Natural Right, Providence, and Order: Frédéric Bastiat's Laissez-Faire

The paper suggests that Bastiat’s theory of interests, harmony, and the State is rooted in a particular conception of Natural Right, in which the Lockeans and thomistic streams of thought meet. But it also suggests that Bastiat’s interpretation of the role that Providence plays in human events is not able to give a sustainable theory of liberal order. The paper also considers the criticisms to Bastiat’s economic and political theory coming from exponents of classical liberalism, from the Austrians, and from Catholic thinkers of that time, such as L. Taparelli d’Azeglio and M. Liberatore. The conclusion is that although the economic theory of Bastiat is by now obsolete from the conceptual point of view, his political theory and his criticism of the state do remain extraordinarily topical. Cet article suggère que les théories des intérêts, de l’harmonie et de l’Etat de Bastiat sont ancrées dans une conception particulière du droit naturel au confluent des pensées lockéenne et thomiste. Cependant, il suggère aussi que l’interprétation que donne Bastiat du rôle de la Providence dans les affaires humaines ne débouche pas sur une théorie recevable de l’ordre libéral. L’article examine aussi les critiques qu’adressent les partisans du libéralisme classique-tels que les économistes autrichiens, les penseurs catholiques de l’époque comme L. Taparelli d’Azeglio et M. Liberatore-à l’égard des théories économiques et politiques de Bastiat. L’article conclut que le caractère obsolète des théories de Bastiat d’un point de vue conceptuel ne remet pas en cause la singulière actualité de sa théorie politique et de sa critique de l’Etat

ALLE ORIGINI DELLO SCIENTISMO: BENTHAM

Pur essendo considerato uno dei maggiori filosofi politici del Novecento, Oakeshott, come è noto, non aveva una grande considerazione della politica e riteneva anzi che nel corso dei secoli avesse costantemente offerto uno "spettacolo sgradevole". Si potrebbe addirittura pensare che se ne occupasse, sia pure nel modo particolare in cui lo faceva, per mettere in guardia dal farsi illusioni su di essa, o forse per mettere in evidenza i guai che poteva combinare l'idea di migliorare la condizione umana tramite la politica. Soprattutto dopo che essa è diventata "scientifica"

Congetture e provocazioni sul perché siamo degli ottimi artigiani

i caratteri della filosofia politica italiana contemporane

Il tempo del Liberalismo

La rilevanza del problema del tempo nel liberalismo contemporaneo e la possibilità di poter dare a meno della politic

L’epicureismo nell’opera di Leo Strauss

This essay aims to arrange and expose chronologically the references to Epicurus, Lucretius and the influence of their ideas contained in the works of Leo Strauss. Although Strauss wrote a long essay on Lucretius and more or less extensive references to Epicurus and Lucretius are present in his other works, this presence has not received much attention or aroused much interest. And yet, what was already written in his first monograph: Die Religionskritik Spinozas als Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft, 1930, should have put on the alert both those interested in understanding what the sources of the adversary modernity are for Strauss and those interested in understanding his position towards Epicureanism. It should also be added that although in recent decades there has been a flowering of monographs and collections of essays on Epicurus, Lucretius and their contribution to the birth of modernity, the presence of Strauss has been at least marginal.This essay aims to arrange and expose chronologically the references to Epicurus, Lucretius and the influence of their ideas contained in the works of Leo Strauss. Although Strauss wrote a long essay on Lucretius and more or less extensive references to Epicurus and Lucretius are present in his other works, this presence has not received much attention or aroused much interest. And yet, what was already written in his first monograph: Die Religionskritik Spinozas als Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft, 1930, should have put on the alert both those interested in understanding what the sources of the adversary modernity are for Strauss and those interested in understanding his position towards Epicureanism. It should also be added that although in recent decades there has been a flowering of monographs and collections of essays on Epicurus, Lucretius and their contribution to the birth of modernity, the presence of Strauss has been at least marginal.This essay aims to arrange and expose chronologically the references to Epicurus, Lucretius and the influence of their ideas contained in the works of Leo Strauss. Although Strauss wrote a long essay on Lucretius and more or less extensive references to Epicurus and Lucretius are present in his other works, this presence has not received much attention or aroused much interest. And yet, what was already written in his first monograph: Die Religionskritik Spinozas als Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft, 1930, should have put on the alert both those interested in understanding what the sources of the adversary modernity are for Strauss and those interested in understanding his position towards Epicureanism. It should also be added that although in recent decades there has been a flowering of monographs and collections of essays on Epicurus, Lucretius and their contribution to the birth of modernity, the presence of Strauss has been at least marginal.This essay aims to arrange and expose chronologically the references to Epicurus, Lucretius and the influence of their ideas contained in the works of Leo Strauss. Although Strauss wrote a long essay on Lucretius and more or less extensive references to Epicurus and Lucretius are present in his other works, this presence has not received much attention or aroused much interest. And yet, what was already written in his first monograph: Die Religionskritik Spinozas als Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft, 1930, should have put on the alert both those interested in understanding what the sources of the adversary modernity are for Strauss and those interested in understanding his position towards Epicureanism. It should also be added that although in recent decades there has been a flowering of monographs and collections of essays on Epicurus, Lucretius and their contribution to the birth of modernity, the presence of Strauss has been at least marginal

I liberisti nella cultura politica italiana

The goal of the present essay is to analyse some of the most important works of Italian “liberisti” (Ferrara, Pantaleoni, Pareto, de Viti de Marco, Einaudi) in order to reconstruct their philosophical background and to clarify their theory of the State and its functions. In doing so, it aims to give an account of the failure of their political proposal, as well as of the negative opinion in which their work is usually held and the nature of the debate between “liberalismo” and “liberismo”. Traditionally, two waves are identified in the history of “liberismo” - the first one, called “ferrariana”, and the second one, called “marginalistic” - while their common feature is taken to be the public role of the researcher and the struggle for fiscal reform. A part of the essay is also devoted to highlighting the differences between the Walrasian and Jevonsian marginalism of the “liberisti” and the Austrian marginalism regarding social philosophy and the philosophy and methodology of the social sciences. We will then take into account Croce’s criticism of the economic philosophy of “liberismo”. Our thesis is that the widespread misunderstanding of their struggles for freedom is to be traced back 1) to their lack of acknowledgment of the flaws of Spencer’s utilitarian evolutionism, which lies at the basis of the hedonistic homo oeconomicus; 2) to the role attributed by their theory of the State to the science of public finance; 3) to their philosophical background rather than to the adoption of marginalism, which set the stage for the theory of general economic equilibrium.The goal of the present essay is to analyse some of the most important works of Italian “liberisti” (Ferrara, Pantaleoni, Pareto, de Viti de Marco, Einaudi) in order to reconstruct their philosophical background and to clarify their theory of the State and its functions. In doing so, it aims to give an account of the failure of their political proposal, as well as of the negative opinion in which their work is usually held and the nature of the debate between “liberalismo” and “liberismo”. Traditionally, two waves are identified in the history of “liberismo” - the first one, called “ferrariana”, and the second one, called “marginalistic” - while their common feature is taken to be the public role of the researcher and the struggle for fiscal reform. A part of the essay is also devoted to highlighting the differences between the Walrasian and Jevonsian marginalism of the “liberisti” and the Austrian marginalism regarding social philosophy and the philosophy and methodology of the social sciences. We will then take into account Croce’s criticism of the economic philosophy of “liberismo”. Our thesis is that the widespread misunderstanding of their struggles for freedom is to be traced back 1) to their lack of acknowledgment of the flaws of Spencer’s utilitarian evolutionism, which lies at the basis of the hedonistic homo oeconomicus; 2) to the role attributed by their theory of the State to the science of public finance; 3) to their philosophical background rather than to the adoption of marginalism, which set the stage for the theory of general economic equilibrium