Classical Liberalism Is A Political Philosophy Originated

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.

Neo-liberalism is associated with economic liberalism whose campaign support provides economic liberations, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation and promoting the role of private institutions present in new society. Classic liberalism criticizes the neo-liberalism objective of introducing liberalization to bring about gradual increase of wealth and freedom among nations, however, classic liberalism explains that instead of realization of wealth and freedom, liberalization resulted to constant fight proposals that threatened the progress of achieving wealth and freedom among nations. Neo-liberalism aimed to prevent and control monopoly situations such that if there are no bodies

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.

Locke and Hobbes started with a central notion that people with similar “state of nature” would on their own accord come together as a state. Locke believed that individual would not perpetually be at war with each other. He believed humans began with a state of natural characteristics of absolute freedom with no government in site. Hobbes work differs from that of Locke’s because he felt people needed a strong central authority to ward off the inherent evil and anarchic state of man. Locke believed that within the state of nature man would have stronger morals and thus limit their actions. Locke also, credited people with the ability to do the right thing within a group. And the natural rights and civil society where Hobbes differentiated with this by believing that people had to resolve their natural rights and the their were privileges granted by the sovereign. Locke believed the relationship between citizens and government took the form of a social contract, in which in exchange for order and protections provided by institutions the citizens agree to surrender some of the freedoms within the state of nature. This was also, agreed that power of the state was not absolute but exercised according to law. If broken by the state it forfeits and the contract becomes void. This allots for the citizens of the state to have a “voice” and power for change to replace the government with moral obligation by the governed. Hobbes believed absolute power was the price man should

Classical liberalism allow an individual to use primary social value of liberty in the political culture that extent until liberties of the others disturbed. Classical liberal ideas often form the basis for opposition to the use of government to attain social and personal objectives. They stress reliance on private the free market to determine the best outcomes rather than the private initiatives [1].

John Locke believed that natural rights were essential to an individual’s life. “... life, liberty and property existed in the state of nature and could never be taken away or even voluntarily given up,” he argued against Hobbes’ opinion, on the people laying down their natural rights of freedom to a single ruler. He deduced that these natural rights were impossible to surrender because they came with human nature. With the idea that individuals had both the right and the responsibility to preserve their own lives with the resources they had.

Ideally, the judgment of people is based on their personal characteristics rather than their group affiliation, minimizing the problem of racism and other forms of bigotry (Franks 28). However, this is a problem with ethnic groups, like American Indians and immigrants, which concerns classical liberals that believe their collectiveness hinders their individual natural rights. Finally, classical liberalism also protects the free marketplace, allowing buyers and sellers to freely circulate ideas in order to achieve the most success (Franks 28). Therefore, the development of capitalism is an important ideology protected by classical liberalism, along with the natural rights of individuals.

The classical liberal ideology emerged as a result of the Enlightenment period, which brought about new philosophies, challenging the existing assumptions about the nature of humankind and society. Modern liberalism developed around 1870 as a result of both philosophical and practical changes, including mass industrialisation. Classical liberals argue that modern liberalism has broken the principles of doctrines central to liberal thought whilst modern liberals claim that they are simply adapting and building on classical liberalist ideas. This essay will discuss the extent to which modern liberalism departs from classical liberalisms by analysing approaches to the size of the state, democracy and the concept of freedom and aims to justify

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are comparable in their basic political ideologies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. The resemblance between Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies are based on a few characteristics of the state of nature and the state of man. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of

In conclusion, even though both readings by Hobbes and Locke, they have the similarities of natural equality, rights and liberty. I agreed with Locke because his ideas inspired the thinking of our founding fathers of this country. Majority of his ideas outline and made the constitution and declaration of independence. His ideas of the social contract, the equality of men, property rights and etc was exclusively the reasons what our society is held on. John locked believed in natural rights. The role of individuals were believing in John Locke. They believed in Locke’s idea that the government had a responsibility to protect the citizen’s natural rights. Everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that is what I mainly

Classical Liberalism is believing that freedom is the most important aspect of politics. John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, and John Locke are considered to be the most predominant political philosophers of classical liberalism. Each one wrote in a different time period, offering a different prospective in their writings. They discussed ideas behind morality and property, elaborating on how humans behave in society. They all make their respective arguments carefully and convincingly, as they seek to understand humans and society. Despite all three political philosophers writing about Classical Liberalism, one makes the most convincing argument. Immanuel Kant has the most convincing argument about

In contrast to Thomas Hobbes, John Locke taken a different approach to what he understands to be the naturally human. While Hobbes sees the human state as one of desire, Locke sees it as one of reason, while believing that the laws of nature prohibit one from harm another in his “life, health, liberty or possession”. For Locke, each individual is free to the extent that their freedom does not violate the ideal of equality, thus liberty should not come at the cost of equality, arguing that “everyone… is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully; so but the like reason when his own preservation come not in competition, ought he, asm much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind” (Locke 1988, p 271). Lockes understanding stems from the idea that humans are God’s property and should not then harm one another in order to secure their own self preservation. He claims that human equality and independence stems from for the existence of certain rights. Locke states that “the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Finn, S.J., 2007. Hobbes: a Guide for the Perplexed. A&C Black, pp 82). Beyond this Locke also claims that human beings are Gods creatures, and because of this humans should not use each other for their own purposes. The analogy

The ideologies of the Democratic Party originate from the principles of the classical liberalism philosophy. The most dominant idea of classical liberalism is that the government's role is to protect the individual's natural rights because individuals are the primary unit of society (Franks 27). According to John Locke, a philosopher who contributed to classical liberalism's vitality, the protection of individuals' "life, liberty, and property" is their natural rights (Jones 227). The ideas of classical liberalism revolves so much around the individual that Locke believes the people had the right to combine into a revolutionary force and organize a new form of government, or a social contract, as they pleased. Because of the importance of the individual, classical liberalism favors immigrants and people of all classes. Ideally, the judgment of people is based on their personal characteristics rather than their group affiliation, minimizing the problem of racism and other forms of bigotry (Franks 28). However, this is a problem with ethnic groups, like American Indians and immigrants, which concerns classical liberals that believe their collectiveness hinders their individual natural rights. Finally, classical liberalism also protects the free marketplace, allowing buyers and sellers to freely circulate ideas in

Unlike Hobbes, Locke had a different approach concerning the state of nature. According to Locke, the law of nature forbids people from doing harm to others. This law protects the life, health and liberty of other people. He defines the law of nature as one that governs the state of nature. In addition, Locke introduces a supreme being concerning laws of nature and rights of nature. Locke writes, “Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy” (Locke, 35). Therefore, humans have no right to deny anther persons chance to live; it is solely up to God because it was through God’s orders that people were sent to the world. Also, God gave everyone a conscious that will help him or her deem moral truths, and the conscious will help people not harm others. In addition, the natural rights entitle an individual the right to one’s own property and body (Locke, 47). Being that, a government is therefore needed to enforce the natural rights, which both Locke and Hobbes agree upon.