The classical liberal movement (which includes libertarians and small-government conservatives) has been remarkably successful over the past few decades. Around the world, classical liberalism has led to market deregulation and the thriving of private enterprise. Despite the recent resurgence of protectionist sentiment, the establishment of NAFTA, the work done to establish more bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements, and the diminution of anti-offshoring sentiment are significant advances against the protectionist and anti-globalization movements. Success in recent years has also stemmed from the downfall of the Iron Curtain and the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, events that vindicated classical liberalism’s argument that communism was a failed and barbaric system.

Classical liberals are now asking themselves where they and the movement should go from here. Economics professor Tyler Cowen argues that libertarianism has a “paradox”: The prosperity it generates increases the amount of wealth potentially available for government use, and therefore encourages the growth of government. Classical liberals, he writes, ought to “embrace a world with growing wealth, growing positive liberty, and yes, growing government… sometimes it is a package deal.”

Cowen sees this as a pragmatic course for the classical liberal movement. To be sure, pragmatism in the pursuit of principle is a laudable trait, and he spells out his principles with great and admirable specificity. But in the end, those principles run against one another. Ultimately, his program conspires against the very expansion of positive liberty he advocates.

Cowen argues that we should accept larger government because “[t]he more wealth we have, the more government we can afford. Furthermore, the better government operates, the more government people will demand.” But he appears to ignore the question of what kind of government we can afford with more wealth. Isn’t it possible that a larger government may backslide and reverse the very free market innovations that lead to more wealth? Can we afford to bank on its not doing so?

It is important to note that advocates of larger government do not hesitate to advocate expanded government and expanded regulation that is out of proportion to the growth in prosperity and positive liberty.

Why not fight vigorously against the expansion of government that might otherwise occur in the wake of greater prosperity? At the very worst, classical liberals will ensure that any expansion of government be as isolated and as limited as possible. At the best, government expansion will be halted or—mirabile dictu!—government will shrink in both size and regulatory power, allowing for greater prosperity and freer markets still. Professor Cowen argues that classical liberalism is diminishing as a political force because so many classical liberals refuse to accept the package deal of greater government accompanying increased liberties and prosperity. But the dedication classical liberals have shown in fighting the expansion of greater government is the very trait that distinguishes classical liberalism from other movements, thus giving it more relevance, not less, in current political struggles.

Professor Cowen goes on to argue that big government is also needed because intellectual property disputes in drugs and vaccines have become very complicated to address, because environmental problems need resolution, and because of nuclear proliferation. It is difficult to see why the enforcement of contractual and property rights will not address the intellectual property disputes that he worries about. Professor Cowen seems to believe that government must be afforded a role because there is no “uniquely libertarian approach to the resulting questions of intellectual property.” But given that most libertarians and classical liberals are “minarchists” and do not want to do away with government entirely, we can fashion a broad and deep coalition among the classical liberal movement to support the government’s role in resolutely enforcing contractual and property rights—so long, of course, as government does not exceed its role.

Contractual and property rights may also be relied on in the implementation of free-market environmentalism, a classical liberal approach to caring for the environment. While Cowen is right to emphasize to classical liberals that government will have to have an enforcement role in ensuring that contractual and property rights are accepted, his suggestions on this issue appear to have been accepted by the classical liberal community long ago, and thus may not be so far “outside of the old categories” of classical liberal thought as Professor Cowen seems to think they are.

Deterring the proliferation of nuclear weapons is one that most of us rely on our government and governments around the world to address. But merely because government has a substantial role to play in this field does not mean that bigger government as a whole should be accepted as part of a “package deal” that accompanies increased prosperity and positive liberty. Even as we accept a healthy government role in addressing security issues, we can still demand that government halt and reverse growth in non-defense domestic discretionary spending (especially with regard to entitlements), that the federal government surrender decision-making power regarding the formulation of education policy to states and localities, who would then be free to implement school choice programs and that the growth of the welfare state as a whole be reversed.

It is important to note that advocates of larger government—contemporary liberals, as opposed to classical ones—do not hesitate to advocate expanded government and expanded regulation that is out of proportion to the growth in prosperity and positive liberty. By refusing to stand firm against the contemporary liberal movement, by ceding ground when it does not have to, by adjusting tactics so that classical liberals perpetually fight on the contemporary liberals’ favorite battlefields, the classical liberal movement risks running out of the intellectual energy necessary to keep government small and to increase prosperity and positive liberty.

Classical liberalism does indeed have some big decisions ahead of it. But classical liberals should not forget that devotion to small government distinguishes their movement from all others and is responsible for remarkable and laudable advances in the quality of life around the world. For all of the challenges it faces, classical liberalism has a record to be proud of and a foundation on which it can and should stand in the policy fights ahead. Pragmatism is certainly required when it advances the cause of classical liberalism. But pragmatism does not require abandoning the traits that make classical liberalism unique. And should those traits be abandoned, the goals of classical liberalism will inevitably suffer great harm.

Pejman Yousefzadeh is an attorney living in Illinois. He blogs at A Chequer-board of Nights and Days, and Red State.