakest Versions

Strongest Common-Good Economics Version

Markets are good, but they must be morally evaluated. GDP and price are useful, but they do not define the good. Economic policy should serve human flourishing, family life, dignity, productive work, and the common good.

Weakest Common-Good Economics Version

Because economics cannot measure everything, economics is fake.

Strongest Classical-Liberal Economics Version

Markets coordinate dispersed knowledge and discipline power. Political attempts to override markets in the name of the common good must face trade-offs, incentives, scarcity, and unintended consequences.

Weakest Classical-Liberal Economics Version

If a market produces something voluntarily, it is therefore morally legitimate.

3. Liberalism

Core Question

Does liberalism protect human freedom, or does it hollow out moral order?

This is the broadest issue underneath the whole debate.

The postliberal critique says liberalism gradually turns freedom into choice without purpose.

The classical-liberal defense says liberalism protects people from domination by rulers, churches, majorities, and ideological elites.

A. What Liberalism Tries to Protect

Liberalism begins from the fact of disagreement and human fallibility.

People disagree about:

  • God,
  • truth,
  • morality,
  • family,
  • speech,
  • sexuality,
  • economics,
  • social hierarchy,
  • the good life.

Because of this disagreement, liberalism tries to protect:

  • individual rights,
  • free speech,
  • religious liberty,
  • private property,
  • due process,
  • equal citizenship,
  • constitutional limits,
  • rule of law,
  • voluntary association,
  • market exchange.

The liberal claim is:

Because no person or ruling class can be trusted with total authority over the good, society needs neutral rules and protected liberties.

B. Locke: Limited Government and Natural Rights

Source

John Locke — Second Treatise of Government

Locke argues that political authority exists to protect natural rights: life, liberty, and property.

Government is legitimate only by consent and is limited by the purposes for which it was created.

Connection

Locke provides the foundation for liberal suspicion of moralized state power.

The state may protect rights, but it should not become the master of conscience, property, religion, or every aspect of social life.

Further Research

C. Mill: Individuality and Experiments in Living

Source

John Stuart Mill — On Liberty

Mill defends liberty partly because individuals need room to develop their faculties. He also defends “experiments in living,” meaning different ways of life should be allowed unless they harm others.

Connection

Mill’s liberalism protects individuality against social and political conformity.

Postliberal Critique

Postliberals argue that “experiments in living” can dissolve inherited moral forms, family structures, religious communities, and shared norms.

Classical-Liberal Reply

Classical liberals reply that suppressing experiments in living gives dangerous power to authorities and majorities.

Further Research

D. Burke: Liberal Abstraction vs Inherited Order

Burke is not anti-liberty. He is anti-abstract liberty.

For Burke, liberty must be inherited, embodied, and disciplined by institutions.

He distrusts liberalism when it becomes:

  • anti-traditional,
  • abstract,
  • rationalistic,
  • revolutionary,
  • hostile to religion,
  • hostile to inherited authority,
  • obsessed with individual rights detached from duties.

Connection

Burke provides the conservative critique of liberalism:

Liberalism may protect individuals, but if it destroys inherited moral order, it eventually undermines the conditions that make liberty possible.

E. Postliberalism: Liberalism Failed Because It Succeeded

Key Authors

  • Patrick Deneen — Why Liberalism Failed
  • Oren Cass — The Once and Future Worker
  • Sohrab Ahmari — The Unbroken Thread
  • Adrian Vermeule — Common Good Constitutionalism
  • Yoram Hazony — Conservatism: A Rediscovery

Core Claim

Liberalism did not fail because it was betrayed. It failed because it succeeded.

It remade society around:

  • autonomy,
  • individual choice,
  • market logic,
  • technological mastery,
  • mobility,
  • liberation from inherited constraint,
  • procedural neutrality.

The postliberal claim is that this success weakened:

  • family,
  • church,
  • nation,
  • local community,
  • tradition,
  • moral formation,
  • social obligation,
  • shared standards of virtue.

Strength

Postliberalism correctly identifies moral thinning in liberal society.

It asks important questions:

  • Why should people sacrifice for family?
  • Why should citizens sacrifice for nation?
  • Why should truth matter more than preference?
  • Why should markets be limited?
  • Why should children be formed into virtue rather than merely liberated into choice?

Weakness

Postliberalism often lacks clear safeguards against abuse of power.

Its language of “common good” can be used to justify:

  • censorship,
  • economic favoritism,
  • moral policing,
  • religious coercion,
  • majoritarian domination,
  • discretionary state power.

Further Research

F. Hayek, Sowell, and the Liberal-Conservative Defense

Hayek

Hayek argues that social order often emerges without central design. Markets, law, customs, and traditions can evolve through dispersed knowledge and human interaction.

This is a conservative defense of liberal institutions.

Sowell

Sowell argues that politics is about trade-offs, not solutions. He also contrasts the constrained and unconstrained visions of human nature.

The constrained vision says humans are flawed and power must be limited.

This supports liberal constitutionalism.

Connection

Hayek and Sowell defend liberalism not because they think markets are morally ultimate, but because they distrust concentrated power.

The liberal-conservative argument is:

Even if we know moral truths, we should be careful about empowering the state to enforce a comprehensive vision of the good.

Further Research

G. Strongest and Weakest Versions

Strongest Postliberal Critique of Liberalism

Liberalism protects choice but cannot explain what choices are good. It protects procedures but often weakens the moral traditions that make freedom meaningful.

Weakest Postliberal Critique of Liberalism

Because liberalism is morally thin, the state should enforce a thick moral vision through centralized power.

Strongest Classical-Liberal Defense

Liberalism protects people from domination by rulers, majorities, churches, mobs, and ideological elites. Its procedures are not morally empty; they are safeguards against tyranny.

Weakest Classical-Liberal Defense

Neutral procedures are enough for a healthy society.

Final Synthesis

The debate is best understood as a conflict between moral ends and institutional means.

The postliberal side is strongest on ends

It asks:

  • What is speech for?
  • What is wealth for?
  • What is the economy for?
  • What is liberty for?
  • What kind of people should society form?
  • Can a society survive if it refuses to name the good?

The classical-liberal side is strongest on means

It asks:

  • Who decides the good?
  • What happens when rulers are wrong?
  • How do we protect dissent?
  • How do we prevent censorship?
  • How do we coordinate dispersed knowledge?
  • How do we prevent the common good from becoming a blank check for power?

Best Position

A good society needs both moral ends and liberal institutions.
Free speech and markets are not ultimate goods, but they are indispensable.
They must be morally evaluated, but not casually subordinated to centralized control.
The goal is not market idolatry or speech absolutism, but a morally serious liberal order sustained by family, religion, civil society, constitutional limits, local self-government, and economic realism.

Compact Concept Map

graph TB

A[Core Debate: Are liberal institutions ends or means?]

A --> B[1. Guardrails to Free Speech]
B --> B1[Speech is for truth]
B --> B2[Milton: truth vs licensing]
B --> B3[Locke: conscience and limits of state]
B --> B4[Mill: anti-infallibility]
B --> B5[Danger: official truth becomes censorship]

B --> C[2. Social Responsibility in Economics]
C --> C1[Growth is good but not ultimate]
C --> C2[Aristotle: wealth serves flourishing]
C --> C3[Catholic Social Teaching: property plus obligation]
C --> C4[Burke: critique of calculators]
C --> C5[Hayek: markets coordinate knowledge]
C --> C6[Danger: common good becomes state control]

C --> D[3. Liberalism]
D --> D1[Protects rights and pluralism]
D --> D2[Locke: limited government]
D --> D3[Mill: individuality]
D --> D4[Burke: inherited order]
D --> D5[Postliberalism: liberalism hollows out moral life]
D --> D6[Danger: liberalism becomes morally empty]

D --> E[Best Synthesis]
E --> E1[Moral realism about ends]
E --> E2[Institutional humility about means]
E --> E3[Markets and speech are morally bounded but indispensable]