Three Essays on Classical Liberal Thought on War and Imperialism

Matthew Owens

Advisor: Christopher Coyne, PhD, Department of Economics

Committee Members: Peter J. Boettke, Rosolino A. Candela

Buchanan Hall, #D100
April 17, 2025, 12:00 PM to 01:30 PM

Abstract:

The dissertation explores the thought of individuals within the classical liberal tradition on issues of war, imperialism, militarism, and alternative paths to peace. The first two chapters consist of a two-part survey of the views of twenty key British and non-British figures in the classical liberal tradition on the issues of war, imperialism, and alternative paths to peace. The final chapter consists of an analysis of the classical liberal justification for the state provision of military defense against both internal and external threats.

In the first chapter, we consider the ideas of eleven British classical liberals. These ideas are important both for purely historical reasons, and because they are relevant to contemporary conversations about the complexities and nuances of foreign relations.

In the second chapter, we discuss the ideas of nine non-British thinkers related to these same issues. The conclusion synthesizes the main insights across both parts of the survey with particular focus on the areas of agreement, disagreement and tension. We also discuss the contemporary relevance of these ideas.

In the third chapter, we provide an analysis of the classical liberal arguments in favor of the state provision of defense. Many classical liberals believe in the need for a minimal, “nightwatchman,” state to provide protection against internal and external threats. From this perspective, a muscular and centralized national security state is necessary for a free and liberal society. At the same time, classical liberals tend to be highly skeptical of large-scale, top-down government programs. This skepticism is grounded in an appreciation of epistemic and incentive constraints, the possibility of perverse unintended consequences, and the costs of highly concentrated political power in terms of individual freedom. This chapter explores some aspects of this tension. After discussing the standard logic for state provision—Hobbesian anarchy and the assumption that defense is a public good—we discuss four challenges to the state provision of defense. These include (1) the planner’s problem related to state control of economic resources; (2) the political-economy problem, related to the frictions in democratic politics; (3) the “bads” problem, whereby government activities generate harms; and (4) the constitutional-authoritarian problem, whereby the activities of the national security state contribute to expansions in political power at the expense of individual liberty and freedom. Appreciating these issues can inform discussions of national security and foreign intervention.