Liberalism Flashcards
To what extent do liberals disagree over the role of the state?
Agreement:
- state is necessary to protect individual rights from the threat of others and their egocentric agenda
- limited government = constitutional limits, separation of powers, checks and balances, independent judiciary and entrenched fundamental laws and liberties
- individual rights take priority over the interests of the state
- legitimate government needs consent = social contract
- necessary to avoid disorder and a Hobbesian state of nature
- Locke “freedom can only exist under the law, where there is no law, there is no freedom”
Disagreement:
- size and role of the state
- purpose and extent
Classical:
- Locke = minimal and limited state
- minimal state, a night watchman
- protect property rights, any more undermines individual freedom (Locke)
- equal protection of the law and equal political rights (Wollstonecraft)
- protect negative freedom, negative rights and formal equality of opportunity
- (Isaiah Berlin) negative freedom = welfare and state intervention makes individuals less self-reliant
- have to be left to own decisions (Mill)
- concerned by majoritarianism and threat to property rights so wanted to limit franchise (Locke)
- Mill argued for extending the franchise
Modern:
- John Rawls = enabling state and individual freedom
- support enabling state
- promote positive freedom, positive rights and substantive equality of opportunity
- unrealistic for those disadvantaged to not need some help
- state to make sure everyone lives in enabling conditions
- positive freedom = truly self-reliant, must have some help
- more supportive of universal suffrage
- take part in politics
- develop selves through political engagement
1: agreement and unity
2: disagree - negative vs positive freedom, minimal vs enabling
3: laissez-faire vs Keynesian
To what extent do liberals agree over the rights and freedoms of individuals?
To what extent do liberals is there agreement between classical and modern liberals?
Intro: political ideology that has a commitment to freedom of the individual, minimal state, tolerant society and free-market capitalism.
there are two types; modern and classical liberalism.
ML: individuals become free by the use of state for the benefit of society as a whole
CL: freedom achieved through restricting the power of government
these branches of liberalism have the same core ideas yet disagree on how these freedoms should be protected.
1: believe humans are rational- therefore individualism is central belief in liberalism
BUT
CL: egotistical individualism- centered around atomism. society filled with self interested and self sufficient individuals rather than social groups- minimal state, as individuals are self sufficient.
-negative freedom- no external constraints on individual bot told how to behave so can follow their own nature
ML: developmental liberalism- not atomism but altruism- society should develop.
-positive freedom-to be truly free individuals need the ability to prosper, done through government intervention, welfare, and wealth distribution.
2: the role of the state and society
John Locke social contract between people and the state to form the society in which they live- protects basic liberties “where laws do not exist there is no freedom”
BUT
CL: minimal state. J.S Mill harm principle- free except when someone’s actions infringe on another’s- self regarding actions and other regarding actions
ML: enabling state- John Rawls- state should provide for the disadvantaged- ‘veil of ignorance’- being ignorant to own societal position- social contract state should help balance out society
CLs: Negative freedom (freedom from interference and an absence of restraint of freedom)
MLs: Positive freedom (ppl have freedom to grow, develop and realise their goals, w/ freedom not being seen as a lack of interference)
3: role of state in economics
free market capitalism- provide initiative to progress and grow.
BUT
CL: Laissez faire - minimum government interference in the economy- allows businesses to pursue profit and should reach equilibrium if in economic crisis
ML: Keynesianism- state should interfere by injecting money into the economy to prevent job loss and poverty
To what extent is liberalism more concerned with society than with the economy?
1: One could argue that modern and classical liberals disagree on the importance of the economy in relation to society.
CL: free market that was unchallenged by government intervention. This view was endorsed by John Locke, who agreed that government intervention in the economy is unnecessary since it should be limited and individual liberty should be safeguarded, implying that individuals should be able to make their own economic decisions.
BUT
modern liberals are more conscious of the failings of the free market and its impact on certain sections of society. argue for state intervention to promote social justice and equality of opportunity. This is supported by John Rawls, as he argued that a large enabling state was required so that individuals who were poor might realise their full potential rather than being oppressed by an unjust economy
SO
Hence, allowing us to conclude that although classical liberalism values the economy more than society, whilst modern liberalism places a higher value on society than the economy, through utilising it for the benefit of the people.
To what extent do liberals agree over the role of human nature?
Agreement:
- humans are individuals with own unique abilities and interests
- born with moral worth and natural rights
- optimistic view of human nature
- all capable of reason and tolerance, rational
- Locke “underpinned by natural laws, natural liberties and natural rights”
- don’t judge others and respect their choices
- “all men are created equal” = US Declaration of Independence
- Rawls = “foundational equality is necessary”
Disagreement:
Classical:
- egotistical individualism = pursue own self-interest, selfish
- Utilitarianism (Bentham) = produce greatest happiness for greatest number
- Harm Principle (Mill) = not justifiable for the state to interfere with self-regarding actions, individual must decide what is best
- negative freedom
- Locke = “guided by the pursuit of self-interest”
Mill = “self-regarding” human actions
Modern:
- developmental individualism = extent to which we can grow and reach our potential
- human nature is not fixed
- higher and lower pleasures = most utility actions help us progress and develop our individuality
- enabling state/positive freedom = need help identifying real pleasures and interests
- role of state is to promote development of individuals (T H Green)
- Mill = “man as a progressive being”
1: agreement = optimistic view
2: egotistical individualism vs developmental individualism
3: tolerance/state involvement
To what extent do liberals agree over the role of the society?
Agreement:
- all individuals more important than society as a whole
- society should respect the rights and liberties belonging to the individual
- must be a good reason if sacrificing self-interest for collective interest of society
- equal society (foundational)
- equality of opportunity
Didsagreement:
Classical:
- atomistic society = no more than a collection of self-interested individuals
- people only interact when it suits their own self-interest
- negative freedom = society only eists to limit the outside interference of others
- state of nature (Locke) = have natural rights that no one can dispute
- society there to form an authority that guarantees rights and liberties
- meritocracy - formal equality of opportunity
- no one should be discriminated against
Modern:
- such thing as common good in society
- development of individuals and elf-realisation is not possible in isolation
- our rights and freedoms depends on other people
- work together for the common good so everyone can reach their potential
- positive freedom = require others to reach true freedom
- broader equality of opportunity
- fair/substantive = those born with disadvantages should still have the same opportunities
- competition to be fair, the fortunate need to recognise they might need to make sacrifices (Rawls)
To what extent do liberals agree over the role of the economy?
Agreement:
- capitalism
- private property = necessary to establish identity as individuals
- relatively low taxation
Disagreement:
Classical:
- Laissez-Faire
- market works best if left free from state interference (Adam Smith)
- pursue own self-interest then market will be guided by an “invisible hand”
- property a natural right (Locke)
- private ownership will enrich the nation
- taxation minimal and at their lowest
- reluctant to fund government as undermines own individual freedom
- taxation punishes hard work and success
- taxation only used to fund minimal night-watchman state
Modern:
- capitalism but concerned (free market can have recessions and unemployment)
- Keynesian economics
- government manage economy and control demand to keep unemployment low and promote freedom
- more receptive to taxation and redistribution
- redistribution necessary to promote positive freedom and equality of opportunity
- funds programs and welfare the poor need
- supportive of higher taxes
- society contributes to wealth creation (Hobhouse)
- taxation merely society taking its fair share for its contribution in creating this wealth
To what extent do liberals agree on rationalism?
Agree:
All liberals are in agreement that humans are rational creatures capable of logic and reason however, they disagree over what impacts the development of rational individuals.
Disagree:
human nature (enlightenment, education, selfish individualism develops from rationalism - egotistical v developmental)
Disagree:
equal society (formal equality JSM Wollstonecraft Friedan, meritocracy, social inequality neo-liberals, Rawls excessive inequality cannot be accepted)
Disagree:
state (individuals should be free to develop rationalism JSM v need an enabling state to develop as a rational individual)
To what extent to liberals agree on equality/justice?
Intro:
Whilst liberals broadly agree that individuals are of equal worth and should be treated fairly by society they differ in how far they believe the state should intervene
1:
Liberals argue that humans share the same essential nature and are therefore equal. This is foundational equality
2:
Modern Liberal emphasis justice- morally justifiable distribution of wealth - This is not supported by Classic Liberals are its require a relatively high degree of state intervention, taxation which infringed on human rights
3:
Liberals believe some social inequality is acceptable as people with different talents require different rewards- CL’s support a fully meritocratic society - Modern Liberals accept that people should be rewarded based on their individual merit, however social inequality is not acceptable when people are at a disadvantage because of a factor they can’t control.
To what extent do liberals agree on individualism?
Agree:
Broadly agree that humans are inherently individualistic however, disagree on the best ways to allow this to flourish
Disagree:
human nature (egotistical v developmental)
Disagree:
society (Social darwinism v equality and tolerance)
Disagree:
state (harm principle and negative freedom v positive freedom)
To what extent do liberals agree on freedom?
Agree:
All liberals agree that humans should be free to make decisions in their own interests but there is some disagreement over who should be free and freedom from government.
Disagree:
State (social contract Locke and Rawls, positive and negative freedom, harm principle)
- Classical liberal view: NEGATIVE FREEDOM.
They believe in negative freedom, the absence of external restriction or constraints on the individual, often linked to the idea of freedom of choice or policy.
- Modern Liberal view: POSITIVE FREEDOM:
Modern liberals have believed in positive freedom, freedom as self-mastery or self-realisation, a notion that links freedom to personal growth and empowerment.
Disagree:
liberal democracy (support for democracy v concern for over powerful government, Rawls ‘property owning democracy)
Disagree:
individualism (egotistical v developmental, freedom to flourish)
