This work was originally presented as an address before the Mont Pelerin Society at St. Moritz, Switzerland, on September 4, 1957.

There are times when one’s humility seems to go on vacation, as it did, for me when Profes­sor Hayek proposed: tackling this topic for dis­cussion. Then later when reality returned to plague the victim, there ended a beautiful, balmy sense of well-being during which all had seemed perfectly clear and simple; during which the topic of liberty—its meaning and philosophic base—posed no apparent problem of a serious nature; during which, at first blush, it seemed almost trite to presume to dwell on the obvious.

But is the meaning of liberty so clear and simple?

Were a stranger to observe the nature of the Mont Pelerin Society and note its convening for this decennial occasion, would he not be surprised to find us devoting an entire session to the meaning of liberty—the word perhaps more basic than any other to the original purpose of the Society? Might he not expect this to have been a matter resolved with essentially unanimous agreement at the outset of our Societal associa­tion together? The fact that it has not been thus resolved seems to me to reflect the lack of any clear agreement as to the meaning of liberty; apparently it is something not so clear and simple. We use this beloved word in our communication with one another and assume an understanding that apparently is not there. Read more

This is an excerpt from Chapter 7 of F.A. Harper’s 1949 Liberty: A Path to its Recovery

It is generally accepted that a government can enslave the citizens. Enough Kings and Emperors and Generalissimos and Fuhrers have done so to establish that fact quite conclusively. But the belief prevails that: "It is impossible for liberty to be lost under a democratic form of government. Democracy assures that the will of the people shall prevail, and that is liberty. So long as democracy is preserved we can rest assured that liberty will be continued to the full." The more a person leans on an unsure support the more certain he is to fall. Edmund Burke observed that people never give up their liberties except under some delusion.

Probably no other belief is now so much a threat to liberty in the United States and in much of the rest of the world as the one that democracy, by itself alone, guarantees liberty. Willis Ballinger's study of eight great democracies of the past -ancient Athens, Rome, Venice, Florence, the First and Third Republics of France, Weimar Germany and Italy - reveals how unreliable is this hope. He reports that liberty perished peacefully by vote of the people in five of the eight countries; that in two of them it was lost by violence; that in one of them a dictatorship was established through the buying of the legislature by a fraudulent clique. One who would understand the problem of liberty must understand why it is possible for liberty to be lost even in a democracy, and how to guard against it. Read more

This article was published in 1951, at the height of the Cold War and the hot war on North Korea.

Charges of pacifism are likely to be hurled at anyone who in these troubled times raises any question about the race into war. If pacifism means embracing the objective of peace, I am willing to accept the charge. If it means opposing all aggression against others, I am willing to accept that charge also. It is now urgent in the interest of liberty that many persons become “peacemongers.”

Patrick Henry, that great advocate of liberty, in a speech before the Virginia Convention in 1775, said: “I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” Were he with us today, he might well repeat that advice to a nation confused and woefully mired in the problems of war and peace – a nation acting in a blind panic. Read more