Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on being a liberalist
Essays on being a liberalist
Strength and weakness of classical liberal theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Individual freedom is often seen as the core value of Liberalism. Nevertheless, freedom can be divided into two categories: negative and positive. Negative freedom, which is traditionally associated with Classical Liberalism, advocates the belief in non-interference, the absence of all external constraints upon the individual. This implies that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests free from outside restrictions or pressures. Nonetheless, negative freedom does not mean that individuals should have absolute and unrestricted freedom. Classical liberals, such as J.S. Mill, believe that if freedom is unlimited it can lead to “license”, namely the right to harm others or to infringe their “natural” rights to “life, liberty and property”. In this way, Classical Liberals often support minimal restrictions on the individual so as to prevent individuals from inflicting harm upon each other. However, it should be borne in mind that Classical Liberals do not accept any constraints upon the individual that prevent him from damaging himself, physically or mentally, since the individual still remains sovereign. Such a view of freedom means that classical liberals generally advocate the establishment of a minimal or “nightwatch” state, whose role is limited to the protection of individuals from other individuals. Tom Paine described the state as a “necessary evil”. It is necessary in that it establishes order and security and ensures that contracts are carried out. Yet, it is “evil” since it enforces collective will upon society, thus constraining individual freedom. Negative freedom also supports economic freedom. Classical Li... ... middle of paper ... ...cting beliefs and interests should be free to develop, pluralism and toleration allow these groups to co-exist peacefully, accepting each other’s different beliefs. Toleration and pluralism thus allow humans, who are all unique and individual, to express their various beliefs and ideologies freely within society. It should also be noted that Liberals support pluralism since it promotes distribution of political power. With power widely and evenly dispersed in society, rather than concentrated in the hands of the elite, pluralism complements democracy and ensures that those in charge respect the concerns and interests of the individual. In conclusion, it can be seen that pluralism and toleration are widely supported by liberals since they promote individual sovereignty whilst benefiting society at the same time.
Liberal freedom is the absence of subjective legal or institutional restraints on the individual, containing the idea that all citizens are to be treated equally. Freedom as self-government involves an assumed individual state of independence, self-determination, superiority, and self-confidence. Participatory freedom includes the right to the individual to partake fully in the political process. Collective deliverance is agreed as the liberation of a group from outside control-from imprisonment, bondage, or domination. (Walton Jr & Smith,
These people live in distinct environments and for that reason develop distinct opinions and interests. The factions will have different number of people that support it, meaning that one faction will be the majority and the other will be the minority and could potentially lead to the Tyranny of Majority. If all the power is left at the hands of the majority, it is very likely that the majority will trample on the rights of the minority. Since people will never have the same opinion as long as they are free to think, then a solution to the Paradox of Classical Liberalism: the Tyranny of Majority is to form a republic with elected representatives.
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government are influential literary works while which outlining the theoretical framework of each thinkers optimal state propose two conflicting visions of the very essence of man and his freedom. Locke and Mill have completely different views when it comes to how much freedom man should have in political society because they have obtained different views about man’s potential of inheriting pure or evil behavior.
John Locke is best seen as the “Father of Classical Liberalism” making him one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers during the 17th-century, considered as the era of modern philosophy. Locke puts his trust in human reasoning because he believes that all humans are born equal, stating that no one has power above another person and that they have the right to commit the actions that each one pleases to do so. In the Second Treatise of Government Locke says, “we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man” (Locke 8). Locke explains how men are reasonable when they make decisions, leaving it entirely up to the person to do as ...
Liberalism a political philosophy that focuses on the ideas of freedoms and equality. There are two major types of liberalism; classical liberalism and modern liberalism, both focuses on the people and their wellbeing, rights, and equality. The source focuses on modern liberalism with the government having power but also having the people opinionated. John Locke an English philosopher who had a theory that reflects the source and its points in the way the government should put the programs in and have the public’s opinion at the same time. Another philosopher who agreed with the second part of the source is Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed that the people should give up their freedoms for security that also include the freedom of opinion. In
Somewhere near the heart of much contemporary liberal political theory is the claim that if the state restricts an agent's liberty, its restrictions should have some rationale that is defensible to each of those whose liberty is constrained. Liberals are committed to the "requirement that all aspects of the social order should either be made acceptable or be capable of being made acceptable to every last individual." But there are many kinds of claim which are particularly controversial, many about which we expect reasonable disagreement. Coercive policies should not be justified on the basis of such controversial grounds; rather, they should enjoy public justification. That coercive policy should enjoy public justification implies that political actors are subject to various principles of restraint, that is, that they should restrain themselves from supporting policies solely on the basis of excessively controversial grounds. The point of advocating restraint is to achieve a minimal moral conception, a core morality, which is rationally acceptable to all and which provides the ground rules for political association.
This essay will focus on establishing an accurate definition of Negative Freedom and Positive Freedom and will also focus on establishing an accurate differentiation between Positive and Negative Freedom, only once a clear cut differentiation and definition between Positive and Negative Freedoms. The latter part of the essay will focus on establishing which type of freedom, Negative or Positive Freedoms, should be valued over the other type of freedom and will then extrapolate a deductively sound reason as to why one freedom should be valued over the other freedom.
John Locke (1632-1704) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are two important thinkers of liberty in modern political thought. They have revolutionized the idea of human freedom at their time and have influenced many political thinkers afterwards. Although their important book on human freedom, John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government (1689) and John Mill’s On Liberty (1859), are separated 170 years, some scholars thinks that they are belonging to the same conceptual tradition, English Liberalism. In this essay, I will elaborate John Locke and John Stuart Mill view on human freedom and try to find the difference between their concept of human freedom despite their similar liberal tradition background.
Liberty is a freedom. According to Mill, liberty is limited with the state’s authority. In the concept of liberty, he adopted the utilitarianism which means the system of thought by states regarding the best actions and decisions in a specific situations which brings advantages to many people in the society. Therefore, Philio Gabriel (2010) highlighted Will’s concept of liberty with the moral theory of utilitarianism whereas individuals themselves being a judges for their consequences.
According to Eric Foner, “The boundaries of freedom that determine who is entitled to enjoy freedom and who is not…have changed over time.” Throughout America’s history, different groups have settled and inhabited the land. Each group arrived with their own concepts and beliefs regarding freedom. Freedom is defined as being free from control or constraints. Over time, however, this definition would change to fit the customs and beliefs of one group over another. Changes in freedom had occurred numerous times in American history for a number of people, whether it be in the form of national freedom, individual freedom, or religious freedom.
Eck, Diana L. “From Diversity to Pluralism” The Pluralism Project at Harvard University. Harvard University, 2011. Web. 10 Oct. 2011.
In the novel, Brave New World, by Adolous Huxley we are introduced to a world where an all-powerful government dictates the occupation, intelligence, morals, and values of an individual. The government known as the World State controls the entire process of a human, from life to death. The society is based almost solely on an consumer foundation, where making money is the sole goal of the government. Although the society is radical in its nature there are certain aspects of modern ideology that are present in it. For the purpose of this essay only conservatism will be used to analyze the society of the World State. In latter paragraphs you will see the similarities and differences between conservatism and the government of the Brave New World. Though there are very distinct differences, in many ways the conservative ideology supports the World State.
Freedom is defined as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. In An Indian’s View of Indian Affairs, Chief Joseph petitions for freedom. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech is a call for freedom. The texts written by Chief Joseph and King share many similar philosophies because the situations faced by two cultures, which are embodied in the texts, are similar. Chief Joseph represents a group of Native Americans who are restricted to land that they do not covet. Euro-Americans use lies and armed forces to press the Native Americans off desired territories and onto wastelands. King represents African-Americans who were neglected the rights and opportunity white people owned. King’s speech addresses the fact that African-Americans were held down with violence and segregation. Chief Joseph’s narrative focuses on the issue of broken promises by dominant Euro-Americans. In the end of these two proclamations, both the authors ask for the key to freedom, equality. Chief Joseph’s Narrative and Martin Luther King’s Speech share numerous ideals that all relate to the two culture’s struggles for freedom, while the two contrast because these movements are not completely the same.
Unfortunately, the author never presents a wholly sound distinction between negative and positive liberty, as each negative liberty can logically render itself a positive one. Berlin’s final arguments suggest pluralism, highlighting that there is no single compatible goal or ideal uniform for all individuals; Berlin is clear that a strict minimum of negative liberty is necessary. His estimations of such implications of liberty are both logical and convincing: that an intrusion on the rights of others will always occur in the case of one’s heightened liberty, and that any endeavour to broaden one’s liberty would require the restructuring of the definition of freedom itself. Liberty, according to Berlin, is not committed to democracy; thus, just as authority must be limited for liberty to subsist, so must liberty be restrained for it to be of any significance.