liberalism essay quick

human nature beginning

agree humans are rational, morally capable and able to improve themselves

human nature classical liberal

Adam Smith

‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments’ - humans possess natural sympathy and an “impartial spectator'“ (moral tool, allowing us to clear away personal bias to make morally sound judgements)

‘The Wealth of Nations’ - humans have natural propensity to “truck, barter and exchange” —> rational enough to pursue their own interests without the aid of others/the state

human nature modern liberal

J.S. Mill

humans are rational enough to form their own opinions and conduct “experiments in living” (try different choices in life if they dont harm ppl) —> connects to his ‘harm principle’ which rests on the belief humans are the best judges of their own interests —> moral capability

role of the state beginning

believe it should be limited by constitutionalism and separation of powers but notable disagreement about extent of state involvement

role of the state classical liberal

John Locke

state must protect '“life, liberty and estate” with basic involvement (minimal state)

in a free society the state must have a narrow range of functions bc if too many, it can impede our individual liberty

provide institutions like police force, national defence, armies, laws and a judiciary to uphold these laws —> security

role of the state modern liberal

J.S. Mill

adapted the concept of minimal state to enabling state

state intervention for those experiencing injustice in society, state should aid with development ‘developmental individualism’

eg. provision of education for further individual advancement bc an educated society is a progressive society

meritocracy v social justice beginning

agree on formal equality of opportunity (social positions, jobs, resources must be open to everyone, no matter their arbitrary personal characteristics) but disagree over whether this is done by meritocracy or social justice

meritocracy v social justice classical liberal

John Locke

defended ‘natural rights’, especially property

meritocratic society: individuals should be allowed to acquire property + improve their position through effort + if inequality arises from free exchange (market transactions or trade) instead of inherited privilege then its okay

state should not redistribute wealth bc would violate natural rights and undermine the gov bc individual EARNED that wealth and would break trust in gov if they took it away

meritocracy v social justice modern liberal

John Rawls

rejected this as insufficiently fair

natural talents and social starting points are morally arbitrary, so principles of justice (legal and social framework) should be chosen behind a ‘veil of ignorance’, not knowing ones place in society

‘difference principle’ permits inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged eg. progressive taxation, welfare, public education