Liberalism 9 Markers
Explain and analyse three ways in which liberal ideas limit individual
freedom.
Point 1
Liberals believe in personal freedom – advocate role for state to limit personal freedom
o Locke’s argument for ‘night-watchman state’ – needed to enhance natural rights and
uses laws to limit personal freedom – John Locke’s contract theory
o ‘Everyone of the members hath quitted this natural power, resigned it up into the
hands of the community in all cases that exclude him nor from appealing for
protection to the law established by it’ – ‘hereby he authorizes the society to make
laws for him as the public good of society shall require’
o Role of state to limit personal freedom in order to enhance the rights – in a truly
individually free society people may not be protected so rationally they would
consent to a government which protects their natural rights and in order to secure
this they may resign some of their sovereignty to this government
Locke argues that complete freedom will lead to the state of nature, which in turn limits
all freedom. The rational individual will therefore create a social contract, through
forming a sovereign state.
The social contract embodies two liberal attitudes towards the state and political
authority:
1. Political authority comes ‘from below’. The state is created by individuals, for
individuals. This implies that citizens do not have absolute obligation to accept
government. When the legitimacy of a government disappears, the people have a
right to rebellion.
2. Social contract theory portrays the state as an umpire or neutral referee in society.
The state is a neutral arbiter, when individuals or groups come into conflict with
each other in a society based upon competition.
Point 2
Limitation of individual freedoms when these actions could harm the freedoms of others
J.S Mill – harm principle
o ‘Only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of
civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others ‘
State interference is not justifiable when it is self-regarding actions but is
justifiable when it is other regarding actions
Mill claimed state interference was unacceptable even when self-
regarding actions were harmful – ‘his own good, either physical or
moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled
to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so’ – ‘over
himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’
o Mill stressed that freedom could be classified by making ‘self-regarding’ rules (the
amount of freedom people should have to do things to themselves, for instance
wear a seat belt or not) and ‘other regarding’ (the freedom to do things to others,
for instance physical violence). Mill argued that ‘self-regarding’ actions should never
be limited. This is known as negative freedom – the absence of restrictions on an
individual’s freedom to act, by bodies such as the state.
Point 3
, Classical liberals believe in negative freedom, which is the absence of external constraints or
restrictions. (The unencumbered individual’- Mill) – laws against discrimination, arranged
marriages, defamation and FGM)
Modern Liberals such as TH Green (1836-82) believed that the unrestrained pursuit of profit
had caused new forms of poverty and injustice, and that economic liberty had blighted the
life chances of many.
o Green suggested that individuals possess social responsibilities, not just individual
ones, and are linked to others. He and other modern liberals were critical of the
classical liberal notion of negative liberty- giving freedom of choice would lead to
unjust actions and exploitation (‘freedom to starve’).
o Modern liberals saw freedom as the ability of the individual to develop and realise
their potential, and achieve fulfilment (positive freedom). This recognises that
liberty may be threatened by social disadvantage and inequality, so it is not enough
for individuals to be ‘left alone’ to ensure liberty.
T.H Green justified prohibition of alcohol – takes away rights from sellers of alcohol due to
them being a ‘vested interest’ who have no right to engage in their trade as it doesn’t
contribute to the common good – individuals cannot be completely personally free to act
upon their self-interest as this could limit other’s capacity for rights
Explain and analyse three ways in which liberal thinkers have
viewed the role of the state
Point 1
Night-watchman state
o Locke’s argument for ‘night-watchman state’ – needed to enhance natural rights and
uses laws to limit personal freedom
Locke – great and chief end of men’s uniting into commonwealths and
putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property
Legislature should only have ‘fiduciary power to act for certain ends’
o Locke’s view that the state’s role was to create a free environment for the individual
to determine his own conception of the good life
o ‘Whatever laws are made must conform to the "law of nature', that is, they must
have the effect of preserving and protecting the lives, liberties, and property of the
citizens. The government does not have the right to undertake policies that would
destroy those things.’
o Adam Smith - laissez-faire economic system based upon market forces of supply and
demand achieves the most efficient allocation of scarce resources.
“We are led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of
our intention.” - “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer,
or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own
interest.”
Individuals can judge better than any statesman what his capital can employ
and what produce is likely to be of the greatest value
State shouldn’t attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought
to employ their capital – too much authority – becomes dangerous
Explain and analyse three ways in which liberal ideas limit individual
freedom.
Point 1
Liberals believe in personal freedom – advocate role for state to limit personal freedom
o Locke’s argument for ‘night-watchman state’ – needed to enhance natural rights and
uses laws to limit personal freedom – John Locke’s contract theory
o ‘Everyone of the members hath quitted this natural power, resigned it up into the
hands of the community in all cases that exclude him nor from appealing for
protection to the law established by it’ – ‘hereby he authorizes the society to make
laws for him as the public good of society shall require’
o Role of state to limit personal freedom in order to enhance the rights – in a truly
individually free society people may not be protected so rationally they would
consent to a government which protects their natural rights and in order to secure
this they may resign some of their sovereignty to this government
Locke argues that complete freedom will lead to the state of nature, which in turn limits
all freedom. The rational individual will therefore create a social contract, through
forming a sovereign state.
The social contract embodies two liberal attitudes towards the state and political
authority:
1. Political authority comes ‘from below’. The state is created by individuals, for
individuals. This implies that citizens do not have absolute obligation to accept
government. When the legitimacy of a government disappears, the people have a
right to rebellion.
2. Social contract theory portrays the state as an umpire or neutral referee in society.
The state is a neutral arbiter, when individuals or groups come into conflict with
each other in a society based upon competition.
Point 2
Limitation of individual freedoms when these actions could harm the freedoms of others
J.S Mill – harm principle
o ‘Only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of
civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others ‘
State interference is not justifiable when it is self-regarding actions but is
justifiable when it is other regarding actions
Mill claimed state interference was unacceptable even when self-
regarding actions were harmful – ‘his own good, either physical or
moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled
to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so’ – ‘over
himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’
o Mill stressed that freedom could be classified by making ‘self-regarding’ rules (the
amount of freedom people should have to do things to themselves, for instance
wear a seat belt or not) and ‘other regarding’ (the freedom to do things to others,
for instance physical violence). Mill argued that ‘self-regarding’ actions should never
be limited. This is known as negative freedom – the absence of restrictions on an
individual’s freedom to act, by bodies such as the state.
Point 3
, Classical liberals believe in negative freedom, which is the absence of external constraints or
restrictions. (The unencumbered individual’- Mill) – laws against discrimination, arranged
marriages, defamation and FGM)
Modern Liberals such as TH Green (1836-82) believed that the unrestrained pursuit of profit
had caused new forms of poverty and injustice, and that economic liberty had blighted the
life chances of many.
o Green suggested that individuals possess social responsibilities, not just individual
ones, and are linked to others. He and other modern liberals were critical of the
classical liberal notion of negative liberty- giving freedom of choice would lead to
unjust actions and exploitation (‘freedom to starve’).
o Modern liberals saw freedom as the ability of the individual to develop and realise
their potential, and achieve fulfilment (positive freedom). This recognises that
liberty may be threatened by social disadvantage and inequality, so it is not enough
for individuals to be ‘left alone’ to ensure liberty.
T.H Green justified prohibition of alcohol – takes away rights from sellers of alcohol due to
them being a ‘vested interest’ who have no right to engage in their trade as it doesn’t
contribute to the common good – individuals cannot be completely personally free to act
upon their self-interest as this could limit other’s capacity for rights
Explain and analyse three ways in which liberal thinkers have
viewed the role of the state
Point 1
Night-watchman state
o Locke’s argument for ‘night-watchman state’ – needed to enhance natural rights and
uses laws to limit personal freedom
Locke – great and chief end of men’s uniting into commonwealths and
putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property
Legislature should only have ‘fiduciary power to act for certain ends’
o Locke’s view that the state’s role was to create a free environment for the individual
to determine his own conception of the good life
o ‘Whatever laws are made must conform to the "law of nature', that is, they must
have the effect of preserving and protecting the lives, liberties, and property of the
citizens. The government does not have the right to undertake policies that would
destroy those things.’
o Adam Smith - laissez-faire economic system based upon market forces of supply and
demand achieves the most efficient allocation of scarce resources.
“We are led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of
our intention.” - “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer,
or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own
interest.”
Individuals can judge better than any statesman what his capital can employ
and what produce is likely to be of the greatest value
State shouldn’t attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought
to employ their capital – too much authority – becomes dangerous
