Liberalism Essay Plans Flashcards
Liberalism economy paragraph 1 - agreement
-agreement as all believe in capitalism
-this comes from importance of private property - Locke believes it’s a natural right under individualism
- Rawls would agree because he still justifies inequality of outcome, given people still want scope for liberty and freedom
-capitalism is the elite system overall
Liberalism economy Intro
More agreement than disagreement
-agreement on capitalism due to property
-some disagreement over the state’s role in the economy
Liberalism economy paragraph 2 - role of the state - disagreement
-neoliberals like Hayek and Classicals like Locke and Smith believe in lassiez faire economics - invisible hand an trickle down if left unmanaged
-justified because of Mill’s idea that negative liberty is the absence of restraint
-Spencer would agree - social Darwinism - those who cannot be self reliant will be eliminated in survival of the fittest - doesn’t want to justify a bigger state
-modern liberals = Keynesian because socio-economic forces make a mockery of autonomous individuals - must help people to help themselves
Liberalism economy P3 - disagreement - taxation
- negative rights means tax is theft
-neoliberals believe it creates dependency culture
-Rawls argues for greater taxation - Veil of Ignorance test means redistribution of wealth aligns with government by consent
-Jeremy Bentham may also justify taxation to create the largest pleasure for largest number of people.
-clear divide
Liberalism economy conclusion
- more agreement over capitalism and it’s purpose is to aid individualism
- while state intervention shows a large divide, they are arguably just adapting to socio-economic forces of the time and have the same intent over the economy
Liberalism society intro
They disagree more than they agree. While they agree on the purpose of society to facilitate the individual, they disagree on the nature on individualism and how the state should respond
Liberalism Paragraph 1 - society - agree
Agree of the purpose of the society to facilitate the individual: Mill’s harm principle.
Any society must improve upon the state of nature under an extended state otherwise it’s irrational and dysfunction.
Locke’s property rights emphasis
Overall agreement
Liberalism - paragraph 2 - society - disagreement
Disagree over the nature of individualism: Egotistical individualism versus individuality which is altruistic. They hence disagree on the extent of welfare support in society. Bentham wants the greatest happiness for greatest number, while Spencer emphasises Social Darwinism.
Large disagreement
Liberalism - paragraph 3 - society - disagreement
Disagreement on how the state should respond to society. Negative liberty means limited government. Intervention = dependency.
Meanwhile, modern thinkers believe in positive liberty and helping others to help themselves: more in line with altruistic individuality.
Large disagreement
Liberalism - conclusion - society
Agreement on purpose is superficial because their ideal state is very different in terms of the nature of individualism and how the state should respond
Liberalism - human nature introduction
broad agreement
Individual and rational beings
Cracks in agreement show as Lock believes in individualism while Mill is focused on individuality and so they differ on how the state should respond.
Liberalism - human nature - agreement
Rational beings - deny divine right of kings
Locke and Mill deny negative view of human nature- instead we are individualistic and drawn to situations that forward our advancement. Egotistical yet sensitive. Therefore Rawls, Wollstonecraft and Mill all advocate for education as it helps us to improve our own lives
Overall agreement
Liberalism - Paragraph 2 - disagreement
How should the state respond to these qualities. Enabling state v Locke, Smiles and Spencer want minimal state as tyranny of minority could curb everybody’s rights. Social Darwinism and harm principle. This argument isn’t as strong as the agreement however, because they fundamentally agree on human nature just disagree on how to respond
Paragraph 3 - liberalism - human nature - agree
should be inequality of outcome in society because of meritocracy. Rawl’s veil of ignorance shows people still want some scope for difference. Locke and classical liberals believe people have their own ability to forge greater human happiness, simply poor have to overcome more hurdles. Overall, they all want inequality of outcome to create more room for liberty and individualism
liberalism - human nature - conclusion
Broad agreement - all rational beings with the ability to forge greater human happiness so there should be some inequality to provide scope for liberty. Some disagreement on how the state should respond to human nature
To what extent to modern and classical liberals united?
More disunited than united
P1 - human nature is positive, rational and able to devise a state and all believe in foundational equality but inequality of outcome. Importance on the individual in society because of our human nature being individualistic
P2 - disagree - economy - taxation, welfare (Bentham and Spencer) and type of economics: laissez faire v keynesian
P3 - disagree - role of the state - enlarged state in line with negative liberty versus enlarged state with veil of ignorance and help others to help themselves
State - intro
Agree
Believe in it’s existence and social contract theory - ‘servant, not master’
Disagreement - winner
Liberalism finds most disagreement when it comes to the state. Classicals want a minimal state while moderns want an enabling state
state - paragraph one
Agree:
Fragmented - would agree with bicameral nature of UK’s parliament
Move away from divine right of kings - rationality
Constitutional state
Mechanistic theory
This should improve on the state of nature
state - paragraph two - disagree
Their view on the state is contradictory:
Enlarged state to support positive rights and secure equality of opportunity (Rawls, Bentham and Freidan) vs a minimal state to ensure negative rights and ongoing consent (Locke and JSM)
P3 - disagree - state
Some agreement on capitalism being the optimum system.
Disagree on how the state should intervene in the economy:
Modern liberals would advocate Keynesian economics, justified through the veil of ignorance
Classical and neo-liberals would argue for laissez faire economics, letting the invisible hand of market forces do it’s job. Anything else creates a dependency culture and if this is more difficult for the poor to overcome factory boundaries, it makes them more rounded people. Overall disagreement
Conclusion - state
all agree on who should have power and what the purpose of the state is, but agreement is largely superficial because of the divide on limited and enabling state as well as laissez faire and keynesian economics.
