A citizen in a liberal democracy can always appeal to his or her liberty rights in order to stop the government from promoting social equality. From a theoretical point of view, a liberal state cannot impose an income tax on the individuals, because the simple fact that some citizens are earning more money is not a direct cause of harm to the others. According to Karl Marx, this is the main problem of liberalism: it legalized inequality, and to some extends also competition. Marx criticizes Mill’s harm principle, by saying that, defining freedom as the right to do whatever we want, as long as we do not harm the others means that people need a state to regulate their actions, or they will eventually do something harmful to the others; this definition presupposes that people are selfish and evil. For Marx, this definition of liberty is too individualistic, and thus it generates a society where people are egoistic and do not trust each
Although, with alI the good things that liberalist defend for, I also think there should be a measure into how much of liberty a certain right should have. That is mostly because equality doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone should have the same things but more of a moderation type of measure towards everyone. While one is more restricted than another, I think it would be hard for a whole country to just stand on just one ideal for a long period of time. Because, since most of the country has already been exposed to both, most would prefer to have more of a liberal life style because people feel that they are entitled to do so. As I stated before, democrats are liberal and stand for people 's individual rights and republicans stand for a conservative government (Guide pg.
Thus, one could argue that liberalism does indeed break down social bonds as through these ‘radical’ reforms traditional views deeply rooted in society are being challenged and altered. Yet, there are examples of implementations of liberal reforms of less radical and controversial nature. Conservative governments, for instance, while following the ideals of conservatism such as the preservation of tradition and insurance of political stability, have often followed liberal ideals; Margaret Thatcher’s government followed a more liberal economic model: “it extended the use of market mechanisms in the domestic sphere, and pursued a pro-free trade policy in the international sphere, through, for example, the Single European Act (1986)” (Hoffman, Graham,
Any transfer of their power over themselves to an entity such as government that is viewed as subjugation, “Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men” (Friedman, 2002, p.15). Government has no business involving itself in economic activity, and when doing so, it causes more harm than good. The conservatives' case may sound good in theory, but I think, in practice that it causes many problems that it is unable to solve. The liberal view, which I agree with would correspond more to societal responsibility or common good; conservatives would say that what is common to you is not what is common to me. Therefore, the only way to have good is for each individual to maximize their own good by doing what they think is right.
Locke (1995) claims that it is the living under the government which provides freedom through the use rules, no restraint besides the law, and free from arbitrary power. Liberalism tends to support the idea of limiting constitution government and their power. It was liberal thinkers James Madison and Baron de Montesquieu that designed the idea of the separation of powers, to equally distribute the power the government has (Young 2002). This then causes it to help to ensure that there are individual freedom, rights and that individuals have autonomy. Liberals tend to be suspicious of the government and the power that they possess which can be used to limit an individual and their freedom.
Traditionally, the purpose of democracy is to prevent the accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few. It rests on a balance of giving enough power for what Alexander Hamilton called "vigorous and energetic government" and avoiding giving out so much power that it becomes abused. Democracy is believed by some, such as Winston Churchill, to be the "least bad" form of government. By creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. Democracy is also related to the idea of constitutional government, setting limits beyond which a current majority in government may not step.
Secondly, they guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms of their citizens. Lastly, the government is accountable to citizens who democratic rights are not only protected but also promoted. Another perspective would argue that ideological perspective of political liberalism should never be embraced or embraced to a minimal extent showing a near complete rejection of liberalism, as effective decision-making is inefficient due to a long legislative process; citizen apathy shows the mediocrity of society. Also security and national unity is threatened by competing interests in society. It is apparent that the ideological perspective of political liberalism should be fully embraced so as to protect the civil liberties of both the majority and minority, to promote the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, and to ensure the accountability of governments through the promotion and protection of democratic
Power would be limited by internal and external constraints, for example constitutionalism which would mean that the population would know the extent of the government’s power. Liberals therefore wanted to prevent tyranny from occurring, but classical and modern liberals had differing ideas on how this could be done. Classical liberals, such as Acton, did not believe in democracy because the majority could crush individual liberty and minority rights, ... ... middle of paper ... ...wer. Then this in turn would lead to tyrannical governments such as those of; Hussein, Mugabe and Stalin. The implications of liberals believing in this statement are that they believe that rational individuals should want to sign up to a social contract to establish a sovereign government.
This ensures that liberty is involved in implementing the safety of the community’s consent that would guard against an abuse of power. By abusing power, they are forcing people to do things, because that goes against their dignity and individuality. People should not share equally in the exercise of political power. The American model of representative government may result in a weak democracy, because it favored the rule of majority rather than minority interests. Self- government and “the power of the people over themselves” were ways to refer to the new system of government.
For the communitarian, the liberal approach is inadequate because of its insistence on a universal and ahistorical approach to justice. According to Waltzer, there is no way to step outside history or culture(211). People, as much as they would like to believe otherwise, are bound, and somewhat controlled by society's norms and behaviours. For the communitarian, there is no way to detach people from the social realm because it is apart of who we are as humans. We are shaped by the events of history, and shown how to behave within our culture.