What Classical and Social Liberals Agree about and What They Disagree about - Coursework Example

ESSAY By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date What Classical and Social Liberals Agree About and What They Disagree About Introduction Central to the most obstinate narratives in contemporary politics as pointed out by Madsen (2010) is the notion that early in the 20th century liberalism lost its way; thus, betraying its principles as well as roots, and was usurped by the philosophy of the welfare state that is currently bearing its name. Liberalism according to Adams (1993, p.12) is the most efficacious ideology of the contemporary world, whereby the Western world ideals are to a great extent liberals ideals. According to Madsen (2010), true liberals criticize the New Deal socialism, and agree to individual liberty, free markets and limited government. Liberty may be described as the state of being free in the society from tyrannical restraints enforced by authority on a person’s behaviour, life or political opinions. As mentioned by Kelly (2005, p.69) whether liberty is a foundational value as pointed out by social liberals, it is achieved from prior value like utility or equality. Both classical and social liberals agree to consent as well as constitutionalism since they are worried that the government can turn out to be oppression against the people, rooted in the belief that power is integrally demeaning, and power concentrations can result in absolute corruption. Basically, this belief is based on how liberals perceive the human nature: as egoism infers egocentricity, that is to say, individuals with power over others are inclined to abuse it for personal gain and without regard for others. Equality can be defined as the state of fairness, particularly in rights, status, as well as opportunities (Zhang et al., 2014, p.39). The relationship of liberalism to democracy as it will be discussed in Essay is uncertain, considering that liberalism has since the 18th century been supporting democratic reform, but democracy has been endorsed unreservedly by only a few liberals. Democracy is a government system wherein power is bestowed on the citizens, who either rule directly or through elections. The essay provides a critical analysis concerning what both classical and social liberals agree about and what they disagree about. Discussion Late in the 19th century, liberalism started dividing into two distinct streams; classical liberalism was one stream, limited ambitions of liberalism intended for creating a robust framework for protecting people from a tyrannical and rapacious state. Classical liberalism intended to control the state size, particularly its expenditure on the military, as well as in promoting international free trade, as a means of promoting peace. Classical liberals value political freedoms, particularly of belief as well as of speech, but are also inclined to view property rights as a crucial embankment against persecution. A number of classical liberals focussed much on what Zafirovski (2007, p.333) terms as libertarianism instead of liberalism where they consider the rights of property as natural rights that subsist beyond the state framework, to an extent that the property rights cannot be redefined by the state devoid of committing a mistake. Social liberalism is the second stream, which also valued political freedom and hold the view that the state must allow people to make their own decisions with regard to how they should live their lives. The duty of the state is protecting the society from invasion and violence of other independent society (Shock & Bullock, 1956, p.27). Akin to classical liberals, social liberals also disagree about militarism and hold the view that international free trade is an effective way of promoting peace. However, social liberals believe that liberalism needed a commitment to an equitable distribution of power and wealth, which consequently resulted in support for public services as well as redistributive taxation as a means of equitable distribution of wealth. Social liberals see democracy as a means of distributing power fairly. In this case, fairness can is perceived both as a form of state legitimacy as well as a form of meaningful freedom. Some classical and social liberals argue that self-interest must be allowed, but others disagree saying that self-interest should be directed carefully so as to benefit everyone (van de Haar, 2009, p.37). Still, the majority argue that it is astute to perceive persons as beings who care much about their own good as compared other people wellbeing. In consequence, this connotes that all self-interested and rational persons will end up competing amongst themselves while trying to support their individual interests. Liberals believe this is healthy, provided that the competition remains within the proper bounds and also remains fair. However, where such proper bounds lie as well as what is fair is where disagreement arises between liberals, with many disagreeing on how competition can be best promoted. Still, both classical and social liberals view competition as a human condition’s natural part. Therefore, human beings are seen by liberals as typically competitive, self-interested, and rational, which connotes that they can live freely (Ball & Dagger, 2004, p.84). Imperatively, both classical and social liberals promote individual liberty in their attempt to ensure equality of opportunity within the society. Classical Marxists hold the view that material equality was both morally right and historically foreseeable (Cohen, 1999, p.103). Similar to classical liberals, social liberals approve a market economy as well as the increase in political and civil rights as well as liberties (Paul et al., 2007, p.187). The welfare state development according to reference has been catastrophic and has generated institutions that serve the interests of the producers without regard for consumers (Seldon, 1991). However, social liberals disagree with classical liberals in that they believe the legitimate government role entails addressing social as well as economic issues like education, health care and poverty. Social liberals acknowledge that the formal political rights existence is not independently adequate to generate a liberal society. The principle that actually sounds modest infers comprehensive public services’ programme that rises above the classical liberal public goods list like defence. Specifically, it indicates a commitment to the far-reaching probable education provision, not for the development of the economy, as in the utilitarian as well as socialist traditions, but so as to make sure that people can practically exercise their democratic rights and not fall prey to demagoguery as well as political fraud. It as well indicates government health care guarantees, considering that people who are sick or continuously in fear of diseases can barely offer their time for public affairs. Liberals agree about the assigning of decision making power to majorities and also agree that decisions on particular issues rest not with the society, but the individual (Samet & Schmeidler, 2003, p.213). Both classical and social liberals agree on democracy on a number of grounds; first, democracy, based on competitive as well as regular elections offers citizens with an important protection against more powerful government; therefore, liberals agree to the principle of consent. Utilitarians as well as natural rights theorists, utilise this argument to justify the franchise extension. Second, pursuing J.S. Mill, democracy has been endorsed by liberals in view of the fact that political participation is a crucial source for individual development as well as personal growth; in other words, democracy do have an educational value (Heywood, 2012, p.42). Third, democracy has been defended by liberals on pluralist grounds, positing that the wider political power distribution among organised groups and people is the only way of guaranteeing stability as well as encouraging equilibrium in the multifaceted contemporary societies; in this sense, democracy is associated with consensus rather than consent. The social liberalism commitment to democracy, particularly with regard to democratic participation, introduces a possible tension point between markets as well as social liberalism. In this case, Pack (2015) posits that markets are principally a means wherein people are able to communicate their abilities as well as their desires to other persons devoid of saying a lot. However, in democracy particularly in its form of participation suggests a form of communication that is much richer. Both democracy and markets utilise rationality practices, but the market rationality is closed (Cramme & Diamond, 2012, p.50). Arguably, social liberals focus on markets due to their capability of dispersing power as well as promoting innovation, but they are sometimes deterred by their impersonality. The classical liberals argue that the government must guarantee rights and support a situation wherein politics seems to be unnecessary. However, social liberals disagree with this assertion referring to the classical liberals’ dream is a treacherous illusion, since there will never exist a society wherein rights are exceedingly resolutely guaranteed such that no political action is required to protect them. Considering that rights can be secured only through human institutions like the legal system and so, social liberals argue that human institutions are occupied by people who are untrustworthy. Therefore, any effort to develop a society that is perfectly non-political can result in the unintentional but serious impact on ultimately making the rights less secure. Classical liberals value the rule of law, but social liberals argue that law must not try to abolish or replace politics. Rather, law must be viewed as a form of frozen or vitrified politics, a valuable form since it intentionally decelerates some types of decision and for the reason that it is committed more firmly as compared to other procedural justice ideas’ political system. Liberal disagreements about democracy arise from the fact that it is integrally collectivist and therefore, pose a threat to individualism; which results in a majority tyranny that threatens individual as well as minority rights. It also promoted intervention from the government that shocks the subtle market economy balance. According to Allen and Thompson (2011, p.24), liberal democracies can be considered as democracies that are qualified, and which allows democracy to operate just within the constraints of the constitution. Therefore, responses addressing the question from a radical democratic or Marxist point of view will be considered as legitimate. Justice is defined as the quality of being fair, and astoundingly, classical liberals like Hayek (1976) argued that the fixation of contemporary liberal on ‘mirage of social justice’ makes them overlook how freedom relies on the decentralized market in terms of the private property (Colander et al., 2004, p.236). Robert Nozick echoes Hayek by arguing that all efforts meant to ensure that the transactions of the market stick to certain holdings’ patterns will continually inhibit individual freedom. Towards the ‘libertarian’ classical liberal spectrum extreme end there are opinions that justify the legitimate monopolies, which could have charged the justice; for instance, taxation is considered legitimate provided that it is essential for protecting property rights and liberty (Gaus, 1996). Furthermore, classical liberals support taxation for social infrastructure as well as other public goods and also supports modest social minimum. According to Brennan and Tomasi (2012, p.115), neoclassical liberals like Matt Zwolinski, Charles Griswold, David Schmidtz, and others, share the commitment of classical liberalism to robust property rights as well as economic liberties while social liberals focus more on social justice. Classical liberals hold the view that the basic structure of the society generates conditions where people have basic liberty, and for that reason can confront one another as equal and free. The society’s basic structure according to Brennan and Tomasi (2012, p.115) is evaluable on the types of outcomes generated for people. Therefore, classical liberals have combined a vigorous commitment similar to that of social liberals to social justice with a more commitment to wide-ranging liberties as compared to those supported by social liberals. Therefore, social liberals have a strong case because they are much committed to liberty, equality as well as social justice as compared to classical liberals who care only about negative freedom as well as formal equality. The majority of liberals and conservatives favour legal or status equality and they all agree that every person should be treated equally and be giving equal legal rights as well as responsibilities (Ashford & Davies, 1991, p.84). Conclusion In conclusion, the essay has provided a critical analysis concerning what both classical and social liberals agree about and what they disagree about. As argued in the essay, Classical liberals are more concerned about individual liberty as well as concentrated power, and how they impact the human freedom. Basically, this concern has made classical liberals to support limited government as well as the rule of law. The differences between social and classical liberalism cannot be exaggerated considering that both start, as well as end, with a perspective that a government that cannot secure political freedom is illegitimate. Both classical and social liberals cast-off the conservative perspective that security is at all times more vital as compared to liberty. This view is attributed to a wildly exaggerated ability of the state to offer security not just due to the state officials’ competence limitations of keeping people safe but as well due to the fact that when the state arbitrary power increases the state becomes more insecure. However, both social and classical liberals agree that security is somewhat crucial, but it is valuable when it contributes to the freedom. Both classical as well as social liberals agree about individualism and acknowledge the essence of freedom as compared to other values, but while classical liberals believe in negative freedom as well as egotistical individualism, social liberals believe in positive freedom as well as developmental individualism. References Adams, I., 1993. Political Ideology Today. In Liberalism and Democracy’. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Allen, M.J. & Thompson, B., 2011. Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law. Oxford: OUP Oxford. Ashford, N. & Davies, S., 1991. A Dictionary of Conservative and Libertarian Thought. London : Routledgeo. Ball, T. & Dagger, ‎., 2004. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal. 5th ed. New York: Pearson Longman. Brennan, a. & Tomasi, J., 2012. Classical Liberalism. In Estlund, D. The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.115 - 184. Cohen, G.A., 1999. If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich? Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Colander, D., Prasch, R.E. & Sheth, F.A., 2004. Race, Liberalism, and Economics. Michigan : University of Michigan Press. Cramme, O. & Diamond, P., 2012. After the Third Way: The Future of Social Democracy in Europe. London: I.B.Tauris. Gaus, G., 1996. Liberalism. [Online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ [Accessed 16 September 2015]. Heywood, A., 2012. Political Ideologies: An Introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kelly, P., 2005. Liberalism and Equality. In Liberalism. Oxford: Polity. pp.69-91. Madsen, M.E., 2010. Liberty “or” Equality, or Liberty “and” Equality? [Online] Available at: http://libertyandequality.org/?p=4 [Accessed 16 September 2015]. Pack, M., 2015. Social Liberalism. What’s it all about? [Online] Available at: http://www.markpack.org.uk/132261/orange-bookers-social-liberalism-whats-it-all-about/ [Accessed 16 September 2015]. Paul, E.F., Miller, F. & Jr, J.P., 2007. Liberalism: Old and New. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Samet, D. & Schmeidler, D., 2003. Between liberalism and democracy. Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 110, pp.213–33. Seldon, A., 1991. Capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell. Shock, M. & Bullock, A., 1956. Liberal Tradition from Fox to Keynes. Oxford: Clarendon. van de Haar, E., 2009. Classical Liberalism and International Relations Theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Zafirovski, M., 2007. Liberal Modernity and Its Adversaries: Freedom, Liberalism and Anti-Liberalism in the 21st Century. Boston, MA: BRILL. Zhang, H., Chan, P.W.K. & Boyle, C., 2014. Equality in Education: Fairness and Inclusion. New York: Springer. Read More