Classical Liberalism And Its Influence On Today's Society

The further development of industrialisation led to social and economic inequality. This led to a revision of classical liberal ideas to prevent the spread of ignorance and poverty. It is suggested that modern liberals have betrayed classical liberal ideas as they embrace collectivism and diverge from classical liberalism on issues such as freedom. However, it can be argued that modern liberals have simply built on classical liberal ideas such as its commitment to the individual.

This essay argues that John Stuart Mill's On Liberty presents a strong case for individuality of citizens, challenging the role of paternalism through autonomous social progress and utilitarian values. On the other hand, it is shown that Mill's arguments against public regulations are very narrow, and his own ideas frequently adhere to paternalism, thus creating a weak defence against state control politics.

Typically, liberalism is categorised into two separate components; classical liberalism, which was fashioned during the 19th century as a result of the industrial revolution, and the more recent Modern Liberalism which emerged as industrialisation continued within the UK. Although both divisions of Liberalism unavoidably overlap in attitudes and approaches regarding the theory behind the ideology, I believe, fundamentally, that clear tensions between these aspects of Liberalism are more evident when analysing this ideology.

Typically Liberalism can be categorized into two different strands, Classical and Modern (yet some thinkers advocate a third strand that is referred to as Neo-Liberalism), each characterized by their differing and to some extent unavoidably overlapping attitudes regarding the theory behind the ideology and how it should be put into practice. Prior to examining how these relate to one another and before making any comparisons, it is important to give a definition, as best as possible, of Liberalism as a concept.

One principal proclaimed by anti-paternalist writer J.S Mill, “is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” In Mill’s proclamation, not one simple principle is being emphasized, but rather a few intricate opinions regarding an individual’s own good. He is asserting that self-protection or the prevention of harm to others is sometimes sufficient and that someone’s own good is never a sufficient authorization for the exercise of domination.

This paper will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument about the freedom of expression of opinion, and how Mill justified that freedom. I will also discuss how strong his argument was and whether or not I agree with it. John Stuart Mill was a political economist, civil servant, and most importantly an English philosopher from the nineteenth century. Throughout his writing, John Stuart Mill touched on the issues of liberty, freedom and other human rights. In his philosophical work, On Liberty, he discussed the relationship between authority and liberty, as well as the importance of individuality in society. In chapter two of On Liberty, Mill examined the freedom of expression in more detail, examining arguments for and against his own.

John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher and a political economist, had an important part in forming liberal thought in the 19th century. Mill published his best-known work, _On Liberty,_ in 1859. This foundational book discusses the concept of liberty. It talks about the nature and the limits of the power performed by society over an individual. The book also deals with the freedom of people to engage in whatever they wish as long as it does not harm other persons.

The Classical Liberal ideology began to really take form in the late 18th century as a result of the unrest caused by the British Parliamentarians’ decisions and the effects of the industrial revolution and globalization that were beginning to take form. Feudalism, the existing economic system was composed of peasants, employed around 80% of England’s population in 1520 and now was starting to face harsh criticism. The government and ruling wealthy class of people were immensely powerful in the economy at that time while the common person was a poor farmer or peasant. They needed to pay “lords”, or nobles, for land, resources, and protection. Furthermore it was not uncommon to

In this excerpt and the essay On Liberty (1859) as a whole John Stuart Mill seeks to set out the guidelines for when liberty can be justly infringed upon and uses examples to show when liberty is unjustly infringed upon by society or an authority within society. During this excerpt John Stuart Mill sets out the ‘Harm principle’ which would come to be influential in both classical liberalism and modern day liberalism. The harm principle states that “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill, On Liberty, p13). In this he is placing the individual at the centre of liberalism and the individual’s freedom as one of the cornerstones of liberalism which still persists to this day.

Mill discusses that in ancient times liberty was outlined as protection against the tyranny of political rulers. However, he supported the new self-government and the giving people power over themselves. He feared though that when people governed themselves power tended to lie in those who were accepted by the majority or in people who made themselves accepted by the majority and individual ideas were overruled, leading to tyranny by the majority. He discusses that “Wherever there is an ascendant class, a large portion of the morality of the country emanates from its class interests.” Mill believed when the majority learns to feel the power of their government, their individual liberty will be exposed to invasion of the government. The essay describes the fact that a majority can practice a social tyranny that can be far more oppressive than many kinds of political oppression. However, Mill sees that utility, the greatest good for the greatest number is important in keeping a stable society. He saw though that a tyranny of the majority can cause individual opinions to be quietened and stop eccentricity for the individual. Thus, Mill places forward the idea that a when society ruled by a tyranny of the majority, individuality can be

This essay will assess the relationship between liberalism and conservatism by exploring the differences in ideological beliefs of these two ideologies. Ideology can be defined as “set of interrelated and more or less coherent ideas” that constitutes of both “descriptive and normative element” on how a society works (Heywood, 2007, pp. 6-7). One of the most popular ideology in contemporary politics is liberalism which accord individual liberty and free market as its primary priority. On the other hand, conservatism is generally known for advocating tradition, societal state and authority. Firstly, we will look at theories developed by liberalism and conservatism on creation of state. It would then be followed by liberalism’s notion of individuality and individual liberty versus conservatism’s emphasis on individual imperfectionism and need for society. Thereafter, we will observe liberalism and conservatism as political ideology and how it has evolved over time. The essay will be summed up by a conclusion in the end. The terms, liberalism and conservatism mentioned in this essay are intended to be synonymous to their traditional or classical thoughts and beliefs. Every argument presented in this essay are intended to support the claim that liberalism and conservatism are not compatible ideologies. By compatible, I meant being consistent without any disagreements.

Mill wastes no time in articulating the central thesis of On Liberty; he states, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" (69). Mill, then, does not make the individual more important than society, but he separates the individual from society and articulates a realm of existence in which society, or the community, should have no power over the individual. Mill states, "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection…His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (68). Society, therefore, has no right to intervene in the private life of any person, unless they act in such a way that prevents others from enjoying their own rights.

On John Stuart Mill’s production On Liberty has not only became one of the most widely known political and philosophical writing, but also produces one of the fundamental political questions on finding the balance in between liberty, democracy and authority. Although Mill’s writing was deeply influenced by Bentham’s Utilitarianism philosophy, Mill’s theory in On Liberty emphasized more around the value of individuality, equality and liberty (Donner, 1991; Skorupski, 1998). All three elements focused on by Mill, are closely connected in democratic society, Mill’s major fear was the emergence of dictatorship based on majoritarian and conformist behavior within a society (Skorupski, 2006). This essay will focus on examining Mill’s liberal

Also noted by Mill, dating back to centuries ago the minority was heavily protected by the authority. the stronger. “To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed upon by innumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger that the rest” ( Mill, 2) With that said, Mill’s essay speaks strongly on “demanding liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive sense, liberty of thought and feeling, absolute freedom on opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical, or speculative, scientific, moral or theological” (Mill 71) believing that we have the freedom to direct our own destiny.

Liberalism was an important concept but it also lost some of its importance in order to emerge as a new form. In the today’s world hardly any one speaks for the freedom and democracy