> Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish.
If you actually knew anything about the history of classical liberalism you wouldn't perpetuate this nonsensical stereotype. Classical Liberalism is not the same as Objectivism.
A core classic liberal belief, arguably the core belief, is that nothing should stand in the way of individuals being able to secure their own economic self-interest.
To be sure this does not stipulate that all actors be selfish, merely that no penalty should inhibit selfishness.
> A core classic liberal belief, arguably the core belief, is that nothing should stand in the way of individuals being able to secure their own economic self-interest.
That is completely false, you are simply attacking the straw men that 100 years of oversimplified critics of classical liberalism have set up.
The classical liberal tradition always had a strong association and interest in English Common Law and never asserted individual action is above the law, exactly the opposite is the case. The Law very foundation that classical liberal build on.
That's why there is a whole field of economics called 'Economics & Law' that goes back a long time.
> To be sure this does not stipulate that all actors be selfish, merely that no penalty should inhibit selfishness.
The factor that inhibits selfishness is the law. But you are correct, no classical liberal thinker thought people should be punished for being selfish in of itself.
Drawing on ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that it is in the common interest that all individuals be able to secure their own economic self-interest.
attributed to: Dickerson, M. O.; Flanagan, Thomas; O'Neill, Brenda (2009). An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0176500429.
> A core classic liberal belief, arguably the core belief, is that nothing should stand in the way of individuals being able to secure their own economic self-interest.
You literally said 'nothing'.
It is of course true that they believed that self-interested individuals seeking voluntary trade to improve their self interest within a legal framework would be beneficial for society.
Note how Adam Smith never says 'its amazing to steal as much money as possible because following your self interest is good for society'.
I suggest you read Adam Smiths actual work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
That is still wrong. It more correct for Chicago but its not remotely true for Austrian school.
The whole point that made the Austrian school different from the Neoclassical approach used by for example Walras or Jevons was that they DID NOT think about micro economics as pure utility optimization.
The point of their approach is not to claim that all individuals are self interested, rather that a dynamic market situation can lead to a good outcome whatever desire the person has. It doesn't fundamentally matter if a person buys porn for himself or if he feeds the homeless. That's of course morally different, but a difference in the underlying economics. That why there is a strong emphasis on subjective theory of value in Austrian economics.
But of course simply empirically speaking most people first look out for themselves and their family and friends. Not sure why that would be controversial. And that is what Austrian economics also assumed, but its called self-interest and not selfishness.
If you actually knew anything about the history of classical liberalism you wouldn't perpetuate this nonsensical stereotype. Classical Liberalism is not the same as Objectivism.