Main ideas of Liberalism

John Stuart Mill (1806-73) began as a follower of Bentham, but came to see the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain as too simplistic. He put forward what became known as the idea of negative freedom: individuals should only be subject to external restraint when their actions potentially affect others, not when their actions affect only themselves.

From the late 19th century onwards, many liberals found Mill's concept of liberty too limited because it viewed society as little more than a collection of independent atoms. The Oxford thinker T.H. Green (1836-82) argued that society was an organic whole, in which people pursue the common good as well as their own interests. They are both individual and social in nature. From this came the concept of positive freedom: individuals should be able to control their own destiny, to develop personal talents and achieve self-fulfilment. Some limited state intervention was necessary to make this possible.

The state: a 'necessary evil'

Liberal thinking about politics focuses primarily on the nature and role of the state and the organisation of government power. Such thinking is underpinned by the core assumption that the liberty of one person is always in danger of becoming a licence to abuse another. Each person can be said to be both a threat to, and under threat from, every other member of society. Our liberty therefore requires that the other members of society are restrained from encroaching on our freedom and, in turn, their liberty requires that they are safeguarded from us. This protection is provided by a sovereign state, capable of restraining all individuals and groups within society. The classical form of this argument is found in the social contract theories that were developed in the seventeenth century by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Hobbes and Locke constructed a picture of what life had been like before government was formed, in a stateless society or what they called a ‘state of nature’. As individuals are selfish, greedy and power-seeking, the state of nature would be characterised by an unending civil war of each against all, in which, in Hobbes’ words, human life would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. As a result, they argued, rational individuals would enter into an agreement, or ‘social contract’, to establish a sovereign government, without which orderly and stable life would be impossible.

There is a complex relationship between liberalism and the state. Liberals accept that the state is needed to avert disorder and to protect the vulnerable from exploitation. However, they mistrust power because they believe that human beings are essentially self-seeking, so may use any position of power to pursue their own interests, probably at the expense of others. Liberals oppose the concentration of political power, fearing that it gives people a greater incentive to benefit themselves and to use other people for their own ends. The classic statement of this was by the Victorian liberal historian Lord Acton (1834-1902): 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'Liberals therefore argue for limited government, with checks and balances on the exercise of power. They support the idea of constitutionalism — government in which power is distributed and limited by a system of laws — in order to prevent a concentration of power. Typical features of a liberal constitution include the separation of powers, which means that authority is shared between the three branches of government (the legislature, executive and judiciary). Linked to this is the concept of checks and balances: the branches are given some influence over each other and they act to check abuses of power, as in the United States Constitution. Liberals also favour a bill of rights, which provides a clear statement of citizens' rights and defines the relationship between citizens and the state. In the United States, the first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights.

Liberals' suspicion of the concentration of political power often leads them to support its devolution from central government to regional bodies. This occurred in the UK in the late 19905, with the creation of the Scottish Parliament and assemblies for Wales and Northern Ireland.

An alternative is federalism — a system of government like that in the USA or Germany, where a number of states form a union under a central government, while each state retains responsibility for its own internal affairs.

The liberal emphasis on a limited role for the state also has an economic dimension. Liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries believed in laissez-faire capitalism — the idea that competition between individuals, seeking their own profit, is beneficial for all, and that government intervention in the economy should be limited. The fullest statement of this idea was by the Scottish economist Adam Smith, one of the most prominent Enlightenment era thinkers, in The Wealth of Nations (1776). Smith emphasised the part played by self-interest in driving economic growth, famously writing: 'It is not from the benevolence [i.e. unselfish goodwill] of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard for their own interest.'

Rationalism

At the heart of Enlightenment thinking is a belief in human reason. It holds that individuals should be free to exercise their judgement about their own interests, without needing to be guided by external authorities, such as the state or church leaders. People will not always make correct decisions, but it is better for them to take responsibility for themselves than to take instruction from above. Liberals were encouraged by the development of scientific learning in the 18th and 19th centuries, which pushed back the boundaries of human understanding and liberated people from a blind faith in established authority, tradition and superstition.

Faith in reason is linked to the idea of a progressive society, in which the personal development of the individual promotes wider social advancement.

The state is a machine (this is called Mechanistic Theory)Liberals believe that the state is akin to a machine and is created by individuals with the express purpose to protect their freedom

Take the case of the social contract outlined by John Locke. He argued that individuals move from a state of nature towards a social contract with rights and duties on both sides. The purpose of the social contract is to uphold personal freedom, the government is created by the people and can be replaced if it fails to maintain the core value of liberty.

Mechanistic Theory

Mechanistic theory also stipulates that our behaviour is determined by the interactions between individuals. Mechanistic theory is therefore the opposite of the conservative view that society is an organism in which the state evolves over time.

Rationalism in action

Liberals accept that competition between individuals, groups and nations regrettably will produce conflicts, but they favour the use of reasoned debate and discussion to resolve disputes. Late 19th-century liberals were in the forefront of moves to develop methods of industrial arbitration. This meant that a neutral third party would mediate between employers and trades unions, in an effort to avert costly legal action or strikes. Similarly, in international relations, liberals view war as a last resort, which should be avoided if at all possible. In the early 20th century liberals were in the forefront of campaigns in support of the League of Nations, the forerunner of today's United Nations, which sought to bring countries together to discuss their disputes. Many liberals today support the European Union on the grounds that, by surrendering some of their national sovereignty, member states derive benefits through association with each other, such as access to a large trading area.

Equality and social justice

Liberals place emphasis on equality of opportunity, the idea that each person should have the same chance to rise or fall in society. Liberals accept differing outcomes because people have different abilities and potential. They should be free to reach that potential.

Traditionally liberalism is based on a belief in foundational equality — people are born equal. This implies a belief in formal equality: individuals should enjoy the same legal and political rights in society, ensured by equality before the law and equal voting rights in free and fair elections.

Socialists criticise liberalism on the grounds that it does not tackle inequality because it is closely linked to the capitalist idea of competition. Instead, socialists aim to achieve equality of outcome by using the power of the state to redistribute wealth. However, classical liberals believe that individuals with different talents should be rewarded differently. The resulting social inequality is beneficial for society because it gives people an incentive to work hard and make the most of their abilities. The good society is a meritocracy — one in which social position is determined by ability and effort. For example William Gladstone, the British Liberal Prime Minister, introduced competitive examinations for entry to the civil service in the 1875, bringing to an end the practice of making appointments on the basis of aristocratic connections.

Until the 20th century liberals did not all extend the same rights to women as to men. The early feminist writer Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-97) argued that women were no less rational beings than men, so were entitled to the same rights to pursue a career and to own their own property when married — something the law prohibited at the time. Modern liberals support full civil rights for women and minority groups. For example, US President Barack Obama supported the right of transgender pupils to use bathrooms of their choice at school.

There are different views within liberalism on equality. Most modern liberals favour some degree of state intervention to narrow social inequalities. They believe that true equality is not possible without social justice. However, they do not believe that total equality of outcome is either possible or desirable. John Rawls (1921-2002), author of A Theory of Justice (1971), is known for attempting to reconcile the concepts of liberal individualism with the prevention of excessive inequality.

The state

liberals, from John Locke and Adam Smith onwards, believe that individualism and capitalism work best when accompanied by a certain kind of state. But to understand why, it is necessary to explain how liberals think the ‘ideal state originates, what it seeks to achieve and how it should be structured.

To appreciate liberalism’s belief in a state, it is important to remember that, while liberalism takes an optimistic view of human nature, it still accepts that, within the state of nature, there would have been clashes of interests between individuals pursuing their own, egocentric agendas. Locke was especially worried that without the sort of formal structures only a state can provide, the resolution of such clashes — particularly clashes concerning property — might not always be swift and efficient. As a result, individualism in the state of nature could have been impeded by stalemated disputes between competing individuals. So a mechanism — a state — was required, to arbitrate effectively between the competing claims of rational individuals. To provide a sporting comparison, most footballers would accept that, in the absence of a referee, some kind of football match could still take place, with both teams self-regulating on an ad hoc basis (think in terms of a ‘kick-around’ among friends). Yet, even though it would result in their restriction and occasional punishment, most footballers would also accept that the match would be fairer, more efficient and more rewarding for individual players if a referee was present — especially if the referee officiated according to pre-agreed rules. For liberals, this is analogous to their argument that the state of nature, tolerable though it may be, is still inferior to the particular ‘formalised’ state liberals recommend.

Liberal democracy

Since the 19th century most liberals have supported the concept of liberal democracy. This involves:

· free elections to give expression to the will of the people

· limitations on the power of the state, which should act as a neutral arbiter between different interests in society

· respect for civil liberties and toleration of different viewpoints.

The idea that government should be based on the consent of the people is central to liberalism and long pre-dates modern notions of democracy. Liberals argue that, without this foundation, government lacks legitimacy. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in his book Leviathan (1651) argued that the people should come together to erect a great power over them to guarantee peace and security.

The idea of a social contract between the people and their rulers was explained by John Locke in his book Two Treatises of Civil Government (1690). He argued that the people must freely give, and renew, their consent to be governed. They have a right of rebellion if the government breaks the contract.

Liberals support democracy on the grounds that it enables citizens to hold government to account. It also extends popular participation and performs an educational function in society — the concept of developmental democracy, promoting the personal development of individuals. Democracy also gives a political voice to different groups and interests. In this way it promotes consensus and underpins political stability, giving equilibrium or balance to the political system. On the other hand, liberals have feared excessive democracy on the grounds that it may lead to the 'tyranny of the majority', suppressing minority rights or individual freedom, or it may create a culture of dull conformism. Mill proposed to allocate more votes to the educated (plural voting) as a way of curbing the influence of the uneducated masses. Modern liberals would not support this idea because it gives undue weight to the views of an elite. They have been generally supportive of democracy, as long as it is limited by a constitutional framework, and individual and group rights are protected. The electoral college system used in the USA was devised partly as a buffer against the manipulation of the masses by an unscrupulous campaigner for the post. The people do not directly choose the president; instead this is done by electors corresponding to the number of representatives each state has in Congress.