LIBERALISM
CLASSICAL AND MODERN LIBERLISM
Rational: we can decide what is positive/negative for us - we are rational beings of thought. Vast majority.
+
Individualism: what is good for you, might be bad for somebody else. This using your rational thought should be
able to act as a human being.
Egotistical individualism - the belief that individual freedom is associated with a rational sense of self-
reliance and self-interest.
Rational thought
Exceptions: Mentally ill - sectioned with liberty taken away, for liberals you would have to be a danger to
other and also Children - not fully capable of rational thought.
Freedom/Liberty: paramount to liberal ideology, the major consideration.
Consequence of liberal ideology: the American constitution, shaped it - entrenched constitutions
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - Liberal expression, quoting the American constitution
Maximise individual freedom, minimise the state (limited government/state or constitutionalism)
Freedom to fail
Constitutionalism: codified constitution is assumed - needed in a limited government society
Try to keep the state in the smallest space possible, to maximise the free space for individuals to operate in.
Minimise the state: the state is a necessary evil, accepted begrudgingly, we must have it
Ronald Regan: "government is not the solution the to our problems, government is the problem"
Limitations: The Harm Principle - John Stewart Mill
You can do what you like, unless its specifically forbidden.
Defends the right of free speech - core right
Offense - your offense in no reason for me not to say it due to freedom of speech
Liberals are scared by the 'slippery slope' argument - if you ban abusive language towards a group, then
what do you ban next?
Nudist beach example: you can't walk around naked, but we have to respect individual freedom. So the
government designate areas to be naked.
Jehovah's witnesses - no blood transfusions or transplants - under 18 have to
Freedom of speech - hate speech - JSM disagrees because freedom of speech is paramount, offence is not a
defence.
Good for vitrail hate speech and physical harm
Issue: tolerating the intolerant (how much can you tolerate somebody saying intolerant things)
TH Green - developmental individualism
The state has a moral obligation to educate the citizens
Developmental individualism
Modern liberals see that there is a common good that works with individual liberty the majority of the time.
John Rawls - equality of opportunity and social justice
Equality of opportunity - requires state intervention, doesn't care as much about equality of outcome (even
though he might seem like he does)
Because he is a liberal and not a socialist he does not care about equality of outcome
Meritocracy - rise up on their individual merits, not status of their birth - but this can lead to a polarisation of
society between the haves and have nots.
Social justice - there must be a healthy level of fairness in the interactions between groups and individuals in
society. Why? Because if we don't have it then it will erode liberty and peoples relationship with the state
(destabilisation of society and the social contract)
How we distribute benefits and burdens
People working 3 jobs with a shit life is not social justice! Important that people aren't exploited.
Criticism - more socialist than liberal (self-identified liberal)
, Veil of ignorance - you don't know what the outcome of your life is going to be - so its fair. If you don't know
if you will be a man or a woman you have to make it fair because you don't know how your life will be.
Criticism - you can't be completely neutral and fair, we can't actually do that
All liberals agree that negative liberty is a foundational liberty (MODERN LIBERALS IN ADDITION need positive
liberalism in transit with negative liberty)
To actually take advantage of negative liberty. The power to act as a rational human being.
BUT when you introduce positive liberty, you are eroding negative liberty.
COUNTER ARGUMENT they aren't really reducing negative liberty (taxes would still be low, space for people
to act, minor interventions and limits, strengthens negative liberty becasue they are actually able to utilise
the liberty that has been given to them) or we have reduced negative liberty but it was worth it - liberty has
increased overall, the pos vs neg lib argument is pointless, all that matters is your own liberty.
NEGATIVE LIBERTY: classical liberalism POSITIVE LIBERTY: modern liberalism
Freedom from... Interference of the state Freedom to...
(minimise the state, maximise the freedom Modern Liberalism
you have) - constrained by a codified Empower / empower people to take
constitution (CONSTITUTIONALISM) advantage of the negative liberty
Classical Liberalism they have been given.
Let you do whatever you want to do - What you are actually able to do -
completely down to the individual how can we help you to do that
ATOMISTIC (state education - to help people
No minimum wage fulfil their potential)
E.g. India - no state interference, but minimal life Redistribution of wealth - to ensure a basic
chances. Freedom from, but not freedom to - equality of oppertunity (not socialist
Negative liberty. Poverty and social status = not free redistribution of wealth).
Minimum wage - intervention
Freedom to fail 'necessary evil' to ensure some level
of social justice
Minimal help to those with disabilities.
Levelling the playing field for people with
Minimal intervention - apart from the armed forces disabilities - by helping them.
Limits on personal freedom
JSM Harm Principle
Works well in the cases of: murder, rape
Doesn't work well with (hard to
measure/find): mental harm,
pollution/environment - indirectly harming
their quality of life
ULEZ (public health) - driving your car in a
city - too much government interference.
ULEZ is fundamentally unliberal as it
interferes with your personal freedom.
Liberals = atomistic, ULEZ = for the greater
good - socialist view
Sectioning people in hospital
MacDonalds: increasing wages in US, Laissez-faire economics (the market is adjusting itself)
Universal base income - modern liberals (leftist) have argued for it.
LIMITING THE GOVERNMENT
CLASSICAL AND MODERN LIBERLISM
Rational: we can decide what is positive/negative for us - we are rational beings of thought. Vast majority.
+
Individualism: what is good for you, might be bad for somebody else. This using your rational thought should be
able to act as a human being.
Egotistical individualism - the belief that individual freedom is associated with a rational sense of self-
reliance and self-interest.
Rational thought
Exceptions: Mentally ill - sectioned with liberty taken away, for liberals you would have to be a danger to
other and also Children - not fully capable of rational thought.
Freedom/Liberty: paramount to liberal ideology, the major consideration.
Consequence of liberal ideology: the American constitution, shaped it - entrenched constitutions
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - Liberal expression, quoting the American constitution
Maximise individual freedom, minimise the state (limited government/state or constitutionalism)
Freedom to fail
Constitutionalism: codified constitution is assumed - needed in a limited government society
Try to keep the state in the smallest space possible, to maximise the free space for individuals to operate in.
Minimise the state: the state is a necessary evil, accepted begrudgingly, we must have it
Ronald Regan: "government is not the solution the to our problems, government is the problem"
Limitations: The Harm Principle - John Stewart Mill
You can do what you like, unless its specifically forbidden.
Defends the right of free speech - core right
Offense - your offense in no reason for me not to say it due to freedom of speech
Liberals are scared by the 'slippery slope' argument - if you ban abusive language towards a group, then
what do you ban next?
Nudist beach example: you can't walk around naked, but we have to respect individual freedom. So the
government designate areas to be naked.
Jehovah's witnesses - no blood transfusions or transplants - under 18 have to
Freedom of speech - hate speech - JSM disagrees because freedom of speech is paramount, offence is not a
defence.
Good for vitrail hate speech and physical harm
Issue: tolerating the intolerant (how much can you tolerate somebody saying intolerant things)
TH Green - developmental individualism
The state has a moral obligation to educate the citizens
Developmental individualism
Modern liberals see that there is a common good that works with individual liberty the majority of the time.
John Rawls - equality of opportunity and social justice
Equality of opportunity - requires state intervention, doesn't care as much about equality of outcome (even
though he might seem like he does)
Because he is a liberal and not a socialist he does not care about equality of outcome
Meritocracy - rise up on their individual merits, not status of their birth - but this can lead to a polarisation of
society between the haves and have nots.
Social justice - there must be a healthy level of fairness in the interactions between groups and individuals in
society. Why? Because if we don't have it then it will erode liberty and peoples relationship with the state
(destabilisation of society and the social contract)
How we distribute benefits and burdens
People working 3 jobs with a shit life is not social justice! Important that people aren't exploited.
Criticism - more socialist than liberal (self-identified liberal)
, Veil of ignorance - you don't know what the outcome of your life is going to be - so its fair. If you don't know
if you will be a man or a woman you have to make it fair because you don't know how your life will be.
Criticism - you can't be completely neutral and fair, we can't actually do that
All liberals agree that negative liberty is a foundational liberty (MODERN LIBERALS IN ADDITION need positive
liberalism in transit with negative liberty)
To actually take advantage of negative liberty. The power to act as a rational human being.
BUT when you introduce positive liberty, you are eroding negative liberty.
COUNTER ARGUMENT they aren't really reducing negative liberty (taxes would still be low, space for people
to act, minor interventions and limits, strengthens negative liberty becasue they are actually able to utilise
the liberty that has been given to them) or we have reduced negative liberty but it was worth it - liberty has
increased overall, the pos vs neg lib argument is pointless, all that matters is your own liberty.
NEGATIVE LIBERTY: classical liberalism POSITIVE LIBERTY: modern liberalism
Freedom from... Interference of the state Freedom to...
(minimise the state, maximise the freedom Modern Liberalism
you have) - constrained by a codified Empower / empower people to take
constitution (CONSTITUTIONALISM) advantage of the negative liberty
Classical Liberalism they have been given.
Let you do whatever you want to do - What you are actually able to do -
completely down to the individual how can we help you to do that
ATOMISTIC (state education - to help people
No minimum wage fulfil their potential)
E.g. India - no state interference, but minimal life Redistribution of wealth - to ensure a basic
chances. Freedom from, but not freedom to - equality of oppertunity (not socialist
Negative liberty. Poverty and social status = not free redistribution of wealth).
Minimum wage - intervention
Freedom to fail 'necessary evil' to ensure some level
of social justice
Minimal help to those with disabilities.
Levelling the playing field for people with
Minimal intervention - apart from the armed forces disabilities - by helping them.
Limits on personal freedom
JSM Harm Principle
Works well in the cases of: murder, rape
Doesn't work well with (hard to
measure/find): mental harm,
pollution/environment - indirectly harming
their quality of life
ULEZ (public health) - driving your car in a
city - too much government interference.
ULEZ is fundamentally unliberal as it
interferes with your personal freedom.
Liberals = atomistic, ULEZ = for the greater
good - socialist view
Sectioning people in hospital
MacDonalds: increasing wages in US, Laissez-faire economics (the market is adjusting itself)
Universal base income - modern liberals (leftist) have argued for it.
LIMITING THE GOVERNMENT
