Modern Liberalism: Rousseau´s Theory of Freedom

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.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an Enlightenment thinker during the eighteenth century and is most noted for his work The Social Contract. The Social Contract published in 1762 and is a philosophical document that expresses the ideas of popular sovereignty. Popular Sovereignty is a form of government in which “the doctrine that sovereign power is vested in the people and that those chosen to govern, as trustees of such power, must exercise it in conformity with the general will.” This is basically a fancy way of saying that the people have the power of authority of their government and the people should decide how they are governed. Like The Social Contract, the Declaration of Independence is a document that sets out to explain the relationship between a government and its people based on an an understanding of that relationship. The Declaration of Independence was composed by Thomas Jefferson in 1766, and shares many of the same ideals as The Social Contract. The Social Contract and the Declaration of Independence are more similar than different because Jean-Jacques Rousseau influenced John Locke, whose Social Contract Theories directly influenced Thomas Jefferson during the writing of the Declaration of Independence.

One has to try as much as possible to try to preserve the rest of humankind from any evil that can happen to the other people. Neo-liberalism emphasizes that all being are equal and independent and no man is supposed to harm each other’s innocent life, health or possession as it recognizes all being as workmanship of on omnipotent (God). Moreover, no man that has the liberty to destroy himself and man should not have more than other hence encourage sharing such thing as power. For example, although people punish each other for transgressions, the offender has the right to seek forgiveness from the offended and can assist the offended to recover from the offended to make satisfaction for the harm he or she suffered. On the other hand, classic liberalism encourages the practice of individualism. For example, the essential feature of individualism from the elements provided by Christianity and the philosophy of classical antiquity was first completely developed during the Renaissance and from that time, it has grown and spread into what is today recognized as Western European civilization. Classic liberalism emphasizes on freedom and liberty hence encouraging men to develop their own individual gifts and bents. Whenever, small one man’s sphere is, he is encouraged to view and observe himself as supreme (Friedrich 7-14).

When Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote his Social Contract, the idea of liberty and freedom were not new theories. Many political thinkers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes had already evolved with their own clarification of liberty and freedom of mankind, and in fact John Locke had already publicized his views and ideas on the social contract as well. In Rousseau’s case, what he did was to transform the ideas incorporated by such substantial words, and present us to another method to the social contract dilemma. What would bring man to leave the state of nature, and enter into a structured civil society? Liberals believes that this was the assurance of protection - liberty to them implied being free from destruction and harm towards one’s property. Rousseau’s concept of freedom was entirely different from that of traditional liberals. According to Rousseau, liberty is meant to voice out your opinion, and participation as human being. “To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man” (Wootton, 454).

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

In the book The Basic Political Writings written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Rousseau in the beginning of the book states a very important question that he hopes to answer in parts throughout the book, the question being: What is the origin of inequality among men, and is it authorized by the natural law? Rousseau takes a different approach than all the other philosophers on trying to figure out the origin of man and their so-called inequality. Rousseau’s point of view on the state of nature differs from other philosophers such as Locke and Hobbes. How do you find the origin of man? Where can the origin of civil society be traced back too? How are men perceived in the state of nature? Does inequality exist in the state of nature? In what

Our freedom is merely conditional, for we can only exercise our right and freedom to a certain extent. As matter of fact, our right and freedom can be taken away by the same law that protect our rights and freedom. But that is the truth of reality, freedom without bound is impossible. The physicality of reality impose restriction, scarcity of recourse and mortality of men. Civilization dictates rules from punishment of crimes to shame and guilt through morality. Thus government, a form of rule, can not truly ensure freedom for its conditional and with limits. Men has long realize such limitation, yet we still yearns for such notion for we are driven by our free will and we seek create such system for we are protected from not just each others but ourselves' own infringement of rights and freedom. Democracy is still our best attempt at this unrealistic dream, the approach is simple, for a system of law made by people for people. We strive to effectively govern ourselves and keep our right and freedom.

According to Rousseau 's “Discourse on Inequality”, there are four stages to the social evolution in humans; it 's natural state, family, nation, and civil society. There are two types of inequalities, natural (or physical) and moral. Natural inequality stems from differences in age, health, or other physical characteristics. Moral inequality is established by convention or consent of men. One of the first and most important questions Rousseau asks is "For how is it possible to know the source of the inequality among men, without knowing men themselves?” (Rousseau, Preface) To answer this question, man cannot be considered as he is now, deformed by society, but as he was in nature. The problem is that as knowledge increases man’s ignorance. This essay, using Rousseau’s “Discourse on Inequality” as a backbone will try and identify the origins of inequality within race, class, gender and sexuality, and establish how these inequalities were brought out and maintained.

While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately,

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.

The term “civil or social liberties” is one that garners a lot of attention and focus from both Rousseau and Mill, although they tackle the subject from slightly different angles. Rousseau believes that the fundamental problem facing people’s capacity to leave the state of nature and enter a society in which their liberty is protected is the ability to “find a form of association that defends and protects the person and goods of each associate with all the common force, and by means of which each one, uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 53). Man is forced to leave the state of nature because their resistance to the obstacles faced is beginning to fail (Rousseau 52). Mill does not

Over the course of history this idea of freedom has been developed and defined by many famous political and philosophical thinkers. Many of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ideas are acknowledged in the “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” and more notably the “The Social Contract”. John Stuart Mill’s major points originate from a book called “On Liberty”. All of these works are still read today and taught in schools around the world. In particular, their ideas on freedom and liberty have drawn a considerable amount of attention. For instance, Rousseau is well known for his idea of “forcing citizens to be free”, while Mill claims that freedom can be found in “pursing our own good in our own way”. Therefore, it is evident that fundamental differences occur between Rousseau’s and Mill’s ideas on liberty and freedom. Rousseau’s rejects this classical liberal idea of freedom of the individual, and instead argues that the highest quality of freedom is achieved through a social contract where collective decisions represent the law and people have a duty to the state, while Mill sees freedom as not being constrained by the government (freedom from laws) and pursuing one’s own good as long as it does no harm to others.

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

First and foremost, I am a proponent of Negative Liberty. Not only does this mean that individuals should be free from external impediments to action by other people, but also that a government should primarily remove obstructions to our freedom, which is in contrast to Positive Liberty, for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. The lack of hindrance to human action will limit government activities and create a free, tolerant society. In addition, Negative Liberty supports the individual freedom of choice and movement. With this in mind, I cannot help but emphasize the significance of the degree to which individuals encounter interferences from others. Some may argue that a government should actively create conditions necessary for self-determination and freedom to act in the presence of internal capacities; however, I interpret that as a sense of entitlement that requires a redistribution of wealth and ultimately violates the human right of private property. For this reason, I find Positive Liberty to be an infringement of others’ liberty. Throughout mankind’s history, there have been many types of oppression that illustrate my support for Negative Liberty, such as the exploitative authoritarian regimes, economic hardships, and racial oppression.

Negative and positive liberty are best understood as distinct values within Berlin’s own scheme of value pluralism. While an increase in either is desirable, ceteris paribus, attempting to maximize any single idea of liberty without regard to any other values necessarily entails absurd and clearly undesirable conclusions; any sensible idea of jointly maximizing freedom in general, therefore, must acknowledge the tradeoffs inherent in increasing one aspect of freedom or another. The tension here is akin to the familiar tradeoff between equity and efficiency concerns in economics; negative and positive freedom are not diametrically opposed, but the two ideals may not be individually maximized at the same time.