Liberalism Flashcards
What is the primacy of the individual?
Individual is most important. Developed at a time where you were born either as a serf (peasant) or as a free individual (occupation). Manifest destiny is the idea that what you’re born into is what God wanted so if you don’t want your position you’re going against God (used to fear God). Liberals questioned God being in control, people have the ability to choose but we don’t have to choose the same thing (individuals), everyone has value. Immanuel Kant argued that all individuals are unique, shouldn’t be used as a ‘means to an end’ but an end of ‘themselves’ (shouldn’t be used)
in control of their own destiny
Who is JS Mill?
Wollstonecraft?
Friedan?
Strands?
JS Mill: classical
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, doesn’t like tyranny of the majority/minority as they limit the individual. Everyone’s opinions hold the same value. Mill only saw men as being capable of having rational thought and value.
Wollstonecraft: classical
1790- she claimed that ‘natural rights’ applied to both men and women. Rights (especially to property) were withheld from women of 18th century English society.
natural rights are right to life and property
Friedan: modern
Demands that society be reformed. She asserted that the patriarchal, male-dominated society conflicted with women’s quest for self-determination so was at odds with individual liberalism
What are the under-represented groups?
Liberal thinkers are concerned about minority groups. Eg.
-the cause of religious nonconformists in 17th century England was championed by Locke
-women in 18th century England (esp. those aspiring to property and education) were championed by Wollstonecraft
-women seeking professional careers in 1960s America were backed by Friedan
-LGBTQ+ minority groups supported by writers like Shon Faye
Liberals keen to protect individuals concerned against ‘dull conformity’ and ‘suffocating convention’ (terms by Mill)
What’s egotistical and developmental individualism?
Egotistical (classical)- humans naturally drawn to advancement of their own selfish interests
Egoism- a concern for one’s own welfare or interests/belief that self interest is an ethical priority
Classical strand means you are your own priority. Christianity says you should be helping other people. Some liberals say you shouldn’t care about anyone, focus only on your self-interests. (atomism- each individual is an ‘isolated atom’). They say human nature is egotistical, self-seeking and self-reliant. Classical liberals say you can never be happy without acting in your own interests, altruism can’t exist (neoclassical say this too)
Developmental individualism (modern)- more optimistic on human nature- you can help others because you care about them (altruism can exist). We’re mainly driven by self-interest but they’re held in check by our social responsibilities (eg. queuing). Classical liberalists are really focused on themselves, modern liberalists say you can’t harm other people to benefit yourself. TH Green equated freedom with self-development and self-fulfilment.
What is rationalism in terms of what encompasses it, moral choices, tolerance and progress?
Everyone is capable of reason and logic. This allows us to make effective moral choices. The Englightenment (guided by science and reason not religion) means we can test theories, don’t just have to accept it. This means you can change what you’re doing to make it work better for you. We have the capacity to weigh out opinions and choose what to believe. Liberals embrace rejection of traditional impulse without your own reasoning, shouldn’t just accept it. Disagree with being impulsive (no reason)
Moral choices:
rational thought allows us to make moral choices. Locke said knowledge comes through experience which allows us to make rational decisions. Mill said if we consider things rationally we’ll agree with the harm principle- the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. The only time you can limit someone’s choices is when they’ll hurt themselves/others.
Rawls had concept of the veil of ignorance- if we ignore all our social characteristics and just use our rationality we’ll accept the 2 principles of justice:
-inequality must benefit even the least advantaged members of society (have to remove fewer/more things to make everyone equal) which will remove all forms of discrimination
-desirable positions in society must be open to all (everyone should have the same opportunities)
Tolerance:
liberals are very tolerant. They support pluralism and diversity of choice and lifestyle.
-‘I detest what you say but defend to the death your right to say it’ (supposedly Voltaire), freedom of speech, your right to say things but also society’s right to disagree/punish you
-moral imperative, Mill says we need to be open to all types of thought (‘free market of ideas’)
Limitations are that we don’t always progress in a linear way but we’re rational individuals so we’ll learn from our mistakes, we’re in control of this.
Progress:
Mill argues we don’t always make the best choices, but we’re rational and will learn. It’s better to make our own mistakes and learn from them. We’re in control of it. Reject paternalism (there’s always someone above you and guiding you) because you need to rationalise if what you’re being told is good advice
What is freedom in terms of the tolerant society and the link between freedom and individualism?
The tolerant society:
Liberalists want a more tolerant society, without which universal self-realisation is impossible. The state should tolerate all actions and opinions unless they were shown to violate the ‘harm principle’. Individuals don’t necessarily seek tolerance in isolation from others. They accept that individuals will be drawn to and rely on societies that tolerate their individualism. But problems like to what extent should a liberal society tolerate minority positions that seem illiberal? How should liberals respond if the agenda of one ‘discriminated against’ minority clashes with another? Their usual response has been to argue that greater ‘enlightenment’ will produce greater, all-round tolerance and consensus. Intolerance and general opposition to liberal ideas are often assumed to stem from ignorance so Mill’s faith in consensus via education remains crucial to the liberal prospect.
The link with freedom:
Early liberals said government couldn’t restrict individuals (egotistical) and needed freedom to make their own choices which is CLASSICAL. Liberals also recognise that freedom can’t be absolute as we maximise our own freedom so developmental individualism (modern)
Liberals want a limited state
‘The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom…where there is no law there is no freedom’ John Locke
Individuals are best at recognising their own needs, by exercising choice over their life they can decide to govern themselves. Freedom is necessary for choice,
Wollstonecraft was a proto feminist and liberal. She was ahead of her time as she argued that natural rights like education and property should also be given to women (should also have freedom to make choices). She said limiting rights to women was illiberal. Education empowers women to have knowledge and skill. This would mean women could be financially independent of men.
What is negative and positive freedom?
These concepts must also be mentioned with Isiah Berlin
Negative freedom:
‘freedom from’
-The right to be left alone without interference from the state or individuals
-In favour of low tax, because taxation takes wealth from the individual without their consent, theft
-Linked to egotistical individualism and classical liberalism
-Equality Act 2010 (freedom from discrimination)
-Rwanda Bill (freedom from uncontrolled migration)
-Preserving natural rights
-classical
-Need laws and rules to maximise freedom
-System with no laws and rules is the state of nature
Positive freedom:
‘freedom to’
-Freedom to be able to use your talents to the best of your ability
-Systems like welfare state and bursaries benefit everyone
-Right to, empowering
-In favour of a welfare state to help those born without a chance to be successful
-Linked to developmental and modern liberalism
-Free to vote
-Freedom of education
-Freedom to organise labour (trade unions)
Liberals want some laws to protect freedom as one person having too much freedom takes away other people’s, but the state can’t have too many rules as it’ll take away individualism. State is a ‘necessary evil’
What is the social contract theory and John Locke’s and John Rawls’ social contracts?
Who else came up with a social contract theory?
A social contract is a hypothetical agreement among individuals who agree to create a state in order to protect themselves from the chaos of the ‘state of nature’.
Many liberals believe the state is man-made, separate from nature. The people who have the most power and control in society work together to maximise their own benefit. Therefore, when freedoms come into conflict there needs to be a court system to arbitrate what’s fair.
Political authority comes from below- based on consent (by the people, for the people). Liberals would say monarchies and dictatorships don’t fit into the social contract. The state acts as a neutral umpire in society- courts are important spaces to resolve conflicts.
John Locke’s social contract:
CLASSICAL
Human beings are born with natural rights- life, liberty and property. These are inalienable. We need a state to protect our natural rights- it’s rational to support this. If the state removes our rights we have a duty to rebel against the state, because it’s going against the social contract where power comes from below.
John Rawls’ social contract:
MODERN
He takes up the ‘original position’ behind his veil of ignorance. Behind the veil no one knows their creed, age, class, gender, wealth etc.
He claimed that people would come up with 2 general principles which form the basis of the contract between the individual and the state
1) ‘each person to have an extensive scheme of basic freedoms’ eg. a safety net
2) ‘any social/economic inequality are to everyone’s benefit’ and society is meritocratic
Jean-Jacques Rousseau came up with the social contract theory (1712-1778)
He agreed with Thomas Paine about right to revolt if your rights are infringed
French Revolution (killed the king)
What are the views on the state?
necessary evil?
constitutional?
fragmented?
representative?
meritocratic?
The state is a necessary evil:
Modern and classical liberals both believe a state is necessary to guarantee freedom as it can ensure order (to protect individuals) and promote a pluralist and tolerant society.
However, humans are self-interested so any individual with lots of power will use it for their pwn ends and may remove freedoms of others (tyranny). Thomas Paine says there’s a fine line between ‘necessary evil’ and ‘intolerable’ evil.
A constitutional (‘limited’) state:
The state’s power should be limited by:
-The preconditions of government- the terms on which the government initially give their consent to be governed, as part of the original social contract between the state and its citizens
-The procedures and method of government, as rationally agreed when the contract between the state and citizens is being reached (enshrined in constitution), human beings are born equal (foundational equality) so they aim to give the same legal and political rights to everyone
A fragmented state:
John Locke believed the state’s power should be fragmented after pre-Enlightenment states (power concentrated in monarchy), it’s more likely to be exercised wisely if it’s shared evenly (Lord Acton thought ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’). It also reflects liberalism’s optimistic view of human nature as if people are generally rational and respectful then many people are empowered. Shown in US constitution as there are ‘checks and balances to prevent concentration of power’, eg. formal separation of powers and in legislation (bicameral), Supreme Court overrides elected government decisions, several state (delegation), devolution, still a quasi-federal state
What are the views on the state?
representative?
meritocratic?
A representative state:
Locke says the state derives its powers from its citizens, not God. Important for liberal state to be reliably representative of citizens. American colonists of 1770s revolted against English Crown due to lack of this, partly inspired by Locke’s theory of ‘government by consent’- ‘no taxation without representation’ so liberal states always include representative bodies like parliaments (accountable). Betty Friedan argued liberals must always reject conservative idea of a paternalistic state, with a quasi-parental obligation to ‘look after’ people. Instead, they must demand legislatures that respect and articulate citizens’ interests.
A meritocratic state:
Must be governed by those who have earned rather than inherited their authority. The liberal state again stands in contrast to the pre-Enlightenment state, where the principle of hereditary power usually applied. Thomas Paine justified French Revolution’s overthrow of nobility in 1790 saying they were ‘beyond equity’.
Meritocracy- the liberal idea that both society and the state should reward individual effort and achievement, rather than inherited advantage
Why do liberals support and are against democracy?
Support:
-It provides the government with consent from individuals
-It protects individuals against over-mighty government
-It fosters personal development via political participation and education
-It promotes political equality (universal adult suffrage)
-It promotes wide and equal access to policy formation, thus generating equilibrium among competing groups of society (pluralism and tolerance)
Against:
-It’s inherited collectivist and so may be insensitive to individual needs/ interests (restricts individual freedom)
-It results in tyranny of the majority that threatens minority groups
-An uneducated electorate may make poor decisions which infringe individual rights
-It leads potentially to economic and social intervention which undermined the free market
-It leads to greater state intervention
-TofM: ‘A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 5% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49’- Thomas Jefferson
What are liberal arguments in favour of democracy?
-Once the masses are given political equality they’ll demand more social equality which leads to more state intervention which limits freedom and choice, enables politicians to use their electoral mandate to claim more power
-Democratic= consent
government power should be based on agreement of the governed (democratic)
idea of consent came from social contract theory
consent expressed through fair and competitive elections
universal adult suffrage, one person one vote, one vote one value, secret ballot, choice of parties, frequent elections
‘Liberal= constitutional government
-constitutions exist to constrain government power
-if people are given too much power they’re likely to abuse it (individuals are driven by self interest) and they’ll use their power/ position to benefit themselves
-greater power= greater capacity for abuse= greater corruption, all systems for rule have the potential for oppression against the individual
-Lord Acton: ‘power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’
-In the Republic Plato argued that democracy would lead to tyranny as the vote would be confined by charismatic leaders who would take power for themselves. Gasset agreed. Eg. Mao
What are liberal arguments against democracy?
-Many early liberals didn’t support democracy. John SM proposed a system of plural voting where professionals and business groups would have more than 1 vote (democracy weighted in favour of the more enlightened members of society). Modern liberals support democracy but nervous of potential tyranny of the majority. By 20th century universal suffrage accepted among all mainstream idealogies.
-
What are the 3 types of equality?
Foundational equality (classical):
Equal moral worth.
Natural rights or human rights. Eg. property, education, personal development
Locke- god-given natural rights ‘life, liberty and property’. Thomas Jefferson said ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. Human rights- necessary for human flourishing
Negative freedom (protecting life, liberty and property), classical, rights given by God, built on egotistical individualism
Formal equality:
Equal legal and political rights. All laws. Rule of the state
Legal rights- equality before the law, right to a fair trial, right to legal representation, habeas corpus etc.
Political rights- suffrage, right to protest, freedom of speech etc. (classical liberal)
-right for women
-right for the LGBT community
-rights for the BAME community
-John Locke believes only men should have formal equality, Wollstonecraft argued women too
Equality of opportunity:
Meritocracy (get to your position in society through skills/ work not birthright)
Positive freedom- each individual should have the same chance to rise/fall in society
Rawls argued that behind a veil of ignorance
