Liberalism and fascism present two very different understandings of freedom. On one hand, liberalism provides freedom whereas fascism provides a lack of liberty. This essay will argue that liberalism and fascism provide two different ideas of freedom and to discuss this through the differences and similarities between the two. In order to argue that point, we need to address the meanings of freedom, the idea of freedom in both ideologies, and then the key similarities and differences between liberty in fascism and liberalism. Before freedom in liberalism and fascism can be discussed, freedom must be first clarified.
However, it should be borne in mind that Classical Liberals do not accept any constraints upon the individual that prevent him from damaging himself, physically or mentally, since the individual still remains sovereign. Such a view of freedom means that classical liberals generally advocate the establishment of a minimal or “nightwatch” state, whose role is limited to the protection of individuals from other individuals. Tom Paine described the state as a “necessary evil”. It is necessary in that it establishes order and security and ensures that contracts are carried out. Yet, it is “evil” since it enforces collective will upon society, thus constraining individual freedom.
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
In other words, the government is expected to govern with restraint and never attempt to interfere with people’s private rights and liberty. Therefore, on the basis of mutual benefit and convenience, the formal agreement i... ... middle of paper ... ...onservatives paint the human nature in a much less admirable way than the liberals. For instance, they see man as a selfish being, capable of good and evil. Man ought to fight evil with good and any evil committed should not be blamed on the society but on the person who has committed it. Consequently, individuals who commit evil should be punished individually (Downing, 2010).
According to John Stuart Mill, ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others’. Therefore, the role of government is to protect the liberty of individuals against others who may seek to exploit them for their own gain. In the liberal view, government powers should not extend beyond this minimal role. However, government officials may exploit their position for their own personal gain, and therefore the people should have a ... ... middle of paper ... ...this also links with the liberal idea of limited government - the state should not become involved with the economy, or any other matter which does not concern the protection and defence of human rights. In conclusion liberalism is not entirely compatible with democracy - some important liberal ideas, in particular the principle that every individual opinion should be taken into account, directly conflict with the system of democracy.
Political Liberalism Norman Davies describes liberalism as "being developed along two parallel tracks, the political and the economic. Political liberalism focused on the essential concept of government by consent. In its most thoroughgoing form it embraced republicanism, though most liberals favored a popular, limited, and fair-minded monarch as a factor encouraging stability." (A History of Europe, p.802) At the core of liberalism was the idea of freedom of thought and expression. People were now not only able to think for themselves, but also express those same thoughts.
In simpler terms the aim of the essay is to prove whether or not, UK is a liberal state in terms of its foreign policy. 2. LIBERALISM IN DETAIL According to Kelly (2005: 5) on Albaster “liberalism should not be seen as a fixed and absolute term, as a collection of unchanging moral and political values but as a specific historical movement of ideas in the modern era”. According to Balaam and Dillman (2011: 53) “liberalism in broader term means liberty under law”. However according to the (internet: 2014) liberalism is a “political or social philosophy advocating freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institution to assure unrestricted developmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties”.
This source portrays a Liberal point-of-view: individual freedom, and limited government control. I believe that a more collective perspective would highly benefit a country’s people; wherein we have freedom under the law, and a controlled government also under the law. With less government control, individuals would rather seek their own self-interests rather than the collective interests. This source shows an individualistic
Nicholas H. (TITLE) The ideological perspective reflected in the source is supportive of political liberalism. Liberalism is a philosophy founded on the beliefs of liberty and equality. These qualities are clearly represented in the source examples being “guard the freedom of ideas at all costs” as well as “respect and preserve the rights of the people.” It also expresses concerns for authoritarian rule, “be alert that dictators have always played on the natural human tendency to blame other and to oversimplify.” Advocates of political liberalism rejected the absolutism of the past, in which individuals served the collective interests of the state, and instead, engaged in a political struggle for less authoritarian rule. These advocates displayed
As delineated by Isaiah Berlin in 1958, negative liberty is a freedom from coercion, while positive liberty is a freedom to achieve something. Negative liberty is provided by a lack of coercive intervention in people’s lives, while positive liberty can be provided by a welfare state, having sufficient wealth and being free from inner constraints such as addiction or depression. Negative liberty is particularly endangered by a large state and it is this kind of freedom which most concerns classical liberals. Excessive taxation, paternalism, moralism and authoritarianism all threaten our negative liberty by imposing restrictions on what we can do. Liberals recognise that, at its core, the state is an instrument of coercion used to keep people in line.