Name and Contrast the Freedoms in Liberalism
Liberal ideas arose from the breakdown of the feudal system that was commonplace in Europe, which saw the growth of the capitalist society currently in place. Liberalism was the aspiration of the rising middle classes, which had conflicting interests with the power of absolute monarchs and landed aristocracy.
With this capitalist society, a serf now had the ‘freedom’ to think for themselves; to decide who to work for or where to live, what to buy and so forth. This type of freedom or liberty was a view of early or classical liberalism, where liberty was a natural right, an essential requirement for leading a truly human existence. Later liberals viewed liberty or freedom as a vehicle to only develop their skills and talents and fulfil their potential.
Liberals do not accept individuals have an overall entitlement to freedom, where this freedom can be used to abuse others. John Stuart Mills introduces ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other-regarding’ freedoms where ‘self-regarding’ actions allow individuals to ‘do anything they want’. An ‘Other-regarding’ action restricts or damages the freedoms of others. The law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets can be seen as both ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other-regarding’ whereby the motorcyclists wants to exhibit there freedom by not wearing their helmet (self-regarding) but is restricted by the law of compulsory helmets (other-regarding). An individual may be sovereign over their body and mind, however they must respect the fact everyone enjoys an equal right to liberty.
Isaiah Berlin showed a distinction between a ‘negative’ and a ‘positive’ theory of liberty. The classical or early liberals viewed freedom in the context of being left alone, being able to act however they pleased.
Liberalism is an ideology which advocates equality of opportunity for all within the framework of a system of laws. It includes a belief in government as an institution whose primary function is to define and enforce the laws. Furthermore, a Constitution, must be developed not solely by one ruler but by representatives of the elite groups. Therefore, liberalism invariably involves a belief in the need for legislative bodies which represent the influential groups. The Constitution then defines ...
In Eric Foner’s book, The Story of American Freedom, he writes a historical monograph about how liberty came to be. In the book, his argument does not focus on one fixed definition of freedom like others are tempted to do. Unlike others, Foner describes liberty as an ever changing entity; its definition is fluid and does not change in a linear progress. While others portray liberty as a pre-determined concept and gradually getting better, Foner argues the very history of liberty is constantly reshaping the definition of liberty, itself. Essentially, the multiple and conflicting views on liberty has always been a “terrain of conflict” and has changed in time (Foner xv).
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.
...f such a decision, the government has aright to step in and help the person. This is because at this understanding of the situation, the person is not capable of making a decision that he would likely consent to at after fully understanding the situation. As in the seat belt case, often times, a person does not fully understand that not wearing a seat belt contradicts his true desires and that no possible good or benefit can come from not wearing it. However, when a person is making a rational decision between two things that he values, he is the only person that can decide which is best for him. An important condition to remember in this conclusion is that all of this is assuming that no other individuals are being harmed or put at risk by the actions of these people. Under this condition I have come to the conclusion that there do exist certain circumstances where the government has a right to legal paternalism. These circumstances include times when an individual is unable to make a rational and logical decision for himself either because he does not fully understand the issue or because he is unable to logically assign value to specific possible consequences of a decision.
The definition of freedom depends entirely on how the phrase “freedom from…” ends. Perhaps a most straightforward understanding of freedom is the laissez-faire emphasis on limiting the power of government to interfere in economic and social matters. In this state of absolute freedom, however, inequalities exist between people, so that freedom from a controlling government does not imply individuals’ freedom of contract, movement, legal protection, equal rights through citizenship, or political voice. In light of the persistence of slavery in the US through the 19th century, freedom as an individual’s legal status separated people who could be citizens from people who were lifelong slaves. Even among legally free people, economic inequalities restricted the practical freedom of many, particularly through voting requirements and dependence on a crop lien system that severely restricted mobility and freedom of contract and trade. In the boom of industry, terms like “wage slavery” drew attention to the lack of freedom of working class people to assemble as unions, to contract for a family wage, to receive education and medical care, and to fulfill the “American Dream” of to improving their living conditions through hard work. These inabilities were imposed not by a government that infringed upon personal liberties, but from a harsh capitalist economy that created an increasingly poorer lower class and, despite capitalist rhetoric, restricted social mobility based on merit and sharpened the division between socioeconomic classes. By the turn of the twentieth century, groups like the Populists and Progressives were calling for radical changes in government oversight of business, expansion of national currency, and subsequent redist...
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.
Liberalism is an ideology and due to the changing views of historical persons, who have each viewed themselves to be Liberals, is difficult to define precisely. There are five agreed defining tenants of Liberalism. The most important of these, percolating through the ideology, is the ‘Importance of the Individual’, and closely interlinked with this is ‘Freedom’, which leads on to the concept of ‘Individual Freedom or liberty’. Liberals believe that humankind is a rational species, and thus ‘Reason’ is a third tenant. Furthermore Liberalism advocates that the principle of ‘Justice’ and Toleration’ are fundamental in the well being of society and each of these aspects relates directly back to the quintessential first tenant. Liberalism, according to Habermas “emphasizes individual freedom from restraint and is usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard; c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.” As an individualist, rather than a collectivist ideology the individual is placed as the building block of society. J. S. Mill says ...
Mill’s concept of liberty focused on the individuals and ”defend the rights of individuals which involved civil liberties, individuality and personal autonomy” (Gabriel, 2010). In Mill’s book itself ‘On Liberty’ pointed out a few thoughts and ideas regarding how liberty of individuals and the response from the author...
Throughout history freedom has had many different meanings and definitions; based on race, gender, and ethnicity. According to the dictionary freedom means the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint (“freedom” def. 1). Freedom may seem like something given to everyone however it was something workers had to fight for. Not everyone believed that workers’ rights needed to be changed, which led to a long battle between workers, employers and the government. To the working class people freedom meant making higher wages, having regulated hours, workable conditions and the right to free speech.
The philosophers who disagree with the era of liberalism are called the followers of Enlightenment. British and German thinkers are followers of enlightenment. They said that enlightenment is the source of liberalism. Because of enlightenment, the meritocracy and innovation came into the world. Division of labor and specialization are also the product of enlightenment and liberalism.
The term `freedom' is often associated with the notion of living free of restraint and having an unfettered liberty to engage in rational actions with a sense that that our actions will not be controlled or interfered with. Given the above definition of freedom and the principles of positive and negative freedom, this essay shall seek to demonstrate that while they do not experience freedom fully, the proles are more free than Winston in Nineteen Eighty-Four. This essay shall also discuss the reasons why we consider freedom to be important with a particular focus on our assumptions of human nature and its components.
To start, Liberalism traces its roots back to the Enlightenment period (Mingst, 2008) where many philosophers and thinkers of the time began to question the established status quo. Such as the prevailing belief in religious superstition and began to replace it with a more rational mode of thinking and a belief in the intrinsic goodness of mankind. The Enlightenment period influenced Liberalism’s belief that human beings are thinkers who are able to naturally understand the laws governing human social conduct and by understanding these laws, humans can better their condition and live in harmony with others (Mingst, 2008). Two of the most prominent Liberal Internationalists of the Enlightenment period were Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham who both thought that international relations were conducted in a brutal fashion. It was Kant who compared international relations as “the lawless state of savagery” (Baylis and Smith, 2001, pp 165). It was also Kant who believed nations could form themselves into a sort of united states and overcome international anarchy through this (Mingst, 2008). This was probably the beginning of a coherent belief in a sort of union of sovereign states. Toward the end of the seventeenth century William Penn believed a ‘diet’ (parliament) could be set up in Europe, like the European Union of today (Baylis and Smith, 2001). We can see much of this liberal thinking today in organizations such as the United Nations.
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.
The word liberal is derived from the Latin word liber which means free man. Liberalism is also a derivative of liber. The central idea of all these words is freedom or liberty. Liberal also denotes generosity or open-mindedness. Open-mindedness/generosity indicate liberty in taking food, drink, social attitude, behavior and selection of the
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have