Human Reason Can Neither Predict Nor Deliberately

The [classical] Liberal, Of Course, Does Not Deny That There Are Some Superior People -- He Is Not An Egalitarian -- But He Denies That Anyone Has Authority To Decide Who These Superior People Are.

There Is Nothing In The Basic Principles Of Liberalism To Make It A Stationary Creed; There Are No Hard-and-fast Rules Fixed Once And For All. ... Probably Nothing Has Done So Much Harm To The Liberal Cause As The Wooden Insistence Of Some Liberals On Certain Rules Of Thumb, Above All The Principle Of Laissez Faire.

Is There A Greater Tragedy Imaginable Than That, In Our Endeavour Consciously To Shape Our Future In Accordance With High Ideals, We Should In Fact Unwittingly Produce The Very Opposite Of What We Have Been Striving For?

The Importance Of Our Being Free To Do A Particular Thing Has Nothing To Do With The Question Of Whether We Or The Majority Are Ever Likely To Make Use Of That Particular Possibility. To Grant No More Freedom Than All Can Exercise Would Be To Misconceive Its Function Completely. The Freedom That Will Be Used By Only One Man In A Million May Be More Important To Society And More Beneficial To The Majority Than Any Freedom That We All Use.

To Undertake The Direction Of The Economic Life Of People With Widely Divergent Ideals And Values Is To Assume Responsibilities Which Commit One To The Use Of Force; It Is To Assume A Position Where The Best Intentions Cannot Prevent One From Being Forced To Act In A Way Which To Some Of Those Affected Must Appear Highly Immoral. This Is True Even If We Assume The Dominant Power To Be As Idealistic And Unselfish As We Can Possibly Conceive. But How Small Is The Likelihood That It Will Be Unselfish, And How Great Are The Temptations!