Early Arguments for Economic Liberty: The De La Court Brothers

The United States is a republic. In fact, many countries are republics, Ireland, India, France, Germany, and Italy to name a small fraction The definition of a republic today is “a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.” However, this definition fails to capture the historical importance of republics. However, the Enlightenment thinkers that would set the foundations of the republics envisaged a reformation of political life as well as manners, liberty, personal virtue, and commerce. Republics are the norm today, but that was not always the case. For most of human history, various forms of dictatorships and oligarchies have dominated over the rest of the population. But until America led the charge, there were few practical examples of republics outside of the grandiose republics of antiquity like Rome and the small city-​states of contemporary Italy. In Europe, monarchy was the norm and political system that held the highest cultural capital and sway. It would take years of philosophical argumentation and revolutionary movements before we arrive at the world of republics that we take for granted.

During the 17th-​century in Europe, while most countries were centralizing their states further into powerful monarchies, there was one shining glimpse of the potential of the republican form of government. That example was the United Provinces of the Netherlands, or as it was commonly referred to, the Dutch Republic. In 1568, the seven provinces of the Netherlands united and signed the Union of Utrecht, starting a rebellion against their ruler Philip II of Spain. After the Eighty Years War between the Netherlands and Spain, in 1648, two treaties known collectively as the Peace of Westphalia brought an end to the conflict. The period spanning from 1588 to 1672 is known by historians as the Dutch Golden Age, a period when the Dutch Republic, despite its demure size became a powerhouse of trade, science, and X.

During a century where territorial centralized monarchy was the developing norm throughout Europe, the Dutch looked out of place as a small, decentralized, and most importantly, commercial republic. Unlike most of Europe, the Dutch landed nobility had held little sway in society; instead it was the urban merchant class that dominated. The Dutch sailed across the globe, and as a result, the republic became a hotbed of commercial activity and arguably one of the earliest examples of a broadly capitalist system despite powerful monopolies such as the Dutch East India Company. The Dutch sailed not only to the New World of America but also far east to trade with Japan and China. It is very likely that during this Dutch Golden Age, the Netherlands was the most wealthy and scientifically advanced of the European powers despite being minuscule in comparison to its neighbors.

The wealth of the Dutch Republic attracted many immigrants, but this wasn’t the only reason to visit the republic. More than anywhere else at the time, the Dutch developed a climate of religious and intellectual tolerance—many who fled from religious persecution, like the famous Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza from Portugal. The freedom to speculate life’s greatest questions without fear of inquisitors made Holland a powerhouse of the book trade where people like John Locke could publish their most radical works that would most definitely have been prohibited in any other European nation. This unprecedented climate of tolerance is called the Dutch Miracle by modern historians.

The Dutch were immensely proud of their republic and were strictly anti-​monarchical; after all, their state was founded through conflict with a king. In 1664, an Englishman struck the nail on the head about the Dutch attitude toward monarchy, “Tell them of monarchy but in jest, and they will cut your throat in earnest.” They were republicans through thick and thin. Thanks to the printing press and Dutch tolerance, there was an explosion of Dutch pamphleteers, many of whom praised, debated, and discussed the virtues of a republic. But two brothers Pieter and Johan De La Court, stand out as the most ardently republican authors that through their writings, helped inspire some of the most radical and modern elements of Enlightenment thinking.

The brother’s father, Pieter De La Court senior, was born in Ypres, located in the southern Netherlands. He settled in Leiden, one of Hollands largest towns, and through thrift and good sense, became a successful entrepreneur in the textile industry. His marriage to Jeanne de Planck allowed him to obtain citizenship rights in 1618. That same year, Pieter, the older De La Court brother, was born, followed four years later by his brother Johan, born in 1622. As the sons of a self-​made man, the brothers would from an early age adopt a stance in favor of unrestricted immigration and economic liberty.

Sadly, the De La Courts Brothers were deemed outsiders due to their familial origins in the South. Later their critics would label them as garlic eaters, an insult hurled at anyone from the South. While not exactly the most scathing of insults, it helped solidify the brother’s belief that from birth, they were outsiders, even in the nation they were born.

The economic success of their father allowed the De La Court Brothers to enjoy the finest fruits of a humanistic education. If there was ever a place to raise two intellectuals, it was Leiden, a bulwark of humanist scholarship and thought. The younger brother Johan was convinced by his father to become a preacher, and by the fall of 1641, he was enrolled at Leiden University as a student of theology.

While Johan was studying, Pieter embarked on a Grand Tour, a kind of extended study trip that was the essential element of a true humanist education. For the next two years, Pieter would visit England, France, Switzerland, and Germany keeping a diary recording his observations. While in England, Pieter was appalled by the behavior of the then reigning monarch Charles I, strengthening his belief in the virtues of republics. While in France, he met with theologians and scholars who greatly influenced his belief in religious toleration. Throughout his diary, Pieter shows an aptitude for practical thinking.

After returning from his Grand Tour in the fall of 1643, Pieter joined his younger brother Johan at the University of Leiden, following in his footsteps as a student of theology. While attending University, Johan and Pieter studied rhetoric, classical languages, history, and philosophy amongst a distinctly international population of students. The brothers were also undertaking their studies at a pivotal period as, during the first half of the seventeenth century, politics became an independent academic discipline with its own methodology.

With the discovery of the New World and the rising importance of commerce, European society had begun a process of dramatically changing as the formerly established world view of the medieval ages crumbled. The 17th-​century was a melee of various views and ideas about politics, religion, and science, and in the Dutch Republic, the De La Court brothers were free to speculate without fear of reprisals. When Johan graduated in 1645, like Pieter, he embarked on his own Grand Tour to Geneva.

By 1650, the De La Court Brothers entered their father’s line of work as partners and established a cloth trading firm that would become one of the most prominent firms in Leiden. Despite being called a garlic eater from time to time due to his immigrant background, as a successful entrepreneur, he began to rub elbows with the elite of Holland. Pieter became close friends with a member of Leiden’s governing council Johan Eleman, an especially advantageous ally as he was a relative of Johan De Witt, one of the leading figures of the Dutch Republic until 1672. By 1657, Pieter married Eleman’s sister in law Elisabeth Tollenaer. Sadly the marriage did not last long as Elisabeth tragically died a year later in childbirth. Though Pieter would marry again in 1661 to Catharina van der Voort, the sister of two wealthy Amsterdam merchants and another relative of Johan de Witt.

Emboldened by their economic success and penetration into the elite strata of Dutch society, Pieter and Johan began to contemplate a life beyond business. The perfect catalyst for entry into political life when William II, Prince of Orange, and Stadtholder died of smallpox, with his only heir being William III, who was born only a week after his death. Since its separation from Spain, the Dutch Republic was composed of Provincial and General assemblies that governed in tandem with the Stadtholder. The Stadtholder’s main duties were military affairs. Each province was led by the position of Stadtholder, and in theory, this position was open to any eligible citizen. However, in practice, this was not the case. William the Silent, the leader of the Dutch revolt against the Spanish, had been appointed as Stadholder in Holland, the first province to rebel, and thanks to his reputation and influence, the position of Stadtholder was in reality passed down through the Orange family line. Though the Stadtholder was no monarch, this hereditary position of power made advocates of republics like the De La Court brothers wary. But without a successor to William II, five of the leading Dutch provinces did not appoint a replacement leading to what was known as the Stadtholderless period, the perfect time for the De La Court Brothers to bring a vision of a commercial republic that embodied true liberty to the forefront of Dutch politics.

In 1654 Johan began to spend his spare time thinking and writing about politics in private. Pieter wrote that once successful enough, Johan saw no longer had to spend the bulk of his time attending to business. Instead of spending his money lavishly or wasting his time idle, Pieter wrote that Johan spent his days putting “without hate, love, fear, and hope, sincerely his inner thoughts of all occurring Political and Moral matters on the paper.” After a productive few years of writing, Johan fell ill. Fearing the worst, in 1660, Johan gave Pieter his blessing to take control of his property, both physical and intellectual, if he succumbed to illness. A month later, Johan died, leaving Pieter heartbroken at the loss of both his wife and brother in the span of a FEW years. Looking for a distraction from his grief, Pieter plunged himself into publishing and editing his beloved brother’s writings. Though Johan wished for his unpublished manuscripts to remain unpublished, Pieter defied his wish in 1660, publishing an edition of Johan’s papers that collectively formed Considerations and Examples of State, Concerning the Foundations of all Sorts of governments. Given that this was Johan’s private thoughts, the work held no punches; Pieter knew this and published the book under a fake editorial name V.H, an acronym for Van Hove, the Dutch translation of De La Court. This first book of the De La Court Brothers centered around debating which of the three traditional forms of government was best between monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.

The next year, Pieter prepared a second edition under the new title Considerations of State or Political Balance. Pieter added a hundred pages of additional content while also adjusting and modifying the original text. Pieter spent the bulk of 1662 around publishers and books, publishing six different editions of Considerations of State or Political Balance while simultaneously publishing fifteen editions of three other works. One manuscript entitled Comments on the Welfare and interest of the City of Leiden, though not published, copies were circulated among the elites of Leiden, and as a result, Pieter attracted the attention and patronage of Johan De Witt. From this point on, Pieter extended the writings of his brother into a full-​fledged political campaign.

From here on in, I will refer to the writings and ideas of the brothers simply as De La Court, we can’t be fully sure who wrote what, so it is easiest to merge them into one personality as De La Court. Thanks to high levels of literacy and vernacular publishing, large numbers of normal people began to take part and inform themselves on the political debates of the day. De La Court was well aware of this trend and wrote in a style that appealed to the ordinary man with jokes, Aesop fable-​like stories, and vernacular language.

Despite their high level of education, De La Court wanted to reach “the judgment of all modest Readers” to help “raise the speculation and thoughts of those who have any share in Government in my free Fatherland.” De La Court did something quite extraordinary for political writing; he made it understandable to the everyday man while also still appealing to the elite and educated. De La Court’s works quickly became bestsellers with Interest of Holland in the year of 1662 was reprinted eight times with constant revisions and addi​tions​.De La Court was both reviled and loved, their works were reprinted numerous times and it was common at the time to spot someone at a street corner flicking through something by De La Court. But on the other end, some elites were perturbed by the supposed vulgarity of De La Court but, more egregiously, the crime of bringing knowledge to the masses.

But what ideas were so radical yet so popular? It is hard to summarize De La Courts’ work in a traditional manner by going step by step through each book. De La Courts’ writings are lively and enjoyable, but this enthusiasm leads to a highly unsystematic appearance. But this was part of the approach. The De La Court Brothers both lamented their time at school being wasted with abstract subjects, writing, “Can one think of anything more ridiculous and more capable to extinguish all human wisdom than Philosophy, as it has been taught all over Europe and is still taught at many academia?” De La Court believed the contemporary academic approach reeked of armchair philosophy. Condemning such speculatory utopian work, De La Court wrote their ideas are nothing more than “a Philosophical republic in the air.” So yes, unsystematic, but they had a point. Either way, I am going to go through the three interrelated ideas that pervade all of De La Courts’ work, anti-​monarchism, economic liberty, and true liberty.

De La Court, unlike many contemporaries who had a gloomy view of democracy, welcomed widespread political participation. Though not widespread to include women or men without property De La Court was deemed a dangerous radical for his time. The greatest fear for De La Court was not the rabble but any who called themselves a monarch. De la Court’s definition of monarchy was simple: it is the form of government where one person rules and all others obey. The greatest threat to the Dutch Republic, therefore, was the return of the Stadholder as the closest thing the Dutch had to a monarchical figure.

De La Courts’ argument begins with their idea of human nature. All people are naturally self-​interested and follow what De La Court called the passions. The meaning of passion today might be someone who is passionate about music, but back in De La Courts’ day, passion denoted ambitious, greedy, or even tyrannical behavior unmoored by reason. De La Court wrote, “The passions are first in possession”, and those who pay “attention will realise that they also stick with man until the end of his life.” For De La Court, humans are needy and vulnerable creatures that are driven by strong passions and natural drive, above all others, self-​love. To some degree, human passion could be “through good education, reasoning, and experience.” But when push comes to shove, necessity always triumphs over cherished principles, “for reason and virtue can do no more than to give advice, whereas necessity forces. It breaks, as the saying goes, both laws and iron.” The real counter to passion and self-​love is fear of punishment, what De La Court grimly believed was the cornerstone of civil society. Without the rule of law, the worst of human passions reared its head, the desire to dominate others.

This is one of the many issues with monarchy for De La Court. Humans are not demons, but they are not saints either; any form of government balanced upon personal virtue is bound to topple when necessity strikes. Monarchists could argue back that kings were well educated and thus could control their passions better than the common rabble. De La Court saw through this reminding his readers that no man and his descendants could ever possibly rule over a population for eternity. But tackling education De La Court explained future kings were often kept ignorant so they would not rise up at the first chance and steal the throne. The reality that De La Court witnessed was that most monarchs’ education consisted of dancing, feasts, and hunting excessively. But the worst aspect of monarchy of all was that even if a great king is in power, there is still uncertainty. Unlike the rest of society, a king is described as “Living above all Laws and political orders.” Thus they had absolute power and could change their mind on a whim, the law could change at the snap of a finger, and nothing could be done. Monarchy, even at its best, caused citizens to constantly cross their fingers that the king’s mood didn’t pivot in a sour direction. The only reason De La Court believes that monarchy was ever preferred to republics is because of propaganda. Monarchs hate bad press, and so anything critical of them is scrubbed from the record, leaving them looking better in history than they were in life. While republics had free speech allowing every citizen to voice their concerns regardless of the feelings of their leaders. De La Court was disgusted by his contemporaries’ love for figures such as Augustus and Caesar, writing, “those horrible Monsters, are still praised by most Historians as if they had been very pious Heroes.”

The next big idea in De La Courts’ work is economic liberty, an idea you don’t hear about too often before the Enlightenment. But growing up in the commercial hub of the western world, De La Court saw the value of commerce but also leaving commerce free from undue state interference.

English Republican thinkers looked to the example of Rome, which sickened De La Court, who argued that Rome was “utterly founded on the violence of arms to the ruin of all learning and commerce.” It sickened De La Court that “that this murderers’ den, this wolf’s nest, this most detestable and horrible Republic that has ever been on this earth, is praised so much by many.” Thinkers like Machiavelli from Florence and Algernon Sidney from England argued a good republican state ought to increase its greatness by acquiring more territory following the model of the Roman republic. But De La Court explained the true path to greatness was not war but free trade. The Greek city-​state Athens represented what the Dutch ought to emulate, a thriving commercial city that welcomed foreigners and allowed economic activity without “Patents, Privileges, or Guilds and Halls”.

De la Court adopted Cicero popularly used the phrase Salus Populi suprema lex esto, a generic enough idea that appealed to all kinds of thinkers. But De La Court argued that this phrase is like “a nice doll praised by all outwardly, but by only a few valued and cared for inwardly”. Their time in Leiden showed the brothers true greatness is to be found not in war but the everyday prosperity which commerce and economic liberty can bring to the populace.

Though man is driven by selfish passions, these passions are useful. Self-​interested beings will make smart decisions that, through commercial activity, serve the wants and needs of others at ever-​decreasing costs. Though it might be tempting to regulate industries with De La Court believed individuals knew their own situation best, writing “he who has to eat the porridge cooks and cools it best.”

Competition stimulates this activity. De La Court quipped competition “makes an old wife trot, hunger makes raw beans sweet, and poverty begets ingenuity.” But at a more fundamental level beyond economics, De La Court believed “Everyone ought to be totally free and unrestrained in producing and dealing with his own commodity … Where everyone takes care of himself, everyone is fine, and no one gets lost. This is the natural liberty that the Rulers should never take away from their subjects.” A lesson all too often forgotten today. Along these lines, De La Court argued for pervasive yet practical economic policies, including unrestricted immigration, abolishing guilds, and low taxes. De La Courts’ advice was simple, “Persist with liberty. otherwise, the industries will divert.”

The third big idea of De La Court’s oeuvre is true liberty. De La Court emphasized that all good political thinkers will admit that “the highest perfection of Politics and human society consists in this single point, namely, that the Subjects are left as much natural liberty as is in any way doable.” Though we are bound by laws, the law has its limits and cannot do whatever its wielder pleases, as De La Court expressed in a cosmopolitan fashion, “We are humans by nature, and only by coincidence are we members of a Society or Republic” Our rights could not be placed behind the law.

This sounds pretty standard for libertarians; De La Court sounds like he is talking about negative freedom, the idea that freedom is freedom from other people interfering with your activity. But there is more to true liberty than merely a negation. True liberty was best embodied in the ancient republics “where no one there is bound to live according to the will and desire of one man … but to the spirit of order and Law” and “all Inhabitants of that State are uniformly subjected” to the law. In the ideal state, there are no masters and no slaves. No one can dominate another. Liberty is more than not being bothered by others, it is having the concrete assurance of the rule of law that no citizen will suffer arbitrary whims of a ruler, but instead, the same law applied to both nobles and paupers. De La Court has a lovely little story about a determined goldfinch that escapes his birdcage, confronting his former owner saying “that I could not live according to my own will, and that all my happiness or unhappiness depended continuously on your care or carelessness.”

The program of De La Court was not about getting the right person into power but making sure whoever was in power was not a master of slaves but a servant of the people bound by strict laws and the limits of natural liberty. Sounding very much like a modern-​day libertarian, De La Court wrote, “We must not take away the name King, but the thing King.”

Sadly, Pieter De La Court’s prolific publishing was disrupted when the Stadholder Less period came to an end, and true liberty seemed out of sight. Pieter, being aligned with the radical wing of republicanism, was ousted from Holland by political enemies who reestablished the Stadtholder in 1672. After his patron Johan De Witt was lynched by a mob, Pieter fled to Antwerp, where he stayed with his brother-​in-​law. Though he returned to the Dutch Republic a year later, perturbed by gruesome death threats, he would make his views public again until 1669, when his last work was published. Pieter lived in Amsterdam peacefully dying in 1685.

Though Pieter and Johan De La Court left a sizable body of work behind, history has not been kind to the Dutch brothers. But scholars like Jonathan Israel have made the case, the free-​market and free-​voting radical sect of Enlightenment thought was deeply indebted to the De La Court brothers. Well after their deaths, the works of the De La Court brothers were commonly read in France, Germany, and England. Anne-​Robert Jacques Turgot, a physiocrat and early advocate of laissez-​faire economics, closely studied De La Court. Across the channel and another pivotal economic thinker, Adam Smith owned copies of De La Court’s works as well as Bernard Mandeville. The radical aspects of De La Court’s anti-​monarchist were usually ignored, but their arguments for economic liberty played a surprisingly large role in creating the environment and culture of commerce we live in today.