Freedom: Liberalism and Fascism Liberalism and fascism present two very different understandings of freedom. On one hand, liberalism provides freedom whereas on the other hand 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 clarified firstly.
However, in my opinion, individual freedom and social equality are equally important, and a government should not promote one of them and suppress the other. In fact, they can be balanced in a liberal democratic system, due to the fact that this system is very flexible and allows changes. Liberal democracies were born mainly for two reasons: limiting the arbitrary power of a state and protect the individual freedoms of every citizen with a judicial system. Thus, the main aim of a liberal democratic regime is to promote freedom. Freedom not in
The source agrees with government intervention in crisis but allowing the government to intercede completely would allows them to surpass laws (taking away rights and freedoms), inevitably breaking rule of law. It would support the patriot act because it protects society from crisis but the patriot act allows for the confiscation of property and the suspension of rights and freedoms. By embracing the source, we would be embracing a society where the government can take away our rights and use their power to accomplish their own selfish means. Because of their negative consequences that result from the ideas in the source, society should not embrace it.
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
Thus effectively preventing tyranny, and creating equality before the law, irrelevant to the citizen’s position, which denies high ranking individuals legal advantages seen during the feudal era. Accordingly, the rule of law comes across to liberals as their greatest triumph, for they perceive it as the lawful representation of equality and liberty. There are numerous critics of the liberal minimalist interpretation of equality and social liberty before the law. Such as inequalities of opportunity, and material inequality which results in exploitation. However, liberals will reject “to impose upon the public a consciously selected model of distribution, whether it promotes equality or of inequality.” Numerous critics agree that capitalism in the liberal minimalist model does not depict true equality and thus is problematic.
Thomas Jefferson called these rights "inalienable rights" and indicative of the classical liberal belief that rights do not come from the law, but that the law serves to guard natural individual rights. And government exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that defends individual ... ... middle of paper ... ...ood of their society. But to draw the today’s conclusion the lineage of contemporary Liberalism is frequently flawed, regularly contradictory and sometimes tarnished with the blood of the innocent. Nowadays, liberal values propose a type of abundant life the liberty and independence to sin and to set one's own standards in every area of life. But we harvest what we sow and the modern western societies are now reaping the rewards of this faulty "liberty" in unparalleled abortions, numerous teenage pregnancies, high rates of drug abuse, high divorce rates, and high suicide rate that stuns those who come from the very poorest nations.
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 entails how liberals believe in the entrenchment of power on s... ... middle of paper ... ...ith any other state instead they understand that states are subjected to international anarchy and are potentially aggressive (Badie et al 2011: 1436). Liberal state are peaceful, yet they are also prone to a war, from aggressive instincts of authoritarian leaders and totalitarian parties (Doyle 1986: 3), for example the threats from North Korea to South Korea. 4. Foreign Policy According to Smith et al (2012: 2) on Carlsnaes, foreign policy “entails those actions which, expressed in the form of explicitly stated goals, commitments pursued by governmental representatives acting on behalf of their sovereign communities directed towards objectives, conditions and actors both governmental and non-governmental which they want to affect and which lie beyond their territorial legitimacy”.
For what is problematic about his liberalism, it might be argued, is that it will prove non-neutral in its effects on doctrines and ways of life permissible on its own account of political justice. But Rawls has not missed the point. Rawls’s liberalism does not rest on a commitment to the value of, nor does it require, a social world maximally diverse with respect to comprehensive doctrines or ways of life willing more or less to accept liberal principles of political justice. Of course, Rawls’s liberalism would be in serious trouble were it to lead to a social world only weakly diverse. But so long as Rawls’s liberalism permits a healthy degree of diversity, to claim that its non-neutral effect on some comprehensive doctrine or way of life is unfair is to presuppose rather than establish the correctness of some competing conception of justice.
All liberals agree that the state is necessarily a coercive power and therefore ought to be minimised lest it encroach on individual freedom, one of the key values in liberalism. However, liberals were also the first to seek a justification for the state on rational grounds, such as through consent theory, their predecessors having generally accepted the state as divinely ordained. This shows that the state is clearly not something to be completely opposed, as it is for anarchists, but rather is seen as necessary to perform certain functions. While liberals do not tend to believe human nature to be flawed, as conservatives do, they do believe that human self-interest needs to be tamed in order to protect us from one another and maintain law
First of all it ensures public accountability. This gives the people a degree of protection against governments becoming too strong. Liberals believe in limited government, and democracy provides this system, as the government is accountable to the people. Although most liberals would agree that government is essential in order to defend the rights of the people, it can also be seen as a threat to individual liberty, so people need some form of protection against it. 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’.