When this war is coming to an end, Liberals are not in condition of offering utopian assurances to any segment of society—neither to the affluent nor the impoverished, to industrialists or landowners, and consequently not even to workers or peasants. They cannot proceed with nebulous slogans such as “nationalisation”, “socialisation”, “land to the peasants”, or a guaranteed minimum income for all, whereas the inevitable consequence of would be bitter mass disillusionment. All this would pave the way—through the unwitting complicity of naïve idealists—for the ascendancy of new opportunists and plutocrats, potentially more pernicious than those who emerged from analogous rhetoric two decades prior.

Liberals will not deceive population with promises of wealth, prosperity, and sweeping gains in the aftermath of a war and of a regime that has wrought profound moral and material devastation upon our nation. They pledge only what they can legitimately deliver: namely, the establishment of conditions wherein a rejuvenated Italy may arise through concerted effort over the course of several years and a spirit of reciprocal forbearance among all willing participants, a country that is both more prosperous and more judicious than its present incarnation. In such a society, a greater volume of wealth shall be generated, its distribution rendered more equitable, fostering the advancement of the masses whilst curtailing the undue elevation of those who, absent genuine merit or legitimate entitlement, have positioned themselves above their fellow citizens.

Liberals reject expropriatory coercion and radical reforms effective immediately and imposed through Jacobin methods—tactics that are indistinguishable from the instruments of force employed by totalitarian movements. Yet they remain receptive to all ideals born of open and unfettered deliberation, in which all economic and social factions are afforded the opportunity to contribute. From social Catholics to Communists, every voice must be heard; and once a firm and reasoned majority has coalesced around a particular solution, the minorities within a liberal order shall bear not merely the negative duty of acquiescence, but also the positive obligation to engage constructively. The constitutional mechanisms by which the right to debate and the principles of reasoned deliberation shall be safeguarded are beyond the present scope of discussion.

At the forefront of the discussion, Liberals will place the imperative battle against plutocracy. This is not a struggle against the industrialist who pioneers new methods, optimises the organisation of his enterprise, and enhances production through free competition with his peers. Nor is it a campaign against the landowner who improves his estate, or the tenant farmer who, through generations of toil, has amassed expertise, invested accumulated capital, and applied diligent labour to the daily cultivation of another’s land. Rather, the fight must be directed squarely against those who, in industry, commerce, banking, and landownership, have secured their ascendancy not through merit or efficiency but through privilege, artificial monopolies, customs protectionism, restrictions on the establishment of competing enterprises, exploitative patent chains that stifle true innovation, and state-guaranteed price-fixing.

This struggle must be waged resolutely on two fronts. The first task is to dismantle the intricate web of privileges, constraints, protections, quotas, and legislative barriers without which the plutocracy would never have attained its economic dominance and its corrupting influence over political affairs, which today renders it the true master of the nation.

Now is the critical moment to confront these entrenched privileges. Under the auspices of well-meaning yet misguided individuals convinced that national stability hinges upon their intervention, inefficient grain producers and industrialists unwilling to modernise their operations petition the state for artificially high prices, subsidies, and financial support — none of which are truly necessary for post-war reconstruction. At a time when the market assures favourable returns for all productive effort, these vested interests still demand the restoration of protective tariffs. Certain political factions once again champion an assault on public finances, naively believing that such measures will serve as a panacea for unemployment.

Secondly, where the struggle against privilege and artificial monopolies proves insufficient, it becomes imperative to subject those enterprises that bear the intrinsic characteristics of natural monopolies to appropriate public oversight. We deliberately refrain from employing the term nationalisation, as it is often ambiguous and devoid of substantive meaning. Instead, we shall focus on practical measures. To illustrate, the hydroelectric sector in Italy has, in effect, been nationalised since the era of classical liberal governance, given that all water resources within the country are designated as public property. Upon the expiration of the sixty-year concessions, hydroelectric plants revert—without any form of compensation—to the full and unencumbered ownership of the state. Our ambition extends further: since the fundamental objective of public ownership, or at the very least its principal aim, is to ensure the provision of essential services at prices that do not exceed their cost of production, we advocate for continuous and structured state intervention during the concession period itself. Rather than sporadic or arbitrary interferences, the state must be empowered to regulate, through deliberation and the adjudication of impartial arbiters, the maximum tariffs that concessionary companies may impose on various categories of energy consumers. Such regulatory oversight must be tailored to the specific characteristics of each industry. In some instances, the state may directly manage strategic industries—such as armaments, which may also be subject to international regulatory frameworks. In other cases, state control may be exercised through publicly-owned corporations, in which the government holds a majority stake, or through structured concessions granted to public entities or private enterprises, always ensuring appropriate price regulation. Liberals, however, categorically oppose unwarranted and disruptive state interventions in private enterprises that operate transparently, without reliance on privileges, without imposing monopolistic prices upon consumers, and without extracting subsidies from the state.

Following the campaign against plutocracy, attention must turn to the struggle against the latifundia. However, this does not entail the reckless squandering of public funds on ill-conceived rural housing projects for so-called peasants, artificially sustained by the Ministry of finance. The true battle against the latifundium is one of land reclamation—a struggle that has persisted for centuries. While this process is largely complete in northern and central Italy, barring certain mountainous regions and areas resistant to reclamation, vast opportunities for action remain in the south and on the islands. Addressing this imbalance is a matter of justice for these regions, which have long borne the economic consequences of a system of privilege designed to favour industries predominantly located in northern Italy. Yet, rectifying this historical disadvantage must not come at the cost of granting privileges to the latifundist regions. The priority must be to intensify comprehensive land reclamation efforts, which have only just begun in these areas. This includes the eradication of malaria, the draining of marshlands, the management of torrential flood risks, afforestation, water disposal, and the development of both public and rural roads. In parallel with these essential land rehabilitation efforts of land eroded by centuries of neglect, the systematic redistribution and rational use of agricultural land must proceed. However, this process must not be governed by a single, rigid model—a fundamental error that has historically doomed similar efforts when pursued as political or propagandistic endeavours, dating back to the pre-unification period. The specific conditions of each locality, its social structures, and the customs of its inhabitants must inform the strategy for success. The desire of peasants to live within close-knit rural communities is neither irrational nor impractical. Accordingly, the expansion of small and medium-sized autonomous farms must be pursued organically, spreading gradually across the land like an oil slick. Agricultural tenancies should be structured around existing dwelling centres and extend outward in a measured fashion, progressively reclaiming land from large industrial estates. The latter must bear the initial financial burden and, in turn, reap the potential rewards of converting vast areas of land from extensive cereal cultivation and grazing into structured agricultural enterprises. These transformed estates should feature modern farm buildings, exemplary livestock facilities, roads, residential dwellings, churches, and schools. A fundamental objective must be the education and empowerment of a skilled peasant class, engaged in these industrial farms through a system of partial risk-sharing and profit participation. This gradual economic and social education will prepare them for eventual landownership. Conversely, the notion of agrarian reform as an abrupt and wholesale redistribution of land to create, ex nihilo, a robust class of landowners as a stabilising force for society is a harmful utopia. Where such a landowning class exists, it has emerged through a slow and deliberate process of education and adaptation—a process that remains ongoing. The objective must be to extend this evolutionary process across Italy, ensuring that a successful and sustainable agrarian system, already widely established in many northern and central regions, can be replicated nationwide.

Beyond the struggle against plutocracy and the latifundia, the most decisive front must be direct action to uplift the masses, rendering them both worthy and capable of participating in the economic governance of society. This, however, must not descend into paternalism or mere largesse. The liberal spirit stands in direct opposition to the policy of panem et circenses. The working and agricultural classes must be equipped with the means to improve their condition through their own elevation. The social insurance schemes initiated under liberal governments—covering disability, old age, workplace accidents, and maternity—must be brought to full maturity under a renewed liberalism. Provision for unemployment must be structured in such a manner that benefits do not serve as an inducement to idleness but instead strengthen trade union organisation through the mutual oversight of workers themselves. Likewise, sickness insurance must be reformed to eliminate those inefficiencies and bureaucratic obstructions that currently render it unsatisfactory for both patients and physicians. The choice of medical practitioners and the administration of healthcare provision should be placed within the remit of locally and professionally managed insurance funds, elected and jointly governed by representatives of both employers and employees.

Above all, the full restoration of trade union freedom will be instrumental in the advancement of the working and peasant classes. The monolithic, state-controlled trade union—an instrument of political coercion under any regime—must give way to free and independent trade unions, established by industrialists and workers alike whenever they deem it necessary, in accordance with their own philosophical outlooks and professional interests. There should be no fear of competition between differing unions; experience in Italy and abroad has demonstrated that trade union freedom fosters rising wages, shorter working hours, and, most importantly, the dignity of the worker, who negotiates on equal footing with employers through best representatives of his own choosing. Neither workers nor industrialists, neither peasants nor landlords, are ennobled by negotiating through state-appointed intermediaries—officials who act on their position to justify their salaries rather than true representation forged through the voluntary sacrifice of union dues and the election of advocates from within the ranks of labour and industry. It will therefore be essential to study the most effective means of securing fair representation for both workers and entrepreneurs, whether through a “National Labour Council” or “Labour Dispute Resolution Councils”, and to determine what powers such professional bodies should hold within a revitalised system of free political representation.

Liberals cannot promise substantial wage increases for all workers through the universal imposition of compulsory profit-sharing. They draw attention to the fact that in England—home to the world’s oldest and most established trade union movement—workers’ organisations have traditionally viewed such schemes with suspicion, dismissing them as a Trojan horse introduced by industrialists to undermine trade union autonomy. The very nature of profit must be understood correctly; it is not to be confused with the ordinary returns on savings, but rather constitutes an exceptional surplus secured by the most efficient enterprises—one that, in the majority of cases, does not materialise at all. Profit-sharing, therefore, remains a phenomenon affecting only a minority of firms. Were its implications fully grasped—as workers’ representatives would inevitably come to realise after even a brief experience—it would be acknowledged that any scheme of participation must be flexible, voluntary, and tailored to the specific conditions of different industries. When structured in this way, profit-sharing can contribute meaningfully to the creation of select groups of skilled technicians and workers, incentivising industrial advancement and efficiency.

The responsibilities of the liberal state do not conclude with the policies outlined thus far. A comprehensive review would be beyond the scope of a brief discourse; however, it must be emphasised that liberal governance does not equate to governmental absenteeism. On the contrary, the liberal state must remain an active and vigilant force, intervening daily to fulfil its legitimate functions. Public works—historically a source of immense pride for liberal administrations, which between 1860 and 1914 endowed the nation with the railways, roads and harbours that ultimately secured its victory—must be further developed to serve two principal objectives. The first is the expansion and enrichment of the nation’s public assets. There is no intrinsic limit to the scope of state-sponsored projects designed to enhance both productive efficiency and the quality of civic life. The reconstruction of cities devastated by war, large-scale reforestation, land reclamation, the construction of bridges, navigable canals, and road networks at every level—national highways, municipal routes, local access roads, and agricultural pathways—must all be pursued with vigour. Schools, public gardens, garden cities, rural housing: the list of necessary undertakings is vast, as are the pressing needs that remain unmet.

While no upper bound can be discerned for the demands imposed by an increasingly dynamic public sphere and a civic life in which individuals will gain collective access to amenities still monopolised by the privileged few, the liberal state must conduct its policy of public works with a dual purpose. Beyond the immediate goal of infrastructural enhancement, it must also serve as a stabilising mechanism within the broader economic system—moderating its activity during periods of prosperity while accelerating it in times of crisis. This countercyclical function is essential to maintaining, insofar as possible, sustained and full employment.

This is by no means a novel approach. The statesmen of the generation spanning 1880 to 1900—unencumbered by the refined yet impractical economic dogmas that have since gained intellectual fashion—had already envisaged this principle. They institutionalised it within the state budget under the category of movement of capital, a remarkable precursor to what would later be termed multi-year budgetary frameworks, including five-year and seven-year economic plans. However, this policy must now be refined through the establishment of middle management for technical roles. In times of economic expansion, their task will be to design comprehensive public works projects, ensuring that when private enterprise inevitably enters a period of contraction, these plans can be deployed in a measured and effective manner. This approach must not be mistaken for a lax or indulgent fiscal policy. On the contrary, it demands the utmost rigour in the stewardship of public finances. Count Cavour—the great liberal statesman of the 19th century—demonstrated that a commitment to balanced budgets could be reconciled with an ambitious, forward-looking economic strategy. Against the doctrine of budgetary equilibrium at all costs—a policy of stagnation and impoverishment championed by Bourbon conservatism—he set forth an alternative vision: a balanced but dynamic fiscal regime that facilitated investment in trans-Apennine and trans-Alpine railways, the expansion of commercial and military ports, and the integration of Piedmont, and ultimately of Italy, into the competitive arena of international commerce.

This must once again be the guiding principle for the new Italy. In international arenas, Italy shall not plead for privileged access to raw materials at favourable prices—such a request would be a humiliating act of a supplicant’s charity. Instead, Italy shall assert its rightful claim to purchase raw materials freely, on global markets, at prevailing prices. And why, indeed, should the new Italian—whom we envision as free, intellectually elevated, and technically proficient—be incapable, as our former oppressors so often slandered us, of securing for himself, through open competition, the raw materials he deems essential? At the same time, Italy will seek—on the basis of reciprocity—the unimpeded right to sell the products of its industry and its land wherever there is demand. No artificial or paternalistic division of economic spheres among nations. Italians are confident in their ability to earn their place under the sun through enterprise and diligence, without fear of competition. A liberal Italy will actively participate in the cooperative discussions aimed at dismantling the customs barriers and protectionist constraints that, like the tentacles of a vast octopus, stifle productive endeavour. It welcomes the day when such barriers will no longer stand at its political frontiers but will instead be relegated to the distant periphery of robust international customs unions.

Within the borders of the free world, Italy’s sons and daughters must be able to move unencumbered. We stand ready to engage in dialogue on the gradual removal of the restrictions that today hinder the free movement of people—barriers that obstruct both temporary and permanent migration from overpopulated nations to those with the capacity for growth. The freedom of movement for individuals across the world is our aspiration. We do not fear an influx of foreigners, for we possess the strength and vitality to assimilate those who come to join us. Nor do we dread the departure of Italians, provided we ensure that the motherland once again becomes a nation open to all ideas, welcoming of all free enterprise, and, as a result, prosperous and truly deserving of the honour of hosting free men.

The liberal state, resolutely opposed to both plutocracy and egalitarianism, need not seek inspiration for its tax policy elsewhere. It need only return to its own proud traditions—those established by the heirs of Cavour—when a rigorous yet straightforward tax system was built, once considered among the finest in the world. It is imperative to wield the axe of reform against the tangled, oppressive, and often arbitrary tax mechanisms that have proliferated over the past two decades of fascist oppression, burdening citizens without yielding true economic productivity. Taxes must once again embody three fundamental principles:

Certainty. In an attempt to follow foreign doctrinaires, we have neglected this most essential characteristic of any sound tax system. What matters is not merely how much one is required to pay, but that each citizen knows with absolute clarity the amount due and is informed well in advance. Only with such certainty can individuals and businesses plan their endeavours and undertakings with confidence, free from intrusive scrutiny and the looming threat of unforeseen and unpredictable penalties.

Simplicity and clarity. While it is unrealistic to reduce all taxation to a single levy, it must be avoided that taxpayers get lost in the current labyrinth of taxes, contributions, and assorted duties that threaten and trouble them from all sides

Tax Levy on concord and not on toil. Taxes levied on production and commerce must be abolished. Taxes that penalise those who work, create, and trade at the very moment they are striving to generate wealth. The state must exercise patience and intervene only once income has been realised and enters the realm of consumption. Taxes on trade and the transfer of goods are hideous, wherever possible, they should be abolished or significantly reduced. The inevitable weight of taxation—since the state must responsibly honour past obligations and meet present and future commitments—must rest primarily on income and consumption. This means taxation on personal income above the bare minimum required for subsistence, on tangible returns of real estate and financial capital, and on forms of expenditure that signify the capacity to spend beyond life’s fundamental necessities.

Progressive taxation to mitigate inequalities in wealth distribution while safeguarding the incentives for saving and investment. Taxation should serve as a tool in the fight against plutocracy and large landownership, while also providing the resources needed to expand public goods for the benefit of all. The challenge for a financier in a liberal state lies in identifying the critical threshold beyond which taxation ceases to be productive—a point where excessive levies would stifle the very incentives for saving and entrepreneurial initiative that drive economic progress and ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth. The inheritance tax must become the primary fiscal instrument in this effort—both to counterbalance excessive concentrations of wealth and to expand the public domain of freehold property. However, rather than retaining the traditional inheritance tax, which should be abolished in all its current forms, it must be replaced with a single, more equitable measure—one that might be termed an “avocation tax”. Under this system, assuming a stable currency as a necessary foundation for any sound fiscal reform, a saver who leaves behind a fortune of one million lire would see the entire sum passed on to heirs—but with a mortgage of equal value in favor of the state. This obligation would then be discharged progressively, with each successive generation required to repay one-third of the amount upon inheritance. In this way, the original wealth could only be preserved by those who continuously rebuild it, demonstrating through their actions that they are capable and deserving of maintaining their patrimony. Conversely, those who prove inept or idle would, within three generations, see their wealth fully absorbed into the public domain. The revenue generated from this inheritance tax—designed to gradually reduce excessive private wealth—should be directed toward increasing public wealth. It must be invested primarily in ambitious urban and rural development projects that integrate cities with the countryside, expand road networks, establish national parks, create garden cities, and provide affordable, and in some cases, free housing. These new housing solutions, replacing outdated institutions such as phalansteries and traditional almshouses, should be set amid green spaces and seamlessly connected to urban centers.

Our speech will be futile if we do not restore security in economic transactions, particularly in what already constitutes, and will increasingly represent, the largest share of national income: the remuneration of the leaders and workers within the vast army of labour. One of the greatest achievements of the liberal state of the 19th century was its ability to provide, for the first and only time in modern history, long-term monetary stability across most civilized nations. This was both a triumph and a miracle—one that the new liberal state must seek to renew. A monumental challenge lies ahead: the restoration of a currency that had already lost three-quarters of its purchasing power due to the First World War (1914–1918)—yet still retained more value than the French franc, though less than two-thirds against the British pound. However, two decades of mismanagement have since reduced Lira to a mere shadow of itself, with its decline accelerating precisely when its supposed defenders made the loudest proclamations about protecting it "at all costs.” This is no small task, particularly because we must reject any forced or artificial revaluation—a disastrous policy that history, both past and recent, has repeatedly shown to trigger severe economic crises and mass unemployment. Instead, the only feasible and beneficial path forward will be to halt the lira's slide towards nothingness and restart from this still point. The precise moment to set this foundation will become clear through the gradual liberalization of exchange rates and prices as a path towards a renewed economic life. However, this stabilization will inevitably bring severe hardships for the middle class, especially those reliant on fixed-income investments—including holders of governmental securities, bonds, land portfolios, mortgages and private loans denominated in lire. Salaried workers, pensioners, and policyholders will likewise suffer if their payment is in lire. The issue of compensation will therefore arise which will have to be full and immediate for public institutions and moral entities, whose survival has been jeopardized by monetary devaluation. For all the other categories, compensation will need to be partial and adjusted, taking into account the timing of their investments and the nominal value of salaries, pensions, insurance payouts, and other fixed-income benefits. To the injustices inflicted upon savers and intellectual workers during the ventennio of misrule, the liberal state will respond with a program of economic restoration, carefully balancing the financial possibilities of the state and the national economy. A state that aspires to elevate the working classes to the prosperity of the middle class cannot afford to abandon those already within it. On the contrary, this expanded and nearly universal middle class must remain the bedrock of a stable and enduring social order.