The Limits of Liberalism: Why Constitutionalism Has failed to Restrain State Power – Eurasia Review
WASHINGTON D.C. – A growing consensus among Austrian School economists and classical liberal scholars points to a fundamental flaw in the historical approach to limiting state power: constitutionalism itself. Despite centuries of effort, attempts to constrain governments through written constitutions and legal frameworks have consistently fallen short, ultimately leading to the ever-expanding, centralized states prevalent today.
The core argument, articulated by scholars like Ralph Raico, centers on the unintended consequences of early liberal thought. Rather then dismantling existing power structures, early liberals often sought to reform the state, believing a constitution could effectively bind its authority. However, this approach, according to Raico, inadvertently strengthened the very entity it aimed to control. the focus on building a national, constitutional state, he argues, actively enfeebled the local, independent institutions that historically served as a natural check on centralized power.
“Ever since I translated Mises’s Liberalism many years ago, and even before that, I’ve been interested in the history of classical liberalism… I’m coming to a conclusion-which I held theoretically but feel more strongly about and hold, you might say practically now-that there is no answer within classical liberalism,” Raico concluded in a recent discussion of the issue. “The liberals had no answer because they strove to preserve the state. I say, “held this view theoretically,” because I agree with Murray Rothbard… that ultimately the kind of system we want is a system where individuals are empowered to select their own means of defense-their own, let’s say, defense agencies and their own courts.”
Raico’s assessment isn’t a rejection of liberal goals – the pursuit of individual liberty remains central - but a critique of its historical tactics. He contends that strategies like constitutionalism, state building, and universal suffrage have demonstrably failed to deliver on their promise of limited government, and are, in fact, contributing to its continued expansion.
This viewpoint aligns with a long tradition of classical liberal thought,predating the more centralist strain that gained prominence. Figures like Gustave de Molinari, Charles Dunoyer, Thomas Jefferson, and John Locke all explored the concept of secession as a legitimate means of resisting overreach by central authorities. These thinkers, unlike their more state-focused contemporaries, recognized the inherent tendency of centralized power to grow, and advocated for decentralized solutions.
Raico specifically advocates for a strategy of “deconstruction” of the state, achieved through radical decentralization and, crucially, secession. He argues that empowering independent institutions – those that predate and operate outside the direct control of the national state – is essential to creating a counterbalance to centralized authority. These institutions, motivated by self-preservation and the protection of their own prerogatives, would become vital allies in dismantling the modern, overpowered state.
The conclusion is stark: attempting to limit the state from within has proven ineffective. A more direct and immediate aim, according to this line of thought, must be to actively dismantle the centralized state, stage by stage, and to explore the potential of secession as a means of reversing the trend towards ever-increasing political centralization.
