In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and by consumers. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, from all forms of economic privilege and artificial scarcities.. Proponents of the concept of free market contrast it with a regulated market in which a government intervenes in supply and demand through various methods, such as tariffs, used to restrict trade and to protect the local economy. In an idealized free-market economy, prices for goods and services are set by the forces of supply and demand and are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by government policy. Scholars contrast the concept of a free market with the concept of a coordinated market in fields of study such as political economy, new institutional economics, economic sociology and political science. All of these fields emphasize the importance in existing market systems of rule-making institutions external to the simple forces of supply and demand which create space for those forces to operate to control productive output and distribution.
Although free markets are associated with capitalism within a market economy in contemporary usage and popular culture, free markets have been advocated by anarchists and some proponents of cooperatives and advocates of profit sharing. Criticism of the theoretical concept may regard systems with significant market power, inequality of bargaining power, or information asymmetry as less than free, with regulation being necessary to control those imbalances in order to allow markets to function more efficiently as well as produce more desirable social outcomes; the laissez-faire principle expresses a preference for an absence of non-market pressures on prices and wages, such as those from discriminatory government taxes, tariffs, regulations of purely private behavior, or government-granted or coercive monopolies. In The Pure Theory of Capital, Friedrich Hayek argued that the goal is the preservation of the unique information contained in the price itself; the definition of free market has been disputed and made complex by collectivist political philosophers and socialist economic ideas.
This contention arose from the divergence from classical economists such as Richard Cantillon, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Thomas Robert Malthus and from the continental economic science developed by the Spanish scholastic and French classical economists, including Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Baron de Laune, Jean-Baptiste Say and Frédéric Bastiat. During the marginal revolution, subjective value theory was rediscovered. Although laissez-faire has been associated with capitalism, there is a similair left-wing laissez-faire system called free-market anarchism known as free-market anti-capitalism and free-market socialism to distinguish it from laissez-faire capitalism. Thus, critics of laissez-faire as understood argues that a laissez-faire system would be anti-capitalist and socialist. Various forms of socialism based on free markets have existed since the 19th century. Early notable socialist proponents of free markets include Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker and the Ricardian socialists.
These economists believed that genuinely free markets and voluntary exchange could not exist within the exploitative conditions of capitalism. These proposals ranged from various forms of worker cooperatives operating in a free market economy, such as the mutualist system proposed by Proudhon, to state-owned enterprises operating in unregulated and open markets; these models of socialism are not to be confused with other forms of market socialism where publicly owned enterprises are coordinated by various degrees of economic planning, or where capital good prices are determined through marginal cost pricing. Advocates of free-market socialism such as Jaroslav Vanek argue that genuinely free markets are not possible under conditions of private ownership of productive property. Instead, he contends that the class differences and inequalities in income and power that result from private ownership enable the interests of the dominant class to skew the market to their favor, either in the form of monopoly and market power, or by utilizing their wealth and resources to legislate government policies that benefit their specific business interests.
Additionally, Vanek states that workers in a socialist economy based on cooperative and self-managed enterprises have stronger incentives to maximize productivity because they would receive a share of the profits in addition to receiving their fixed wage or salary. Socialists assert that free-market capitalism leads to an excessively skewed distribution of income which in turn leads to social instability; as a result, corrective measures in the form of social welfare, re-distributive taxation and administrative costs are required, but they end up being paid into workers hands who spend and help the economy to run. They claim. Thus, free-market socialism desires government regulation of markets to prevent social instability, although at the cost of taxpayer dollars; as explained above, for classical economists such as Adam Smith the term free market does not refer to a market free from government interference, but rather free from all forms of economic privilege and artificial scarcities. This implies that economic rents, i.e. profits generated from a lack of perfect competition, must be reduced or eliminated as much as possible through free competition.
Economic theory suggests the returns to l
Rule of law
The rule of law is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: "The authority and influence of law in society when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behavior. The phrase "the rule of law" refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule. Use of the phrase can be traced to 16th-century Britain, in the following century the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford employed it in arguing against the divine right of kings. John Locke wrote that freedom in society means being subject only to laws made by a legislature that apply to everyone, with a person being otherwise free from both governmental and private restrictions upon liberty. "The rule of law" was further popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. However, the principle, if not the phrase itself, was recognized by ancient thinkers; the rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law, including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials, judges. In this sense, it stands in contrast to a monarchy or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law.
Lack of the rule of law can be found in both democracies and monarchies, for example, because of neglect or ignorance of the law, the rule of law is more apt to decay if a government has insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring it. Although credit for popularizing the expression "the rule of law" in modern times is given to A. V. Dicey, development of the legal concept can be traced through history to many ancient civilizations, including ancient Greece, Mesopotamia and Rome. In the West, the ancient Greeks regarded the best form of government as rule by the best men. Plato advocated a benevolent monarchy ruled by an idealized philosopher king, above the law. Plato hoped that the best men would be good at respecting established laws, explaining that "Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off. More than Plato attempted to do, Aristotle flatly opposed letting the highest officials wield power beyond guarding and serving the laws.
In other words, Aristotle advocated the rule of law: It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, the servants of the laws. The Roman statesman Cicero is cited as saying, roughly: "We are all servants of the laws in order to be free." During the Roman Republic, controversial magistrates might be put on trial when their terms of office expired. Under the Roman Empire, the sovereign was immune, but those with grievances could sue the treasury. In China, members of the school of legalism during the 3rd century BC argued for using law as a tool of governance, but they promoted "rule by law" as opposed to "rule of law", meaning that they placed the aristocrats and emperor above the law. In contrast, the Huang–Lao school of Daoism rejected legal positivism in favor of a natural law that the ruler would be subject to. There has been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law.
In the Old Testament, the book of Deuteronomy imposes certain restrictions on the king, regarding such matters as the numbers of wives he might take and of horses he might acquire. According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...." The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England. In Islamic jurisprudence rule of law was formulated in the seventh century, so that no official could claim to be above the law, not the caliph. However, this was not a reference to secular law, but to Islamic religious law in the form of Sharia law. Alfred the Great, Anglo-Saxon king in the 9th century, reformed the law of his kingdom and assembled a law code which he grounded on biblical commandments, he held that the same law had to be applied to all persons, whether rich or poor, friends or enemies. This was inspired by Leviticus 19:15: "You shall do no iniquity in judgment.
You shall not favor the wretched and you shall not defer to the rich. In righteousness you are to judge your fellow."In 1215, Archbishop Stephen Langton gathered the Barons in England and forced King John and future sovereigns and magistrates back under the rule of law, preserving ancient liberties by Magna Carta in return for exacting taxes. This foundation for a constitution was carried into the United States Constitution. In 1481, during the reign of Ferdinand II of Aragon, the Constitució de l'Observança was approved by the General Court of Catalonia, establishing the submission of royal power to the laws of the Principality of Catalonia; the first known use of this English phrase occurred around AD 1500. Another early example of the phrase "rule of law" is found in a petition to James I of England in 1610, from the House of Commons: Amongst many other points of happiness and freedom which your majesty's subjects of this kingdom have enjoyed under your royal progenitors and queens of this realm, there is none which they have accou
Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is distinguishable from public property, owned by a state entity. Private property can be capital goods. Private property is a legal concept enforced by a country's political system. Ideas about and discussion of private property date back at least as far as Plato. Prior to the 18th century, English speakers used the word "property" in reference to land ownership. In England, "property" did not have a legal definition until the 17th century. Private property as commercial property was invented with the great European trading companies of the 17th century; the issue of the enclosure of agricultural land in England as debated in the 17th and 18th centuries, accompanied efforts in philosophy and political thought—by Thomas Hobbes, James Harrington and John Locke, for example—to address the phenomenon of property ownership. In arguing against supporters of absolute monarchy, John Locke conceptualized property as a "natural right" that God had not bestowed on the monarchy.
Influenced by the rise of mercantilism, Locke argued that private property was antecedent to and thus independent of government. Locke distinguished between "common property", his chief argument for property in land was improved land management and cultivation over common open-access land. Locke developed a normative theory of property rights based on labor, which stated that property is a natural result of labor improving upon nature. In the 18th century, during the Industrial Revolution, the moral philosopher and economist Adam Smith, in contrast to Locke, drew a distinction between the "right to property" as an acquired right and natural rights. Smith confined natural rights to "liberty and life". Smith drew attention to the relationship between employee and employer and identified that property and civil government were dependent upon each other, recognizing that "the state of property must always vary with the form of government". Smith further argued that civil government could not exist without property, as government's main function was to safeguard property ownership.
In the 19th century, the economist and philosopher Karl Marx provided an influential analysis of the development and history of property formations and their relationship to the technical productive forces of a given period. Marx's conception of private property has proven influential for many subsequent economic theories and for anarchist and socialist political movements, led to the widespread association of private property with capitalism. Although contemporary neoclassical economics—currently the dominant school of economics—rejects some of the assumptions of the early philosophers underpinning classical economics, it has been argued that neoclassical economics continues to be influenced by the legacy of natural moral theory and the concept of natural rights, which has led to the presentation of private market exchange and private property rights as "natural rights" inherent in nature. Economic liberals consider private property to be essential for the construction of a prosperous society.
They believe private ownership of land ensures the land will be put to productive use and its value protected by the landowner. If the owners must pay property taxes, this forces the owners to maintain a productive output from the land to keep taxes current. Private property attaches a monetary value to land, which can be used to trade or as collateral. Private property thus is an important part of capitalization within the economy. Socialist economists are critical of private property as socialism aims to substitute private property in the means of production for social ownership or public property. Socialists argue that private property relations limit the potential of the productive forces in the economy when productive activity becomes a collective activity, where the role of the capitalist becomes redundant. Socialists favor social ownership either to eliminate the class distinctions between owners and workers and as a component of the development of a post-capitalist economic system. In response to the socialist critique, the Austrian School economist Ludwig Von Mises argued that private property rights are a requisite for what he called "rational" economic calculation and that the prices of goods and services cannot be determined enough to make efficient economic calculation without having defined private-property rights.
Mises argued that a socialist system, which by definition would lack private property in the factors of production, would be unable to determine appropriate price valuations for the factors of production. According to Mises, this problem would make rational socialist calculation impossible. In capitalism, ownership can be viewed as a “bundle of rights" over an asset that entitles its holder to a strong form of authority over it; such bundle is composed of a set of rights that allows the owner of the asset to control it and decide on its use, claim the value generated by it, exclude others from using it and the right to transfer the ownership of it to another holder. In Marxian economics and socialist politics, there is distinction between "private property" and "person
Libertarian conservatism or conservative libertarianism is a political philosophy and ideology that combines right-libertarian politics and conservative values. Libertarian conservatism advocates the greatest possible economic liberty and the least possible government regulation of social life, mirroring laissez-faire minarchist classical liberalism, but harnesses this to a belief in a more traditional and conservative social philosophy emphasizing authority and duty. Libertarian conservatism prioritizes liberty as its main emphasis, promoting free expression, freedom of choice and laissez-faire capitalism to achieve and culturally conservative ends as they reject liberal social engineering, or in the opposite way but not excluding the above, libertarian conservatism could be understood as promoting civil society through conservative institutions and authority - as family, religion, education - in the quest of libertarian ends for less state power. For Larry Johnston, in political science, the term "libertarian conservatism" is used to refer to ideologies that combine the advocacy of economic principles such as fiscal discipline, respect for contracts, defense of private property and free markets and the traditional conservative stress on self-help and freedom of choice under a laissez-faire and economically liberal capitalist society with social tenets such as the importance of religion and the value of traditional morality through a framework of limited, representative government.
For Margaret Randall, libertarian conservatism began as an expression of individualism and the demand for personal freedom. Freedom and Virtue: The Conservative/Libertarian Debate, edited by George W. Carey, contains essays which describe "the tension between liberty and morality" as "the main fault line dividing the two philosophies". Nelson Hultberg wrote that there is "philosophical common ground" between libertarians and conservatives. "The true conservative movement was, from the start, a blend of political libertarianism, cultural conservatism, non-interventionism abroad bequeathed to us via the Founding Fathers". He said that such libertarian conservatism was "hijacked" by neoconservatism, "by the enemies it was formed to fight – Fabians, New Dealers, progressives, interventionists, nation builders, all the rest of the collectivist ilk, assiduously working to destroy the Founders' Republic of States". Thomas DiLorenzo wrote that libertarian conservative constitutionalists believe that the way to limit government is to enforce the United States Constitution.
However, DiLorenzo criticized them by writing: "The fatal flaw in the thinking of the libertarian/conservative constitutionalists stems from their unawareness or willful ignorance of how the founders themselves believed the Constitution could be enforced: by the citizens of the free and sovereign states, not the federal judiciary". He wrote that the powers accrued to the federal government during the American Civil War overthrew the Constitution of 1787. In the 1950's Frank Meyer, a prominent contributor to the National Review, called his own combination libertarianism and conservatism as "fusionism". In the 1990s, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and others described their libertarian conservative views as paleolibertarianism, they continued libertarian opposition to "all forms of government intervention – economic, social, international", but upholding cultural conservatism in social thought and behavior. They opposed a licentious libertarianism which advocated "freedom from bourgeois morality, social authority".
Rockwell stated that they dropped that self-description because people confused it with paleoconservatism, which they rejected. Laurence M. Vance wrote: "Some libertarians consider libertarianism to be a lifestyle rather than a political philosophy... They don't know the difference between libertarianism and libertinism". Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Richard Posner, Walter E. Williams, Richard Epstein and Albert Jay Nock have been described as libertarian conservatives. Former U. S. Congressman Ron Paul and his son U. S. Senator Rand Paul have been described as combining libertarian and conservative "small government" ideas and showing how the Constitution defends the individual and most libertarian views. In 1975, Ronald Reagan stated: "I believe the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism". However, some libertarians criticized Reagan for un-libertarian policy positions. Edward Feser emphasized that libertarianism does not require individuals to reject traditional conservative values.
Libertarianism supports the ideas of liberty and ending the war on marijuana at the legal level without changing personal values. Libertarian conservatism subscribes to the libertarian idea of laissez-faire capitalism, advocating minimal to no government interference in the market. A number of libertarian conservatives are critical of fiat money. Libertarian conservatives advocate for ways to privatize services run by the government, from airports to toll booths. Heywood, Andrew. Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations:Palgrave Key Concepts. Macmillan International Higher Education. ISBN 978-1-1374-9477-1. Johnston, Larry. Politics: An Introduction to the Modern Democratic State. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-0040-9. Republican "Liberty Caucus", a group of libertarian conservatives. "Frank S. Meyer: The Fusionist as Libertarian Manqué", by Murray Rothbard "What Libertarians and Conservatives Say About Each Other: An Annotated Bibliography", by Jude Blanchette, LewRockwell.com, October 27, 2004.
A Realistic Libertarianism is Right Libertarianism, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Joseph de Maistre
Joseph-Marie, Comte de Maistre was a French-speaking Savoyard philosopher, writer and diplomat, who advocated social hierarchy and monarchy in the period following the French Revolution. Despite his close personal and intellectual ties with France, Maistre was throughout his life a subject of the King of Piedmont-Sardinia, whom he served as member of the Savoy Senate, ambassador to Russia, minister of state to the court in Turin. A key figure of the "Counter-Enlightenment", Maistre regarded monarchy as both a divinely sanctioned institution and as the only stable form of government, he called for the restoration of the House of Bourbon to the throne of France and for the ultimate authority of the Pope in temporal matters. Maistre argued that the rationalist rejection of Christianity was directly responsible for the disorder and bloodshed which followed the French Revolution of 1789. Maistre was born in 1753 at Chambéry, in the Duchy of Savoy, which at that time was part of the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, ruled by the House of Savoy.
His family was of Italian origin. His grandfather André Maistre, whose parents Francesco and Margarita Maistre originated in the County of Nice, had been a draper and councilman in Nice, his father François-Xavier, who moved to Chambéry in 1740, became a magistrate and senator receiving the title of count from the King of Piedmont-Sardinia, his mother's family, whose surname was Desmotz, were from Rumilly. Joseph's younger brother, who became an army officer, was a popular writer of fiction. Joseph was educated by the Jesuits. After the Revolution, he became an ardent defender of their Order associating the spirit of the Revolution with the Jesuits' traditional enemies, the Jansenists. After completing his training in the law at the University of Turin in 1774, he followed in his father's footsteps by becoming a Senator in 1787. A member of the progressive Scottish Rite Masonic lodge at Chambéry from 1774 to 1790, Maistre favoured political reform in France, supporting the efforts of the magistrates in the Parlements to force King Louis XVI to convene the Estates General.
As a landowner in France, Maistre was eligible to join that body, there is some evidence that he contemplated that possibility. He was alarmed, however, by the decision of the States-General to combine clergy and commoners into a single legislative body, which became the National Constituent Assembly. After the passing of the August Decrees on 4 August 1789 he decisively turned against the course of political events in France. Maistre fled Chambéry when it was taken by a French revolutionary army in 1792, but unable to find a position in the royal court in Turin, he returned the following year. Deciding that he could not support the French-controlled regime, he departed again, this time for Lausanne, in Switzerland. There he discussed politics and theology at the salon of Madame de Staël, began his career as a counter-revolutionary writer, with works such as Lettres d'un Royaliste Savoisien, Discours à Mme. la Marquise Costa de Beauregard, sur la Vie et la Mort de son Fils and Cinq paradoxes à la Marquise de Nav....
From Lausanne, Maistre went to Venice, to Cagliari, where the King of Piedmont-Sardinia held the court and the government of the kingdom after French armies took Turin in 1798. Maistre's relations with the court at Cagliari were not always easy and in 1802 he was sent to Saint Petersburg in Russia, as ambassador to Tsar Alexander I, his diplomatic responsibilities were few, he became a well-loved fixture in aristocratic circles, converting some of his friends to Roman Catholicism, writing his most influential works on political philosophy. Maistre's observations on Russian life, contained in his diplomatic memoirs and in his personal correspondence, were among Tolstoy's sources for his novel War and Peace. After the defeat of Napoleon and the restoration of the House of Savoy's dominion over Piedmont and Savoy, Maistre returned in 1817 to Turin, served there as magistrate and minister of state until his death, he is buried in the Jesuit Church of the Holy Martyrs. In Considérations sur la France, Maistre claimed that France has a divine mission as the principal instrument of good and evil on Earth.
He interpreted the Revolution of 1789 as a Providential event: the monarchy, the aristocracy, the Ancien Régime in general, instead of directing the influence of French civilization to the benefit of mankind, had promoted the atheistic doctrines of the eighteenth-century philosophers. He claimed that the crimes of the Reign of Terror were the logical consequence of Enlightened thought, as well as its divinely-decreed punishment. In his short book Essai sur le Principe Générateur des Constitutions Politiques et des Autres Institutions Humaines, Maistre argued that constitutions are not the product of human reason, but come from God, who brings them to maturity. After the appearance in 1816 of his French translation of Plutarch's treatise On the Delay of Divine Justice in the Punishment of the Guilty, in 1819 Maistre published Du Pape, the most complete exposition of his authoritarian conception of politics. According to Maistre, any attempt to justify
Historic conservatism in New Zealand
Conservatism in New Zealand is related to its counterparts in other Western nations, but developed uniquely over time. Advocates followed a political ideology that emphasised the preservation of traditional beliefs and practices. Conservatism was a philosophy used by the "men in possession" of a new country, but most of all it espoused the spirits of individualism akin to Herbert Spencer's theories. Prior to the mid-1870s, New Zealand's political factions were based less on ideologies and more on provincial allegiances; this was to change however, with members of parliament becoming more identifiable as one of two groups—"Conservative" or "Liberal"—akin to Britain. The labels walked hand in hand with each MP's stance on land policy. Nearly all those calling themselves conservatives supported freehold policy, while those labelled as liberals advocated for leasehold legislature. From 1876 to 1890 the conservative factions dominated the House of Representatives; the so-called "Continuous Ministry" governed this whole period, with two breaks from October 1877 to October 1879 and August 1884 to October 1887, when "Liberal" ministries were formed under George Grey and Robert Stout, respectively.
The Continuous Ministry was governing once again in 1887–88, the worst years of the Long Depression, when Premier Harry Atkinson became unpopular with the wealthy his erstwhile supporters. The ensuing election in 1890 was a disaster. An ailing Atkinson resigned and a new ministry was formed under John Ballance and his formed Liberal Party; the beginning of party politics in New Zealand was a setback for conservative-oriented politicians, worsened by the accession of the immensely popular Richard Seddon to the premiership. His opponents struggled to set up an equivalent full-scale organisation in competition to the Liberal Party. Conservative politicians operated under various banners in this period such as the Political Reform Association, the National Association and the Political Reform League, with Leader of the Opposition William Massey accepting endorsement from the latter in the 1905 and 1908 elections; the conservatives struggled to contrast with appeal against Seddon and his Liberal political vehicle.
William Pember Reeves, when asked of what differentiated the Conservatives from the Liberals in parliament, phrased them as "parties of resistance and progress" respectively. Atkinson had some respite, stacking the Legislative Council with fellow conservatives, to control the Liberals from the upper house. Ballance got his way with the Governor General by limiting the term of a MLC from life to seven years. However, the Liberals were not able to claim the upper house from the Conservatives until 1899; the beginning of the 1900s was the weakest point in New Zealand conservatism. Helped by jingoism in the Second Boer War, Seddon was at the height of his power, reigning supreme over parliament. By contrast, the Conservatives were demoralised and, by 1901, leaderless. In 1902 a Sydney newspaper said of the Conservatives: They have hardly carried a snatch division on a question about a culvert on a back country road, they could hardly remember how to draft a bill now, they have forgotten what success looks like.
The Conservatives began to improve, with many initial supporters of the Liberals now defecting upon having now received the reforms they wanted in the 1890s. In the election of 1908 election, the Conservatives improved remarkably. Of further aid to the Conservative cause was the emergence of independent Labour parties who were leeching away supporters from the Liberals in cities. In February 1909 Massey announced the formation of the Reform Party, New Zealand's first true right-wing political party, in his attempts to establish a credible vision to there being a possible alternative government to challenge the long established Liberal dominance; the name "Reform" was not new, but it served its purpose to efface the "Conservative" branding and party-image with which Massey's supporters were viewed. The plan worked and following the 1911 election, the Liberals were ousted from power in a no-confidence motion, 41 votes to 33 on 5 July 1912. Massey formed the first non-Liberal government in 21 years.
Below is a list of the leading figures among the right wing members of parliament from the forming of the Continuous Ministry until the establishment of the Reform Party. Historic liberalism in New Zealand History of New Zealand Politics of New Zealand List of political parties in New Zealand Sinclair, Keith. A History of New Zealand. Pelican Books. Gardner, William James. "Reform Party". In McLintock, A. H. An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand. Ministry for Culture and Heritage / Te Manatū Taonga. Retrieved 21 November 2015. Bassett, Michael. Three Party Politics in New Zealand 1911–1931. Auckland: Historical Publications. ISBN 0-86870-006-1. Bassett, Judith. Sir Harry Atkinson. Auckland: Auckland University Press. ISBN 0-19-647934-7. Bassett, Judith, "Sir Harry Atkinson and the Conservative Faction in New Zealand Politics, 1879-90", New Zealand Journal of History, 2: 130–47 Dalziel, Raewyn, "The'Continuous Ministry' revisited", New Zealand Journal of History, 21: 46–61
One-nation conservatism is a paternalistic form of British political conservatism advocating preservation of established institutions and traditional principles combined with political democracy, a social and economic programme designed to benefit the common man. This political philosophy values paternalism and pragmatism; the describing phrase'one-nation Tory' originated with Benjamin Disraeli, who served as the chief Conservative spokesman and became Prime Minister in February 1868. He devised it to appeal to working-class men as a solution to worsening divisions in society through introducing factory and health acts, as well as greater protection for workers. Michael Lind defines one-nation conservatism as "a political philosophy that sees the purpose of the elite as reconciling the interests of all classes, labor as well as management, instead of identifying the good of society with the interests of the business class". One-nation conservatism reflects the belief that societies exist and develop organically, that members within them have obligations towards each other.
It emphasises the paternalistic obligation of those who are privileged and wealthy to the poorer parts of society. The ideology featured during Disraeli's two terms in government between 1868 and 1880, during which the British parliament legislated major social reforms. Towards the end of the 19th century, the UK Conservative Party moved away from paternalism in favour of free-market capitalism, but fears of extremism during the interwar period caused the revival of one-nation conservatism; the Conservative party continued to espouse the philosophy throughout the post-war consensus from 1945, influencing the decision to maintain Clement Attlee's Labour government's Keynesian intervention in the economy, forming a welfare state and the National Health Service. Years saw the rise of the New Right, which attributed the country's social and economic troubles to one-nation conservatism. David Cameron, who led the Conservative Party from 2005 to 2016, named Disraeli as his favourite Conservative, some commentators and MPs have suggested that Cameron's ideology contains an element of one-nationism.
Other commentators have questioned the degree to which Cameron and his coalition embodied One-Nation Conservatism, instead locating them in the intellectual tradition of Thatcherism. In 2016 Cameron's successor, Theresa May, referred to herself as a one-nation conservative in her first speech as prime minister and outlined her focus on one-nation principles. One-nation conservatism was conceived by the Conservative British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, who presented his political philosophy in two novels – Sybil, or The Two Nations and Coningsby – published in 1845 and 1844 respectively. Disraeli's conservatism proposed a paternalistic society with the social classes intact but with the working class receiving support from the establishment, he emphasised the importance of social obligation rather than the individualism that pervaded his society. Disraeli warned that Britain would become divided into two "nations", of the rich and poor, as a result of increased industrialisation and inequality.
Concerned at this division, he supported measures to improve the lives of the people to provide social support and protect the working classes. Disraeli justified his ideas by his belief in an organic society in which the different classes have natural obligations to one another, he saw society as hierarchical and emphasised the obligation of those at the top to those below. This was based in the feudal concept of noblesse oblige, which asserted that the aristocracy had an obligation to be generous and honourable. Unlike the New Right, one-nation conservatism takes a pragmatic and non-ideological approach to politics and accepts the need for flexible policies. Disraeli justified his views pragmatically by arguing that, should the ruling class become indifferent to the suffering of the people, society would become unstable and social revolution would become a possibility. Benjamin Disraeli adopted one-nation conservatism for both electoral reasons. Before he became leader of the Conservative Party, Disraeli had announced that, as a result of the Reform Act 1867 which had enfranchised the male working-class, the party needed to pursue social reforms if it were to have electoral success.
One-nationism would both improve the conditions of the poor and portray the Liberal Party as selfish individualists. Because the party portrayed itself as a national party, its members were unsure whether to make specific appeals to the working-classes. A more positive approach to the working-class by the party developed out of the electoral necessity to secure working-class votes. While in government, Disraeli presided over a series of social reforms which supported his one-nation politics and aimed to create a benevolent hierarchy, he appointed a Royal Commission to assess the state of law between employers and employees, the result of which prompted Richard Cross to pass the Employers and Workmen Act of 1875. This act made both sides of industry equal before the law and the breach of contract a civil offence, rather than criminal. Cross passed the Conspiracy, Protection of Property Act in the same year which enshrined the right to strike of workers by ensuring that acts carried out by a workers' group could not be indicted as conspiracy.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the Conservatives had moved away from their one-nation ideology and were supportive of capitalism and