Liberalism:
John Locke: Two Treatises of Government
CLASSICAL LIBERAL
IMPACT - his belief in the separation of powers could have influenced the American system of government
On Human Nature: Locke believed that prior to the state’s existence, there was a state of nature which was a state of nature which was guided by
rationalism, nature laws and natural rights e.g. the right to ‘life, liberty and estate’.
On the state: John Locke argues that the state must be representative, based on the consent of the governed. He denied the traditional, medieval
principle that the state was a part of God’s creation. He rejected the ‘divine right of kings’ and that ordinary people were subjects of the state, with
quasi-religious obligation to obey the monarch’s rulings: the ‘true’ state would be one made by mankind to serve mankind’s interests and would
arise only from the consent of those who would be governed by it. The ‘state of law’ (modern state) would be legitimate only if it respected natural
rights and natural laws, therefore ensuring that individuals living under formal laws were never consistently worse off than they had been in the
state of nature. The state’s structures must therefore embody the natural rights and natural liberties that preceded it. Locke’s idea, state would
always reflect the principle that it’s citizens had voluntarily consented to accept the state’s rulings in return for the state improving their situation
(social contract theory). Due to its contractual nature, the fiduciary state would have to embody the principle of limited government - limited to
always representing the interests of the governed and always requiring the ongoing consent of the governed. The state’s would be limited through
the separation of powers. The executive, legislature and the judiciary would be separate. Locke also believed in the promotion of tolerance, in the
wake of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which cemented Protestant supremacy in England, Locke said that the post-Revolution state should
extend towards Roman Catholics.
On society: All liberals see society as a collection of the diverse and potentially autonomous individuals, seeking self-determination,
self-realisation and self-fulfilment. He promoted tolerance within religion which was even more important considering that many Catholics were
being tortured for their religious beliefs. He sees society’s will as being more important than the individual.
On the economy: State policy should respect the ‘natural right’ to private property and arbitrate effectively between individuals competing for trade
and resources. Locke would have supported Adam Smith’s thesis in The Wealth of Nations (1776) that the state should adopt a laissez-faire
(minimal government interference, letting the economy do its thing) attitude to the economy. Both Smith and Locke believe that the legal
protection of property is important to a well-functioning social order. Locke said the right to property is ‘that with which Man has mixed his labour’.
The belief that property is a natural right would mean that all liberals would support economic liberalism (capitalism).
John Stuart Mill: On Liberty 1859
On human nature: Though it is fundamentally rational, human nature is not fixed: it is forever progressing to a higher level. He saw liberty as the
engine of ongoing human development, there was always room for improvement. He proposed developmental individualism in which he focuses
on what individuals could become rather than what they had become. It explained Mill’s strong emphasis upon the value of formal education
within a liberal society. He famously stated that it was ‘better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’, while any support for liberty had to
be ‘grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being’. Mill believed that intelligence and rationalism were potential features of
human nature that could be developed by enlightened liberal authorities. This is why modern liberals endorse Mill’s concept of individuality - one
that refers to what individuals could become, once ‘enabled’ to fulfil their potential. He said that liberty was a natural right and the engine for
ongoing human development.
On the state: He believed that the state should proceed cautiously towards representative democracy, mindful of minority rights, but said the ideal
state would be democratic and representative. Mill was concerned about the tyranny of the majority and argued for a representative democracy in
which the enlarged electorate would elect liberally minded representatives to make decisions for them. He believed in tolerance. The
representatives would seek to aggregate the various opinions within society and produce a broad consent of all. Mill was against direct
democracy as it contributed to the tyranny of the majority. In On Liberty (1859), Mill promotes negative liberty and freedom which was freedom
without restraint, this led him to believe that state intervention should be minimal and individuals should be able to do what they want unless they
harm others (harm principle). Mill argued that the state should tolerate all actions and opinions unless they violate the harm principle - the
principle that individuals should be free to do and say anything unless their ‘other regarding actions’ could harm the rights and freedoms of others.
‘Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’. Mill distinguished ‘individualism’ and ‘individuality’ which had crucial
implications for how he approached democracy. He was concerned that government by consent would be compromised if the wishes of some
individual citizens were overwhelmed by the wishes of most individual citizens. Mill feared that a democratic state could create a tyranny of the
majority.
On society: Mill believed that the best society was one where individuality co-existed with tolerance and self-improvement. Mill divided human
actions into ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other regarding’. Self-regarding actions (like engaging in worship or expressing personal views) didn’t impinge on
the freedom of others in society and therefore should be tolerated, whereas other regarding actions (involving violent or riotous behaviour) clearly
did ‘harm’ the freedom of others in society and therefore shouldn’t be tolerated by a liberal state. The tolerance of diverse opinions was especially
important because it would ensure new ideas emerged while had ideas were exposed via open, rational debate. This links to Voltaire arguing ‘I
detest what you say but will defend unto the death your right to say it’. Mill argued that the purpose of any civilised society was to facilitate
individualism. He argued that every individual has a unique personality and peculiar talents; that they are rational in their self-interest; and that
individuals are egotistical, driven by a wish to fulfil their potential and a desire to be self-reliant and independent. Every individual therefore seeks
freedom. This meant freedom from any dependency on others and the freedom to live one’s life in a way that maximises self-reliance and
self-fulfilment. Mill argued that universal suffrage must be preceded by universal education, hoping thus would promote developmental
individualism. Advancing individual potential would produce a liberal consensus in society, which would in turn safeguard tolerance, reason and
individualism. Once widespread education had been secured, democracy could actually further liberal values - promoting, for example, political
education and opportunities for enlightening debate which would allow for ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’. He believed in
electoral reform, advocated for female emancipation and favoured proportional representation but wanted a minimal state.
On the economy: Laissez-faire capitalism was vital to progress, individual enterprise and individual initiative, but he wanted to prevent private
monopolies. Property was how liberals could develop their potential, providing an opportunity, within civilised communities, for men and women to
nurture their taste and judgement.
, T.H.Green:
MODERN LIBERAL
On human nature: Green suggested that individuals possess social responsibilities, not just individual ones, and are linked to others. He and
other modern liberals were critical of the classical liberal notion of negative liberty- giving freedom of choice would lead to unjust actions and
exploitation (‘freedom to starve’). Modern liberals saw freedom as the ability of the individual to develop and realise their potential, and achieve
fulfilment (positive freedom). This recognises that liberty may be threatened by social disadvantage and inequality, so it is not enough for
individuals to be ‘left alone’ to ensure liberty.
On the state: Green believed that the state should enable and protect the social, political and economic environments in which individuals will
have the best chance of acting according to their consciences. However, the state must be careful when deciding which liberties to curtail and in
which ways to curtail them. He believed that over-enthusiastic state intervention could prevent opportunities for conscientious action thereby
stifling the moral development of the individual. The state should intervene only where there is a clear, proven and strong tendency of a liberty to
curb the liberties of another, for example through slavery. Increased role of the state is necessary to promote positive liberty - ability to realise
one’s own aspirations and to promote moral improvement e.g.restricting the sale of alcohol. The state needed to get involved to promote social
reforms and stop poverty in order to ensure freedom for all.
On society: He argued that we have an obligation to care for the welfare of others and that it is possible to enjoy our own liberty without losing a
sense of social responsibility. He believed in an organic society in which society is a single entity - a living organism with a life of its own, which
exists above the consciousness of individuals. This implies society can have a collective consciousness, dubbed Volksgemeinschaft by the
Germans. Green proposed measures to reduce inherited privilege and to provide equality of opportunity through education.
On the economy: He challenged laissez faire economic policy of his time and said economic misery led people to become involved in immoral
activities.
Mary Wollstonecraft: On the vindication of the rights of women 1792
On human nature: She had an optimistic view of human nature stemming from the Enlightenment and believed that all humans being guided by
reason should apply to women as well as men. She stated that ‘the mind has no gender’.
On the state:She supported a republican government and formal equality, involving a constitutional defence of individual rights. She wanted the
government to protect formal equality (civil liberties for women and men). She supported both the American Revolution of 1776 and the French
Revolution 1789. In A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790), she attacked Edmund Burke’s critique of the French Revolution and his defence of
custom, history and aristocratic rule. She applauded the French Revolution’s emphasis upon citizens and its apparent indifference to gender
differences.
On society: She argued that 18th century England both society and the state implied that women were not rational and therefore were denied
individual freedom and formal equality. Women, for example, were rarely allowed land ownership or remunerative employment (paid employment)
and sacrificed what little individualism they had in order to become wives. Once married, a woman had little legal protection against violence
inflicted by her spouse, and no recourse (help in a difficult situation) to divorce. Furthermore, women could not vote for those who governed them
- a blatant violation of ‘government by consent’. She argued that as a result of fettering (restricting) female individualism, England was limiting
their stock of intelligence, wisdom and morality. Society infantilised women and thus stifled female individualism. Wollestonecraft said ‘such
arrangements are not conditions where reason and progress may prosper’. She asserted that the effective denial of liberty to an entire gender key
society vulnerable to doctrines that threatened the whole spirit of the Enlightenment. She also agreed that women themselves were complicit in
their subjugation, generally desiring only marriage and motherhood. For this to be corrected, she argued, formal education should be made
available to as many women and men as possible. Without such formal tuition, she contested, individuals could never develop their rational
faculties, never realise their individual potential and never recognise the absurdity of illiberal principles such as the divine right of kings.
On the economy: A free-market economy would be energised by the enterprise of liberated women. She believed in economic independence and
economic liberalism.
John Rawls: A Theory of Justice 1971
On human nature: Rawls argued that when faced with such conditions, human nature - being rational and empathetic - would lead individuals to
choose a society where the poorest members were significantly better than in present society. Rawls argued that the key point here was that this
‘fairer’ society, where inequalities were reduced, was the one individuals would choose.
On the state: An enlarged, enabling state with higher taxation and significant wealth redistribution was indeed consistent with liberalism’s historic
stress upon government by consent. He argued that to restate the idea that the core liberal principle of foundational equality meant individuals
required formal equality under the law and constitution, but also greater social and economic equality. This was necessary to ensure the just
society where all lives could be rich and fulfilled. Rawls said this could only be provided by a significant redistribution of wealth via an enabling
state with extensive public spending and progressive taxation.
On society: Rawls constructed a series of philosophical consistions. The first condition is that there is ‘the original position’, whereby individuals
would be asked to construct from scratch a society they judged to be superior to the one they lived in currently. The second condition is that there
would be a ‘veil of ignorance’, where by individuals would have no preconceptions about the sort of people they themselves might be in this new
society. They might for example be white or they might be from an ethnic minority; they might be rich or they might be poor. Rawls said though
most individuals would indeed choose to improve the lives of the poorest, they would still want considerable scope for individual liberty,
self-fulfilment and, therefore, significant inequalities of income. So although Rawls argued that the lives of the poorest should be improved by the
state, he didn’t argue that the gap between the richest and the poorest should necessarily be narrowed - thus ensuring that his philosophy was
still distinct from socialism. But there should still be liberty and self-fulfilment which would lead to inequalities of outcome.
On the economy: Free-market capitalism should be made less aggressive by the state’s obligation to advance its poorest citizens. There should
be a redistribution of wealth, extensive public spending and progressive/higher taxation to prevent economic inequalities.
Betty Friedan: The Feminine Mystique (1963)
John Locke: Two Treatises of Government
CLASSICAL LIBERAL
IMPACT - his belief in the separation of powers could have influenced the American system of government
On Human Nature: Locke believed that prior to the state’s existence, there was a state of nature which was a state of nature which was guided by
rationalism, nature laws and natural rights e.g. the right to ‘life, liberty and estate’.
On the state: John Locke argues that the state must be representative, based on the consent of the governed. He denied the traditional, medieval
principle that the state was a part of God’s creation. He rejected the ‘divine right of kings’ and that ordinary people were subjects of the state, with
quasi-religious obligation to obey the monarch’s rulings: the ‘true’ state would be one made by mankind to serve mankind’s interests and would
arise only from the consent of those who would be governed by it. The ‘state of law’ (modern state) would be legitimate only if it respected natural
rights and natural laws, therefore ensuring that individuals living under formal laws were never consistently worse off than they had been in the
state of nature. The state’s structures must therefore embody the natural rights and natural liberties that preceded it. Locke’s idea, state would
always reflect the principle that it’s citizens had voluntarily consented to accept the state’s rulings in return for the state improving their situation
(social contract theory). Due to its contractual nature, the fiduciary state would have to embody the principle of limited government - limited to
always representing the interests of the governed and always requiring the ongoing consent of the governed. The state’s would be limited through
the separation of powers. The executive, legislature and the judiciary would be separate. Locke also believed in the promotion of tolerance, in the
wake of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which cemented Protestant supremacy in England, Locke said that the post-Revolution state should
extend towards Roman Catholics.
On society: All liberals see society as a collection of the diverse and potentially autonomous individuals, seeking self-determination,
self-realisation and self-fulfilment. He promoted tolerance within religion which was even more important considering that many Catholics were
being tortured for their religious beliefs. He sees society’s will as being more important than the individual.
On the economy: State policy should respect the ‘natural right’ to private property and arbitrate effectively between individuals competing for trade
and resources. Locke would have supported Adam Smith’s thesis in The Wealth of Nations (1776) that the state should adopt a laissez-faire
(minimal government interference, letting the economy do its thing) attitude to the economy. Both Smith and Locke believe that the legal
protection of property is important to a well-functioning social order. Locke said the right to property is ‘that with which Man has mixed his labour’.
The belief that property is a natural right would mean that all liberals would support economic liberalism (capitalism).
John Stuart Mill: On Liberty 1859
On human nature: Though it is fundamentally rational, human nature is not fixed: it is forever progressing to a higher level. He saw liberty as the
engine of ongoing human development, there was always room for improvement. He proposed developmental individualism in which he focuses
on what individuals could become rather than what they had become. It explained Mill’s strong emphasis upon the value of formal education
within a liberal society. He famously stated that it was ‘better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’, while any support for liberty had to
be ‘grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being’. Mill believed that intelligence and rationalism were potential features of
human nature that could be developed by enlightened liberal authorities. This is why modern liberals endorse Mill’s concept of individuality - one
that refers to what individuals could become, once ‘enabled’ to fulfil their potential. He said that liberty was a natural right and the engine for
ongoing human development.
On the state: He believed that the state should proceed cautiously towards representative democracy, mindful of minority rights, but said the ideal
state would be democratic and representative. Mill was concerned about the tyranny of the majority and argued for a representative democracy in
which the enlarged electorate would elect liberally minded representatives to make decisions for them. He believed in tolerance. The
representatives would seek to aggregate the various opinions within society and produce a broad consent of all. Mill was against direct
democracy as it contributed to the tyranny of the majority. In On Liberty (1859), Mill promotes negative liberty and freedom which was freedom
without restraint, this led him to believe that state intervention should be minimal and individuals should be able to do what they want unless they
harm others (harm principle). Mill argued that the state should tolerate all actions and opinions unless they violate the harm principle - the
principle that individuals should be free to do and say anything unless their ‘other regarding actions’ could harm the rights and freedoms of others.
‘Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’. Mill distinguished ‘individualism’ and ‘individuality’ which had crucial
implications for how he approached democracy. He was concerned that government by consent would be compromised if the wishes of some
individual citizens were overwhelmed by the wishes of most individual citizens. Mill feared that a democratic state could create a tyranny of the
majority.
On society: Mill believed that the best society was one where individuality co-existed with tolerance and self-improvement. Mill divided human
actions into ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other regarding’. Self-regarding actions (like engaging in worship or expressing personal views) didn’t impinge on
the freedom of others in society and therefore should be tolerated, whereas other regarding actions (involving violent or riotous behaviour) clearly
did ‘harm’ the freedom of others in society and therefore shouldn’t be tolerated by a liberal state. The tolerance of diverse opinions was especially
important because it would ensure new ideas emerged while had ideas were exposed via open, rational debate. This links to Voltaire arguing ‘I
detest what you say but will defend unto the death your right to say it’. Mill argued that the purpose of any civilised society was to facilitate
individualism. He argued that every individual has a unique personality and peculiar talents; that they are rational in their self-interest; and that
individuals are egotistical, driven by a wish to fulfil their potential and a desire to be self-reliant and independent. Every individual therefore seeks
freedom. This meant freedom from any dependency on others and the freedom to live one’s life in a way that maximises self-reliance and
self-fulfilment. Mill argued that universal suffrage must be preceded by universal education, hoping thus would promote developmental
individualism. Advancing individual potential would produce a liberal consensus in society, which would in turn safeguard tolerance, reason and
individualism. Once widespread education had been secured, democracy could actually further liberal values - promoting, for example, political
education and opportunities for enlightening debate which would allow for ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’. He believed in
electoral reform, advocated for female emancipation and favoured proportional representation but wanted a minimal state.
On the economy: Laissez-faire capitalism was vital to progress, individual enterprise and individual initiative, but he wanted to prevent private
monopolies. Property was how liberals could develop their potential, providing an opportunity, within civilised communities, for men and women to
nurture their taste and judgement.
, T.H.Green:
MODERN LIBERAL
On human nature: Green suggested that individuals possess social responsibilities, not just individual ones, and are linked to others. He and
other modern liberals were critical of the classical liberal notion of negative liberty- giving freedom of choice would lead to unjust actions and
exploitation (‘freedom to starve’). Modern liberals saw freedom as the ability of the individual to develop and realise their potential, and achieve
fulfilment (positive freedom). This recognises that liberty may be threatened by social disadvantage and inequality, so it is not enough for
individuals to be ‘left alone’ to ensure liberty.
On the state: Green believed that the state should enable and protect the social, political and economic environments in which individuals will
have the best chance of acting according to their consciences. However, the state must be careful when deciding which liberties to curtail and in
which ways to curtail them. He believed that over-enthusiastic state intervention could prevent opportunities for conscientious action thereby
stifling the moral development of the individual. The state should intervene only where there is a clear, proven and strong tendency of a liberty to
curb the liberties of another, for example through slavery. Increased role of the state is necessary to promote positive liberty - ability to realise
one’s own aspirations and to promote moral improvement e.g.restricting the sale of alcohol. The state needed to get involved to promote social
reforms and stop poverty in order to ensure freedom for all.
On society: He argued that we have an obligation to care for the welfare of others and that it is possible to enjoy our own liberty without losing a
sense of social responsibility. He believed in an organic society in which society is a single entity - a living organism with a life of its own, which
exists above the consciousness of individuals. This implies society can have a collective consciousness, dubbed Volksgemeinschaft by the
Germans. Green proposed measures to reduce inherited privilege and to provide equality of opportunity through education.
On the economy: He challenged laissez faire economic policy of his time and said economic misery led people to become involved in immoral
activities.
Mary Wollstonecraft: On the vindication of the rights of women 1792
On human nature: She had an optimistic view of human nature stemming from the Enlightenment and believed that all humans being guided by
reason should apply to women as well as men. She stated that ‘the mind has no gender’.
On the state:She supported a republican government and formal equality, involving a constitutional defence of individual rights. She wanted the
government to protect formal equality (civil liberties for women and men). She supported both the American Revolution of 1776 and the French
Revolution 1789. In A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790), she attacked Edmund Burke’s critique of the French Revolution and his defence of
custom, history and aristocratic rule. She applauded the French Revolution’s emphasis upon citizens and its apparent indifference to gender
differences.
On society: She argued that 18th century England both society and the state implied that women were not rational and therefore were denied
individual freedom and formal equality. Women, for example, were rarely allowed land ownership or remunerative employment (paid employment)
and sacrificed what little individualism they had in order to become wives. Once married, a woman had little legal protection against violence
inflicted by her spouse, and no recourse (help in a difficult situation) to divorce. Furthermore, women could not vote for those who governed them
- a blatant violation of ‘government by consent’. She argued that as a result of fettering (restricting) female individualism, England was limiting
their stock of intelligence, wisdom and morality. Society infantilised women and thus stifled female individualism. Wollestonecraft said ‘such
arrangements are not conditions where reason and progress may prosper’. She asserted that the effective denial of liberty to an entire gender key
society vulnerable to doctrines that threatened the whole spirit of the Enlightenment. She also agreed that women themselves were complicit in
their subjugation, generally desiring only marriage and motherhood. For this to be corrected, she argued, formal education should be made
available to as many women and men as possible. Without such formal tuition, she contested, individuals could never develop their rational
faculties, never realise their individual potential and never recognise the absurdity of illiberal principles such as the divine right of kings.
On the economy: A free-market economy would be energised by the enterprise of liberated women. She believed in economic independence and
economic liberalism.
John Rawls: A Theory of Justice 1971
On human nature: Rawls argued that when faced with such conditions, human nature - being rational and empathetic - would lead individuals to
choose a society where the poorest members were significantly better than in present society. Rawls argued that the key point here was that this
‘fairer’ society, where inequalities were reduced, was the one individuals would choose.
On the state: An enlarged, enabling state with higher taxation and significant wealth redistribution was indeed consistent with liberalism’s historic
stress upon government by consent. He argued that to restate the idea that the core liberal principle of foundational equality meant individuals
required formal equality under the law and constitution, but also greater social and economic equality. This was necessary to ensure the just
society where all lives could be rich and fulfilled. Rawls said this could only be provided by a significant redistribution of wealth via an enabling
state with extensive public spending and progressive taxation.
On society: Rawls constructed a series of philosophical consistions. The first condition is that there is ‘the original position’, whereby individuals
would be asked to construct from scratch a society they judged to be superior to the one they lived in currently. The second condition is that there
would be a ‘veil of ignorance’, where by individuals would have no preconceptions about the sort of people they themselves might be in this new
society. They might for example be white or they might be from an ethnic minority; they might be rich or they might be poor. Rawls said though
most individuals would indeed choose to improve the lives of the poorest, they would still want considerable scope for individual liberty,
self-fulfilment and, therefore, significant inequalities of income. So although Rawls argued that the lives of the poorest should be improved by the
state, he didn’t argue that the gap between the richest and the poorest should necessarily be narrowed - thus ensuring that his philosophy was
still distinct from socialism. But there should still be liberty and self-fulfilment which would lead to inequalities of outcome.
On the economy: Free-market capitalism should be made less aggressive by the state’s obligation to advance its poorest citizens. There should
be a redistribution of wealth, extensive public spending and progressive/higher taxation to prevent economic inequalities.
Betty Friedan: The Feminine Mystique (1963)
