Individual Freedom Is Often Seen As The Core Value Of Liberalism.

Another area in which it is suggested that modern liberalism has departed from classical liberalism is freedom. Classical liberals believe in negative freedom. This is simply that there should be an absence of external constraints on the individual and as such they should be left alone to make their own choices. In this way classical liberals were heavily influenced by the natural rights theories of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson claimed that we were born with inalienable rights and therefore no individual or government had the right to take these away. Freedom from constraints is therefore an essential condition for exercising these rights. In practise, this has meant that classical liberals have advocated a minimal state or what John Locke referred to as the ‘night-watchman state’. The activities of this state should be limited to the enforcement of contracts, maintaining order and protection from foreign threats to prevent the state from infringing on individual liberties as much as possible.

In, The Wealth of Nations, Smith explained why capitalism is the most known economic system. He gives credit to the defenders of the principle parrot his basic arguments. The theme of The Wealth of Nations is what Smith's supporters called the doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism. This doctrine had the world of economics functions under natural laws. It operated exclusively on politics. Government in the economic order of things did not like these natural laws, and said the laws disrupted the nation's economy. The hands-off policy permits citizens to complete economic freedom, and shows that governments could promise the growth of a nation's wealth. Smith realized that under a free enterprise system, individuals would pursue their own self-interests. He said that selfish individuals need competition, so

John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) is recognised as one of the most prolific thinkers of the nineteenth century, whose liberal political philosophy has influenced intellectuals and political theorists for decades (Feinberg, 1986). At the same time, Mill's utilitarian approach to society at large reveals sensibilities and moral considerations that enhance his liberal attitudes in the most surprising ways. According to Losurdo (2011), it is widely believed that Mill is one of the greatest opponents of paternalism, supporting individuals' liberty and autonomy. However, Mill is also accused of overt sentiment, ignorance of natural rights, or a diversion from original conceptions of Utilitarianism. As a result, this essay is concerned with his conception of individuality, as discussed in his On Liberty (1859), investigating how this notion, based on individual liberty and autonomy, opposes social control and paternalistic policies.

Although liberals agree about the value of liberty, their views on what it means to be ‘free’ vary significantly. It was Isaiah Berlin who first created the concepts of negative and positive freedom that helped to differentiate between the two liberals’ views of freedom. The concept of negative freedom was adopted by classical liberals, who believed that freedom was defined as being left alone and free from interference. Classical liberals believed this theory to mean that individuals should be free from external restrictions or constraints. Modern liberals, on the other hand, believed in positive freedom. This, modernist’s perceived to means that all individuals have the ability to be their own master, and thus reach full autonomy. Unlike classical liberals, who had little faith in humankind, Modernists conveyed humans in a much more positive light: people are rational beings that are capable, and therefore should be able, to flourish and

First, negative liberty shifted to positive liberty, because free markets failed to regulate competition. Through negative liberty one believes that freedom comes when there is

3.Who does Smith think should run the economy? Businesses and consumers, people affected by the economy should be allowed to run it without interference from the government.

Taylor determines positive liberty as an “exercise-concept” and negative liberty as an “opportunity-concept”. “Positive liberty [is] concerned with a view of freedom which involves essentially the exercising of control over one’s life”. By this, Taylor asserts that positive liberty is present when one performs the actions they choose. One has negative liberty if one is not coerced due to external forces and has fair distribution of resources. The opportunity concept is a notion of negative liberty because “being free is a matter of what we can do, of what is open to us to do, whether or not we do anything to exercise these options” .

Mill justifies the value of liberalism through a utilitarian approach. Throughout his essay he attempts to show the positive effects of liberty on people and society as a whole. He links liberty with the ability to progress and avoid social stagnation. What is important is his discussion of the appropriate level of authority that society should have over the individual (in chapter four) and applications of this theory that clarify the meaning of his claims (in chapter

An important aspect of Smith's views, were taxes. In one of Smith's many opinions regarding human nature, he explains that the rich, once placed in a position of power, maintain that power through their dealings within a civil government which employs men of inferior wealth, to protect the wealthy lands of the rich. In layman’s terms a community with the bare minimum has little violence since there is nothing to fight over, but one with plush property and wealth, has a plethora of people fighting over one another. This is where Smith's views of taxes comes into play. In his world, the government would impose taxation, with the intentions of discouraging improper or luxurious behavior which he believed did not benefit society as a whole. (Smith, pp.18-20) When discussing human nature in the sociological spectrum, Smith likens humans to animals, or dogs in particular. The typical reliance of animals, once they're matured,on no one but themselves (becoming independents), is a characteristic that humans do not follow. I believe Smith's

Freedom is a necessary principle to abide by in order for the human race to function. On the other hand, freedom can be taken advantage of, thus resulting in harmful consequences to those directly and indirectly involved. The article, “On Liberty” by John S. Mills, places emphasis on the functioning of individual liberty and its co-existence with society. Mills stresses the limits of individual liberty through what is famously known as his Harm Principle: "the only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (Cahn). With special consideration placed on drug use and free

From a political point of view, Smith wrote that Government intervention should be kept to a minimum within society. From a mercantilist point of view this was a terrible suggestion, however Smith argued that government intervention in markets will cause a limitation in productivity, and therefore not maximise efficiency. However if left alone as discussed in the previous paragraph, each party will seek to maximise its own prosperity within the given constraints, in turn maximising the

Isaiah Berlin (1909–97) distinguished between ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ liberty. Classical liberals believed that freedom consists in each person being left alone, free from government interference and able to act in whatever way they may choose: This is a ‘negative’ conception of liberty. While Modern liberals, have been attracted to a more ‘positive’ conception of liberty, defined by Berlin as the ability to be one's own master, to be autonomous. Self-mastery requires that the individual is able to develop or broaden his understanding with the absence of external restrictions or constraints. (Heywood

A central belief of the liberal atmosphere on which western legal systems are fundamentally based is that of negative freedom, to do as one wills, provided that it causes no harm to others. But a question which goes to the heart of the ethics of allowing total individual freedom with minimal intervention from society can be characterized like so; where to draw the line between freedom and condemnation?  When is interference with individuals and their private morality justified? The harm principle, which seeks to introduce personal liberty and its coexistence with society, appears in John Stuart Mill's “On Liberty”, first published in 1859. However, the idea is not black and white - the harm principle can be criticized for its excessive paternalism, lack of clarity, and incomplete handling of certain situations. In this essay, I will argue that Mill thoroughly justifies his theory for the harm principle. To make this argument, I will examine the harm principle, evaluate possible counterarguments, then apply the Harm Principle to a real-life scenario.

Liberalism is a political philosophy that is founded on the ideas of liberty and equality and controls how a society functions. Since liberalism is expressed as a political ideology, it helps dictate how a nation can achieve its national security, its stable economy and the extent of control a government should possess. The perspective of the source illustrates how government intervention is needed during the threat of national security. Although, during times that national security is not being threatened, the collective society should have the freedom to break from the unnecessary government control. A philosopher such as Rousseau would have agreed with the position of the source as it gave an option of security to the people - but also gave them the choice to break the contract if they believed their rights were being violated. While a philosopher such as Hobbes would have disagreed with the source on the terms that he believed in a monarchy and believed that people needed government control at all times. Furthermore, as liberalism provides people their freedoms but also allows a certain extent of government control, the source should be taken to an full extent on the grounds that government control should only be emplaced considering national security, government control, and economic stability - which is shown through the internment of Japanese-Canadians, the New Deal, and the Patriotic Act.

By contrast, “the ‘positive’ sense of the word ‘liberty’ derives from the [individual’s] wish … to be his own master” (178). Exponents of positive liberty focus on internal factors rather than external actors by painting the self as essentially divided, typically into a higher and lower self. The higher of these selves, distinguished perhaps by rationality or length of outlook, represents in some sense the true realization of an individual’s potential, nature, or entity. This being is marked by possessing full self-consciousness, bearing full responsibility for one’s choices, and not being a slave to one’s nature or “unbridled