The Pros And Cons Of Classical Liberalism

1035 Words5 Pages
Throughout the last section’s readings, there have been many examples of different political thought through different aspects, from economic to social. One of these ideologies includes Classical Liberalism, which was argued by the philosophers Hobbes, Locke, and Adam Smith. Over time though, many of the future political writers began to alter their views from what Classical Liberalism’s core beliefs were. The political writers in the course we have been reading from have differed from the ideas of Classical Liberalism, and in effect have caused their generations to think differently about the place of people in social, economic, and individualistic ways. To first find out how the political writers of our section have differed from Classical Liberalism, we should establish first what Classical Liberalism is, and how Hobbes, Locke, and Smith supported these ideas. At its core, Classical Liberalism is “a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom.” Some of Classical Liberalism’s beliefs include advocating private property, consent theory, a free market economy, “rule of law” (The idea that law should govern a nation, rather than the decisions of individual government officials, like a centralized government), constitutional guarantees of freedom (such as freedom of religion and press), international peace based on trade, and most importantly, individualistic. Hobbes followed this political belief, and is
Open Document