Category: Liberalism

The world has different kinds of people and they hold varying views and have different attitudes. The outlook that the person has determines how he will react to the views and behaviours of other people. It will also influence the level of tolerance that a person has.

One of the types of people is the liberal person. This essay will set out to define who a liberal person is. It will engage in a detailed discussion of some of the characteristics that this person has and the values that he holds.

The liberal person welcomes diversity in life. He understands that the world is made up of people of different races and cultures. He does not fear differences but instead appreciates it. The liberal person is of the opinion that respect should be accorded to the different beliefs that people have.

In addition to this, individuals should have the freedom to express their non-traditional views. Because of these attitudes, the liberal person shows a great amount of tolerance for people from different cultural backgrounds and beliefs.

A liberal person has an open attitude and he is not tied down by tradition. When the person encounters views that are different from the normal ones, he does not reject them immediately. As such, when a new idea is presented, the liberal will not react rigidly.

Instead, he is open to the strange views and gives them the necessary consideration. As a result, the liberal person gains a lot of new knowledge since he is willing to learn even from views he does not necessarily endorse. His accommodative nature opens him up to new realities making his life rich in experiences.

Change is one of the realities that the liberal person embraces. He appreciates that the world is in a constant state of change and people must keep on adapting themselves as the world around them changes. He does not see change as something that should be resisted against and generally avoided.

The liberal welcomes change in both the society and in his personal life. He is likely to support progressive reforms even when others are holding on to the traditional views or ways of doing things.

The liberal person shows a lot of concern for the welfare of other people. He cares about the health, livelihood, and social well-being of the members of the society.

For this reason, the liberal person will in most times support greater assistance to the needy members of the society and reduced charges on essential services such as healthcare. For the liberal person, government programs designed to take care of the social welfare of the citizens are very desirable. The government which runs such programs is the most beneficial for the entire society.

The liberal person greatly values the freedoms of the individual. For this person, the liberties of the individual are of great importance and the government should always protect them. At the same time, each person should respect the individual rights and liberties of other people and avoid imposing on them.

These beliefs explain why the liberal person thinks that people should be allowed to make their own decisions on issues such as abortion. To ensure that the personal freedoms are always guaranteed, the liberal person supports great government power to protect the freedoms of citizens.

Objectivism is another virtue that the liberal person upholds. For him, no doctrine or ideology is right for every situation. As such, the liberal person will examine each situation in a fair manner. He will not look at the issue through the lens of religion or political ideology.

By adopting this subjective approach, the liberal person will be able to act in a just and fair manner since each case will be judged based on its merits. The liberal person is not influenced by the opinions of other people who might have bias on an issue.

The liberal person has a strong believe in the ability of the government and because of this, he supports domestic government interventions. This is especially true in democratic countries where the people have empowered the government through the electoral process.

For the liberal person, the government has the power needed to act in the interest of the individual. To him, the society needs the governments hand to regulate institutions such as the market and big corporation. Through this government intervention, people are protected from any exploitation that big corporations might want to engage in.

Having many liberal people might be a good thing for the society. Such people will support progress and reform in the country. They will not discriminate against people who have different views, ideologies, or traditions. Instead, they will show great tolerance and coexist with them in a harmonious way.

In a world that is becoming very multicultural, the liberal person is the most desirable person. The liberal view of government and society will ensure that that everyone is treated in a fair and just manner.

Turn Memo 1: In international relations, two theories are mostly employed in analyzing major issues in politics. Realism and idealism are the two major theories. Idealism is a theory that was first supported by the US president after the Second World War. The theory observes that there are many actors in the international system. The state is not the only actor because other units, such as religious organizations, Multinational Organizations, and supranational organizations exist.

The state does not have massive powers as far as policy formulation is concerned. For instance, Multinational Organizations influence the policy formulation among the Less Developed Countries. Moreover, religious organizations are known to influence the behavior of states in a number of ways (Lamy 78). An example is given in Poland during the Cold War when John Paul II influenced leaders to abandon communism in favor of capitalism.

In this regard, it can be observed that Catholic played a critical role in influencing leaders to keep off from the communism. In the international system, the United Nations plays an important role in influencing the foreign behavior of states. For instance, the UN Security Council can impose sanctions to a sovereign state. In Libya, the UN Security Council imposed a no fly zone sanction to the sovereign state because it is the main actor.

In contrary, realists observe that the only actor in the international system is the state. The state has the power to formulate foreign policies without consulting any other entity.

For instance, the state should not consult the populace before making foreign policies because foreign policy formulation process is considered high politics. In this case, other actors exist to temper with the sovereignty of the state because they should not be involved in the process. Realists claim that states have the powers to either support or oppose global decisions.

It is the responsibility of the state to decide whether to support a policy or not. Moreover, the state confers nationality to individuals. Without the state, an individual cannot move from one corner of the world to the other. The state has established structures that facilitate world security.

Turn memo 2: Liberalists observe that there are many actors in the international system. The international system is a community of both states and human beings. The foreign policy should recognize all actors. In this case, the role of other actors must be recognized. As states struggle to accomplish their missions, they must prioritize their goals.

Those goals that aim at fulfilling the common interests should be pursued first as opposed to the goals that accomplish individual interests. Foreign policy formulation should be based on morality. Moreover, it must be based on internationally recognized codes and morals. This is the reason why states intervene militarily whenever human rights are violated. This shows that liberalists value universal interests as opposed to national interests. Hoffman noted that states have a duty beyond their borders.

For instance, a state should ensure that the rights of other individuals are not violated, irrespective of whether the individuals are citizens its citizens. Liberalists emphasize human rights meaning that they must always be taken into consideration whenever foreign policies are formulated. To liberalists, the end does not justify the means because leaders must be held accountable at every decision they make. Liberalists are prescriptive implying that foreign policy should be reflective (Mansbach 89).

On the other hand, realists observe that the unit of analysis is the state. The international system dictates to the state what should be done. In other words, changes in the international system dictate foreign policies. In this regard, the international system is anarchic meaning that it lacks the central authority. Each state is concerned with its own security. States are preoccupied with national interests, not collective security. Therefore, the state will always prioritize its interests. Realists believe that the end will always justify the means.

Turn memo 3: To liberalists, the international system is characterized by cooperation. This explains why the US could provide aid to its adversaries such as Japan and Russia during calamities. In the international system, law is respected because it dictates what ought to be done.

For instance, states will always cooperate to fight the common enemy. For example, states struggle to achieve peace through nuclear disarmament programs. In the current international system, many states are members of world organizations such as the World Trade Organizations and the Atomic Agency. The main aim is to achieve peace and order (Masker 12).

To realists, the international system is characterized by brutality and mistrust. In this case, the international system is anarchic implying that some states are powerful than others. The less powerful states are usually subjugated and oppressed. The powerful states control policy formulation at the global arena.

For instance, the powerful states control important organizations such as the World Trade Organization and the United Nations. The powerful states use the world organizations to achieve their national interests. The United Nations and the World Trade Organization exist as far as the US would permit.

Works Cited

Lamy, Steven. Introduction to Global Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.

Mansbach, and K. Rafferty. Introduction to Global Politics. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007. Print.

Masker, John . Introduction to Global Politics: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.

Book summary

The book Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed discusses the negative influence of social policies and legislation on the socio-economic development of African Americans. The author links his arguments to the 50^th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act that was enacted in1964 to promote equality by illegalizing discrimination based on factors such as race, religion, and sex. Throughout the book, the author argues that the liberal initiatives that were aimed at promoting equality and economic development have had the opposite effect. The policies have suppressed all efforts for development and growth.

The book covers several topics such as minimum-wage laws, affirmative action, crime laws, occupational licensing requirements, the social-welfare program, and their effects on the wellbeing of African Americans. The author cites the social-welfare program as an example of an initiative that has destroyed the nuclear family and discouraged African Americans from pursuing socio-economic independence because of governments support that has stifled their desire for progress. Minimum-wage laws have pushed many people out of jobs while poor law enforcement has increased the risk of incarceration for those living in poor and crime-prone neighborhoods.

The author argues that liberal policies are ineffective and have not yet attained their desired objectives. For instance, affirmative action either propels African Americas to academic environments that stifle their desire for learning or help those who are already educated. Affirmative action was enacted to address discrimination that had been affecting minority groups in the United States for a long time.

However, the small number of African American college graduates is a proof of the policys failure to address the problem. Majority of the groups members have not benefited in any way. The author presents evidence to expel the notion that his arguments are based on hypothetical assumptions that are baseless. The book contains several examples that explain why efforts to help African Americans fail and cause more harm than good. The book discuses the counterproductive outcomes of policies aimed at helping African Americans and other minority groups attain socio-economic development and prosperity. The book links the effects of the aforementioned policies to problems such as rampant unemployment, violence, high rates of incarceration, family disorganization, and educational deficiencies.

Strengths

The author discusses various social policies in a way that is easy to understand and that expels all confusions and controversies that exist regarding their significance and effect. For instance, the minimum-wage law is a highly controversial legislation that is prone to misinterpretation especially by politicians. However, the author handles the topic in a convincing and clear manner that compels the reader to agree with his argument. In order to support his arguments, the author discusses various polices from different perspectives. In addition, the presentation and depth of arguments give the issues great urgency and importance.

The book deals with tough political and social challenges in an open and creative manner that initiates social discourse regarding the way forward. The writing style is straightforward and makes use of anecdotes to support arguments thus enhancing its authenticity and accuracy. Discussion of issues adopts a chronological style as the author compares the state of affairs before the policies were implemented and the current situation in contemporary society.

An important strength of the book is the authors courage and audacity. He does not shy away from the truth and speaks his mind without fear of criticism or rebuke. For instance, he starts the book by exploring a conservative theme regarding the importance of political power in the advancement of African Americans. He criticizes President Obama and argues that his presence in the White House has done little to help African Americans advance and gain economic prosperity (Riley 6).

The author speaks his mind on all issues covered in the book. He criticizes Obamas policies and declares his presidency a failure. The author notes that advancement is more about culture than political supremacy. He openly admits that Obamas presidency reveals that African Americans have advanced politically. However, they are still backward because politics is not an important component in the advancement of African Americans (Riley 8).

The book contains many personal opinions of the author that are subjective and seemingly biased. However, they stimulate the thinking of the reader and present different perspectives that challenge their beliefs and convictions. In the first chapter, he is very blunt and critical of Obama. For instance, he criticizes African Americans for being very loyal to President Obama despite his poor economic record (Riley 14). The author is courageous and does not hesitate to say what he thinks about certain matters.

The book is very informative and exhaustive in its discussion of specific issues. For example, he discusses how minimum wage has affected African Americans and its role in increasing unemployment (Riley 101). The author stretches and deepens the understanding of the readers perception regarding the progress attained by African Americans over the years under different political regimes. For instance, he discusses the state of affairs during the 19^th and 20^th centuries and compares them to current times (Riley 22-28).

This extensive discussion of issues gives the reader great insights, widens and deepens their understanding, and challenges their thinking. The author provides statistical data sparingly. He only uses statistics to provide evidence and support his arguments. This increases the authenticity and accuracy of his arguments. Historical anecdotes are also included in the book and help the reader to connect the past with the present. This approach makes reading the book engaging because the reader is compelled to make connections and evaluate issues from different perspectives.

The writing style adopted by the author is simple and appealing because it uses plain language, which makes it easy to understand. He avoids complex vocabulary and hard-to-understand statistical data. Instead, he uses personal stories of his experiences as an African American struggling to thrive in a society that looks down on minority groups. The genuineness and integrity of the author is evident because he does not hide his opinions regarding thorny issues such as race and unemployment. This is largely due to the experience attained from his career as a journalist. He knows how to attract the attention and sympathy of the reader.

For example, his personal stories make the reader sympathize with him and reconsider their opinions regarding certain politically-distorted issues such as race, unemployment, and crime among African Americans. The book is a great read because it blends personal and empirical information to offer great knowledge and insights into some of the most controversial issues in contemporary American society. He discusses the afflictions that African Americans have suffered with regard to access to quality education and how they have affected their development (Riley 128).

Weaknesses

There are several inconsistencies in the book that reveal the authors hypocrisy and bias. For instance, he narrates a story about how his parents relocated from a predominantly black neighborhood due to high crime rates. He applauds the decision to move to a neighborhood that was predominantly populated by whites. This pattern of thinking is compromised when he criticizes government policies that aim to relocate poor African Americans to neighborhoods that are predominantly white.

This contradiction leaves the reader questioning the authors integrity and authenticity. It is important for an author to give his opinions, hold on to them, and defend them at all costs. The authors contradictory perspectives on a single issue reveal that he is undecided on the matter. If he applauds his parents decision to move to a white-dominated neighborhood then he should also applaud government policies that seek to do the same.

Certain points of view in the book are misguided and in need of clarification because the author gives information that does not reflect reality. He cites American liberalism as the main factor that led to implementation of policies that barred the development of African Americans. However, the first documented affirmative-action initiative was initiated by Richard Nixon. Philadelphia Plan was a policy that aimed to help African Americans secure jobs in an industry that was dominated by whites.

The author cites the plan through a secondary source and as a result obscures the real role played by conservatism. Proper citation and reference would have rightly justified the role played by conservatism in defending black liberty and emancipation from economic and social discrimination. It is also important to note that the Republican Party played a role in the creation and implementation of policies that stifled the development of African Americans.

The book is awash with anecdotes from the authors personal life. The stories play an important role in augmenting the empirical evidence presented in the book. However, they make the book appear more of an autobiographical piece of literature than an academic book aimed at increasing the knowledge and understanding of the reader. Some of the chapters focus too much on personal life of the author making the book appear like his life story.

The anecdotes make the book an interesting and insightful read. However, the approach does not fit the expository nature of the book because it makes a large portion of the information personal. Personal stories are usually subjective and the author could have twisted the anecdotes to fit his objective while writing the book. On the other hand, the book focuses solely on the weaknesses of certain policies that failed to achieve certain objectives for which they were created and implemented. The author could have included sections of positive aspects of the policies because even though they have failed, they have had benefits too.

What I learnt

After reading the book, I learnt a lot and increased my knowledge regarding the challenges that African Americans and other minority groups face. The book is very insightful and informative because the author discusses issues that have dominated religious, political, social, and academic discourses for many decades. The book presents the issues in a stimulating way that helps the reader to fully comprehend their adverse effects on African Americans. The books discussion of historical facts, deep exploration of black issues, and application of logic makes the book excellent literature that I would recommend to others.

The authors discussion of various issues is well documented, honest, and rejects political rhetoric that has been applied for many years in efforts to solve issues that afflict minority groups in America. The book contains information that can be used to influence and shape American thinking and policies in the present and future as the country seeks solutions to these difficult issues. I would recommended this book to anyone interested in exploring the development of African Americans over time and the challenges they face today in a society that is required to offer liberty and justice for all. The book reveals the extent to which inequality and discrimination still exist in contemporary society despite efforts to eradicate them.

Conclusion

The book explores some of the most important issues that afflict African Americans in contemporary society. The creation and implementation of social polices was aimed at eradicating inequality and helping minority groups attain socio-economic development. However, the policies failed in attaining that goal and instead stifled their growth and development. The author discusses important topics such as minimum-wage laws, soft-on-crime laws, affirmative action, and social welfare in an open and stimulating manner.

His courageous and blunt approach is commendable because it reveals his authenticity and readiness to confront matters that have been a reserve of political, academic, and social discourses. The book is informative, thorough, and insightful. The reader gets an opportunity to walk in the shoes of African Americans and experience the daily struggle that minority groups go through in their efforts to live the American dream. The book sets the stage for discourses to find a way forward because it is evident from the empirical evidence presented in the book that many policies are not working in favor of African Americans.

Works Cited

Riley, Jason. Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed. New York: Encounter Books, 2014. Print.

Liberalism is a political philosophy based on liberty and equality, meaning that the market has to be free, and people should be given their rights and freedoms. This would facilitate the realization of the economic and political ambitions. Some of the principles that liberalists uphold include free and fair elections held periodically, respect for human rights, provision of various freedoms, free trade where the governments involvement is minimal, and respect for individual property meaning that private ownership of property is valued principle. Based on its assumptions, the government should never interfere with the market, as its role is to provide an enabling environment for individual fulfillment.

This implies that the market should be left to operate according to its internal logic where manufacturers of goods and services check on the customers. Based on this, producers will never manufacture products that customers are not ready to consume. However, liberalists underscore the fact that consumers are faced with various health complications, and this calls for governments intervention through licensing and general regulation. Whenever an economy encounters economic challenges, such as recession and financial meltdown, the government has to come in to save companies facing financial problems.

Once normalcy is restored in the market, the government should withdraw completely and allow free movement of goods and services. Several scholars supported the views of liberalism, but the 18th and 19th-century theorists conducted extensive studies to challenge the position of the philosophy. Karl Marx was one of the philosophers who opposed liberalism arguing that the system is based on a defective policy that allows the rich and the powerful in society to own the means of production while the poor do not benefit from economic activities. The scholar was concerned with market blindness as regards to inscriptive features, the exchange value of goods and services, and the idea of free trade.

For Marx, liberalism, which he termed as capitalism, is based on three principles, one of them being exploitation in the sense that it promotes the unequal distribution of wealth in terms of production and distribution. In this regard, he came up with various assumptions to justify the exploitative nature of capitalism. First, he observed that the main actors are the economic classes, but not individuals, companies, organizations, or states, as liberalists would argue.

The idea of private property is to blame for the formation of classes since it ensures that people have unequal power. Based on this, he opposed the idea that the system promotes natural property rights since because the rich, the bourgeoisie, are given a chance to own everything while the poor, the proletariat, only own their cheap labor. Private property facilitates the effective exploitation of one class.

Additionally, exploitation takes place in four main stages including, private ownership of property, and formation of the working class, conversation of labor into a commodity, which can be bought and sold, leading to alienation, and finally extracting the surplus-value. Because of this exploitative process, the system cannot be sustained and is deemed to collapse, given the fact that turning labor into a commodity is short-term (Marx and Engels 61).

Continuous exploitation of the working class raises consciousness to the extent that the poor will one day rise to demand what rightfully belongs to them, and this will be the death knell of capitalism. In this case, he concluded that the bourgeoisie participated in forging a weapon that would kill him or her. Intensive competition works against the capitalists because profits will fall and many employers will demand more from workers while some will reduce their wages, leading to unending conflicts.

Since human beings will be inefficient and unproductive, the bourgeoisie will opt for a cheaper source of labor whereby technology would be considered the best option, as it would ensure the surplus-value is increased. This will result in intense production, leading to insufficient markets, and the producers will be forced to search for new markets abroad. The convincing adverts will be designed to encourage people to buy what they do not need leading to the culture of consumerism. Since this will not ensure sustainability, the bourgeoisie will continue exploring options to ensure growth because many companies will be forced to shut their operations in case they do not adopt policies that guarantee productivity. According to Marx, this will bring in the new principle of capitalism, which is to grow using all available means, given the fact that many businesses will be under threat.

Based on this, many organizations will be focused on capturing the markets by concentrating on certain production lines to create a monopoly. To achieve this aim, the services of the state will be critical. Marx suggested that the state is simply made up of a committee of the ruling class. Several methods will be employed to soothe the masses, including the use of religion and the mass media. Liberalism insists on freedom, but Marx predicted that this does not aim at realizing the interests of the poor, but instead, egalitarianism is one of the instruments of capitalism that guarantees subordination and oppression.

Before the emergence of divergent views on economic development in the 18th and 19th centuries, various economic scholars had clarified that the only way to achieve development was through liberalism. David Ricardo was one such scholar who engaged in thorough research to establish the effectiveness of the philosophy. One of his main ideas was a comparative advantage, which was based on the liberalist assumption. Before the 17th century, the only economic philosophy held in western societies was mercantilism, which advocated for international trade, as this enabled states to gain wealth.

However, Ricardo came up with a different perspective that focused on comparative advantage, meaning that states had to specialize in what they produced (Ricardo 88). For this to flourish, states had to come together for trading purposes, what was popularly referred to as the free trade. In his analysis, he suggested that states had to engage in trade even though their levels of development were different.

Additionally, the state needed not to produce everything because it could obtain some goods and services from other parts of the world. He gave an example of the trade partnership between England and Portugal, which proved that a state could benefit even though it does not have adequate resources to compete. This view challenges the ideas of Marx that capitalism and the free-market economy are exploitative because studies confirmed that Portugal benefited to some extent. However, later studies confirmed the Marxian approach that capitalism will never benefit the poor, as the trade between the two countries killed the flourishing textile market in Portugal.

In his analysis, Marx was of the view that the proletariat should be allowed to run the economy whereby they are protected against all forms of injustices meted out by capitalists. Ricardo could respond to this claim by observing that protectionism will never guarantee development in the sense that it kills the agricultural sector. In Britain, the government protected farmers by implementing the Corn Laws that taxed agricultural products from other countries. Through the law, the government imposed taxes on agricultural products forcing property owners to rent their plots out to merchants.

Consequently, the price of land went up, something that benefited landowners instead of rewarding the industrial capitalists. Many property owners in the country were known to squander their resources instead of investing. Based on this, the British economy was unable to develop for several years, and in 1846, the law was repealed. Therefore, it is true that protectionism, as suggested by Marx, is unhealthy for the economy. The proletariat is incompetent to run the economy since its wishes and desires are based on the fulfillment of basic needs while the bourgeoisie aims at self-actualization.

The merging of England and Scotland was the beginning of the British Empire in 1496 when the first kingdom was formed. However, this was not an important kingdom at the time since nothing was achieved economically and politically. The second British Empire, which existed between 1835 and 1815, was the main kingdom in the history of the world. Between 1815 and 1914, Britain was the most powerful empire the world has ever seen.

The kingdom developed ambitious economic and political policies that would help it achieve national interests globally. In the same period, various scholars in the country engaged in research to establish the most effective system that would guarantee economic growth. The ideas of John Locke and Stuart Mill were employed to develop economic policies that would help in the management of the empire. Mill was of the view that certain factors must exist in case the government wants to enable a smooth production system (Mill 23).

The two main factors that determine to manufacture, according to Mill, are labor and natural objects. In the production system, labor is viewed as an important agent, even though not all forms of labor are needed in the manufacturing process. Through labor, through main utilities are generated, and the first one is the object for human use, which produces material goods. The second form of labor enables service delivery, and doctors and teachers fall under this category. The last category of labor is the one that ensures pleasure and entertainment, even though this form of labor does not bring about productivity.

Mill underscored the fact that labor alone cannot guarantee success in economic matters since other factors have to be considered, including the capital, which is defined as the accumulated stock of products of labor. Mill talked about distribution, and he went on to note that the distribution of goods and services is determined by competition, tariffs, slavery, slave ownership, wages, and rents. Through the ideas of Mill, the British Empire embarked on an ambitious program of annexing various regions globally with the aim of securing markets for products and services, as well as accessing cheap labor and raw materials. The empire was producing goods in mass, while markets were limited. Similarly, other countries in the continent were manufacturing products in large-scale, and the empire could not easily dispose of the products (Turpin and Tomkins 44).

This forced it to seek markets in overseas economies, including Asia and Africa. Mill noted that labor is an important aspect of production and since the British government was facing challenges in finding laborers to work in the fields, it had to seek the services of the locals in colonies and protectorates. In this regard, the ideas of Mill were uniquely suited to the circumstances of the British Empire during the 18th and 19th century. However, they cannot be applied in modern society because many things have changed, particularly given the fact that the sovereignty of states respected. Additionally, labor cannot be sourced without costs because of the development of the labor market.

On his part, John Locke discussed the role of government by observing that it has the power to act collectively. The community decided to surrender its power to one universal actor, which is the government, and its main role is to oversee the welfare of each person. Since the government represents the public good, any regime that is indifferent to the sufferings of the majority has to be removed and replaced with a working one. Locke claimed that man exists in a state of nature, meaning he has inalienable rights (Springhall 89). Based on this, people own their labor, and they have a right to work in the organization of their choice at an agreed payment.

Regarding private ownership of property, no person should harm another simply to take up wealth. The ideas of Locke seemed to oppose the activities of the British Empire, but the only idea borrowed was the legitimacy of government (Locke 112). The regime instructed people to respect the authority and never to question the decision of the government, particularly in the colonies and protectorates..

Works Cited

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Boston: MobileReference.com, 2010. Print.

Marx, Karl and Engels, Fredrick. The communist manifesto. New York: Wild side Press LLC, 2008. Print.

Mill, John. Principles of Political Economy: And, Chapters on Socialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print.

Ricardo, David. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004. Print.

Springhall, John (2001). Decolonization since 1945: the collapse of European overseas empires. Palgrave, 2001. Print.

Turpin, Colin and Tomkins, Adam. British government and the constitution. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print.

Liberalism and socialism are both popular political philosophies that became especially famous in the 20th century. The two systems have some points in common; however, their use in the political structures of various countries is strikingly different, as there are some significant variations in the very basis of their ideologies.

The belief on which liberalism was founded is that all people are equal and that each person has the right to individual freedom. Socialism, on the other hand, is based on the principle of common ownership. Socialism also promotes equality of all people, but the central aspect of equality is the individuals property, rather than his or her rights. The main values of liberalism, thus, are freedom of speech and thought, as well as the equality of opportunities. Socialism, on the other hand, values equal distribution and access to resources above everything else. The individuals freedom is not seen as a crucial aspect of life in socialism; instead, socialists are more focused on the security that joint ownership provides. For instance, if all resources of the country are distributed equally, there is no hunger, competition, or jealousy. Liberalism, however, supports healthy competition in science and education; it teaches that people are to exercise free thought rather than think in the terms set by the state, which allows for creative education practices. In socialism, on the other hand, both work and teaching are standardized, and all people are required to put the same amount of effort into work.

Liberalism is rarely used as a sole foundation of the government, which is mainly because liberalists do not support the idea of one man or woman having some form of control over the other. However, modern liberals agree that government is needed in the contemporary world to achieve economic stability and security. Similarly to socialism, in liberalism, people trust the state to protect them from the changing economic conditions, illegal actions, diseases, and more. However, the passing of the power to the government is carried out rather reluctantly, since the people sacrifice a portion of their highly-valued freedom to obtain security. Socialism, however, is the opposite. People are not entrusted with the regulation of the countrys resources, and they willingly submit their freedom to the government to ensure that a sufficient amount of resources is provided for every person.

Due to the ideological differences between the two systems, their applications also vary a lot. For example, socialism is usually applied in developing countries where there is a need for the government to control resources and the industry. In these settings, socialism decreases issues such as hunger, unemployment, and uneven education across the population. Moreover, it can also be useful in countries with large shares of rural areas. The people living in the villages are usually poorer than those who stay in cities. The number of jobs is low, whereas the competition is high, which may result in exploitation and small wages. Equal distribution of resources, in this case, ensures that the villagers are provided with products they need for everyday living and are paid according to their duties. Nevertheless, in developed countries with strong economies, these problems are less prominent and do not affect peoples quality of life. This causes people to strive for personal freedoms and rights rather than for basic resources, thus giving rise to liberal ideas.

Introduction

Socialism has for many years been closed linked and confused with liberalism. However, liberalism and socialism are different ideologies although they share some grey areas of similarities. Liberalism is a philosophy of being open-minded, tolerant and exercising individual liberty. Liberalism is ideally based on individual freedom; liberty of private property ownership but whatever is done by liberals must be within the law (Carter, 2003).

On the other hand, the term socialism refers to an economic system where wealth is systematically shared and distributed throughout a population where members of the society are presumed equal and should have equitable claim of the pool of resources. According to Carter (2003), socialism assumes that people should be in a classless society and should not be discriminated against by the leaders. Initial advocates of liberalism did not support the privileges that were accorded to the members of upper class who were also barriers against acquisition of possessions by private individuals. These activists of liberalism succeeded in convincing the masses and people in leadership positions, that wealth was meant to be shared among all the people. Socialism and liberalism has been used by subdued groups of people to fight for their freedom from their tormentors.

These are philosophical ideals that have come in conflict with totalitarianism and aristocracy. While socialists consider it right for everybody to have full control to what belongs to him as well as the means of its fabrication, liberalists believe that individual freedoms should be exercised within the law. Socialism is as old as human kind and many revolutions in the world have been started by people who believed in social ideologies. There are many forms of socialism: ranging from social democracy to anarcho-socialism.

Forms of Socialism

In social democracy the populace vote for their leaders and give them power to control production and distribution of resources while anarcho-socialism is when the people own companies that would compete or cooperate in production in a free market economy without any control from centralized government (Henderson, 1912).

While liberalism seeks to give people the freedom to do what they want to do most, socialists believe that the employees or the majority should have the power to control and manage the drivers of the economy. The question of who should be in control of the economy or what is called means of production has been explained by historians through different political ideologies ranging from aristocracy, capitalism to socialism.

Other Political Ideologies

Aristocracy was a system of government where a few members of the ruling elite manage and control the land and wealth while the majority had to serve them so has to earn their livelihood. Capitalism abolished the control of the means of production by the members of the ruling class to allow other private persons to possess and manage their wealth. This brought about competition and unfair means of competition as individuals tried to maximize the wealth at the expense of the many who did not have similar opportunities. Capitalism therefore bore liberalism that advocates individualism and respect for private property.

While capitalism tried to broaden the base of the people controlling the means of production, exploitation and unequal distribution of resources did not stop as the very people who the system wanted to redeem were oppressed by the few who could access productive wealth. Capitalism was a system that favoured the middle class while those from the lower levels were ignored and oppressed.

Capitalism is liberalism; meaning it favours private individuals to own productive wealth and choose their management teams and set their own standards of production and workers terms of engagement. Liberals, however, control the excesses of capitalism through clear system of checks and balances through strong labour unions and relevant labour legislations.

The third approach was socialism, which has been defined as collective ownership, management and control of the factors of production (wealth) (Frankel, 1996). Socialism therefore ensured more people owned and controlled not only their wealth but also wealth owned by the state. This system allowed people to own their country and subject leadership to public scrutiny. From aristocracy (where few people own property and control the masses) to socialism (where everyone owns the wealth collectively), equality and equitable distribution of wealth has been the reason for conflict between the masses and their leaders.

Unlike other systems, socialism has no central controlling point (central government) but people (worker ownership) control means of production.

In the true nature of socialism, it is a system that has not been completely tested on the people as the governments that have claimed to be socialists have always suppressed the workers negating the same principles they are expected to preach. Socialism enhances strong principles of democracy through which injustices of slavery and discrimination based on race or creed should not be practiced.

Principles of Democracy

Principles of democracy range from perfect democracy to representative democracy. However the two systems allow the workers or the people to elect their representatives and control the way they are governed.

In direct (perfect) democracy the populace is allowed to vote on the laws that govern them. The work of the government is to carry out the mandate and wishes of the people through the laws of the land. On the other hand, representative democracy (or republics) the people elect representatives through popular suffrage, who legislate laws for them. However, the system has been abused where the elected people actually end up making laws that favour them hence subduing the people they govern. By making the electorate poor, many modern republics today have been converted into silent dictatorships. Therefore a well functioning organization or republic must not live on the extremes of both ends but should try to strike a balance between the principles of the two systems (Frankel, 1996).

These ideologies notwithstanding, other schools of thought say that many workers are at the mercy of their employers. Workers organizations can do as much, as they also limited by laws designed by the same people who own these companies. In business corporations, orders flow top-bottom and there is little room for feedback in the ladder as the workers and their masters or supervisors are at different levels of social cycle. While social democracy seeks to have workers elect their representatives and eventually their leaders, scholars have questioned the practicability of this ideology (Shearmur, 1995). Whatever level one is in, the organizations orders are taken from above and passed on to the people below. This way, workers become implementers of orders which they did not take part in formulating.

Liberals therefore ensured measures were in place to control the powers exercised by the business owners by allowing workers to belong to strong trade union organizations. Fighting for workers rights then brought the necessity to balance personal freedom and social responsibility: doing what you want, as long as it as within the law (Henderson, 1912). Every person must be responsible of their actions within the law. Liberalism has tried to bring this balance between freedom and responsibility.

Liberalists and socialists agree that corporate totalitarianism should be prevented. However the two ideologies differ on how to ensure that business corporations stay within the law as they practice and pursue their goal to maximize profits at minimum costs and losses. While socialism argues that workers should be allowed to own, manage and control the instruments of production, liberalists say that what is done should be done within the law. These instruments of production include factories, mines, roads, roads, industries, etc. Socialism seeks to satisfy human needs but capitalism seeks to maximize profits. While workers would prefer social system in their workplace (where they elect their leaders, representatives and supervisors), business owners would prefer the opposite system of totalitarianism (maximizing profits at the lowest cost while controlling the management of the company).

In socialism, workers would want to be involved in every level of decision making. This means that even the management is responsible for the workers welfare. This allows the workers to oust their managers when they deem necessary and appropriate if their interests are not articulated. This gives more powers to workers or the people; a thing that the ruling elite do not want.

Similarities of socialism and liberalism

Unlike other systems like totalitarianism and aristocracy, socialism and liberalism systems advocate for equitable distribution of resources and the ability of people to share in resources of their organizations. These two systems are co-joined at the social liberalism point. Both systems are opposed to peoples oppression by aristocrats (or small group of people). This forms the basis of both systems giving focus to welfare of the people as opposed to the focus of the leaders.

Socialism with its democratic principles expects that the interests of the people are taken care of through elected representatives. These people are not allowed to front their own selfish interests but the wishes of the people who elect them. In this system therefore the orders emanate from the ruled to the leaders. This bottom-up system allows the people to be in control of the leaders who rule them. The elected leaders should be able to front the interests of the people who elect them into office (Frankel, 1996).

This gives the people who are electing their leaders freedom and freewill to elect the people of their choice. Freedom is the fulcrum of liberalism. Liberalism allows for individual ownership of property (Ellen et al, 2003). While ownership of property and election of leaders are ideally different, both ideologies are opposed to the suppression of the masses by the aristocrats or business totalitarians.

Both liberalism and socialism support system of free and fair elections. Democracy is anchored on the ability to elect leaders. Socialism as well as liberalism advocate for leaders elected on popular suffrage through the power of ballot. Many established democracies are based on these two systems of governance and economic management. As John Locke, who is credited for the conceptualizing the theory said, liberalism is a system that employs the rule of law in observance of natural rights and social contracts.

Socialism on the other hand argues that leaders should be elected to represent the peoples interests in legislation and governance. In old democracies, rulers had the consent of the governed to make laws based on their interests. Many violent revolutions around the world were sparked by oppression of the people. The leaders who guided these revolutions like the French Revolution were informed by the need for equality and end to oppression of the masses (Carter, 2003). Both systems are opposed to government control of the resources. Socialism allows for the representatives to control the resources while liberalism allows for individual ownership (or capitalism to control the economy). This enhances competition and innovation which forms the basis for socialism and liberalism.

Differences between socialism and liberalism

Liberalism is ideally focused on the benefits of the individual while the socialism is focused on the good of the society. The focus of liberalism is the freedom of the individual while the focus of socialism is the entire society and how the resources can be shared equitably (Shearmur, 1995). After people elect their leaders they may not be in control of the decisions made by the leaders on their behalf. This means that personal liberty to do what ones wish within the law is curtailed by this bottleneck.

The leaders who are elected through different shades of democracy are also mandated to make decision on behalf of the electorate. As human beings, these decisions that they make may not strictly represent the interest of the people who elect them. Socialism also assumes that equality is a reality. However, human beings are as different and therefore trying to bring people to the same level would be in conflict with reasoning of people who would want to do more and benefit more (Frankel, 1996). Socialism rewards sluggards while taking away benefits from deserving people. This is unfair.

While socialism focused on welfare of all the people irrespective of their class, liberalism was focused on the middle class and their enjoyment of their individual rights to own property. Not everybody in the society has the opportunity and chance to own property. This is a premise assumed by proponents of socialism that all people in the society are equal; which is not the case in a normal society. Liberalism was supported by the middle class in the society who ended up benefiting from the system through political representation, civil liberties and constitutions to protect their rights and property. Socialism on the other hand does not value class but tries to treat all people equally.

During the fight for liberation in middle Nineteenth Century, there political conflicts which led to fight for the rights of workers through trade unions. Elected union leaders were the drivers of socialist ideology that argues that workers should enjoy equal rights with other people in organizations (Mises, 1951). All decisions made in the organization or in the country should have the approval of the workers or electorate respectively. Socialism which was supported by the working class was opposed to capitalism which advocated for private ownership of property.

Liberalism was as well an ideology that generally supported the private ownership of property hence conflicting with tenets of socialism. This brings to the fore the main difference between socialism and liberalism. While the initial idea of socialism was classless society, liberalism allows individuals to exercise their freedom and hence the ability to acquire and amass wealth without bothering about other people in the society.

Conclusion

While it is essentially difficult for these two systems to be practiced absolutely, they represent principles that can lead to equitable society. Allowing people to do (giving them necessary freedom) gives them the ability to become more creative to the society and are able to exploit their potential; in their own benefit and the benefit of the society.

Socialism on the other hand ensures that people are not oppressed by establishments and their leaders. The organizations or the country is governed on the basis of equality, equitable representation and enjoyment of equal natural rights. This enhances democracy as a system that is more anchored on the both liberalism and socialism.

However, in both systems there is need for everything done to be done within the law. Liberalism, as is capitalism, can become very dangerous especially when it comes to competition and wealth acquisition (Frankel, 1996). It is therefore necessary for the respective governments to be able control excesses that can come with these two systems. One of the techniques that can be used is price control and regulated legislation. However some liberals in position of leadership are converted to aristocrats and therefore need to control them. Both liberalism and socialism are level systems of government whose cardinal aim is the welfare and benefit of the masses. The strength of any society is measured by the way it treats its own less fortunate people.

List of References

Carter, M 2003. Green and Development of Ethical Socialism, London: Imprint Academic Press.

Ellen F. P., Miller F. D. and Jeffrey P. (2003). After Socialism, Part 1. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Frankel, P 1996. Problems of marketing liberalism: Social philosophy and policy Socialism: London: Cambridge University Press.

Henderson, F. 1912. Liberalism Versus Socialism, 3rd Edition, London: Jarrold & sons.

Mises, L.V 1951. Socialism: An economic and sociological analysis, New York: Yale University Press.

Shearmur J. (1995). Liberalism versus democratic socialism, London: Centre for independent studies.

Liberalism is a view of leadership based on principles of freedom and equality. Liberals promote ideologies such as free and fair elections, human rights, allowing freedom to the mass media, free world trade, and right to life and own property. This political philosophy became popular around the year 1815, following Napoleons defeat.

The removal of tariff barriers and promotion of free trade gave birth to a new order. People fiercely rejected notions such as inheritance of power and creation of absolute monarchs, thereby, creating fertile grounds for the rise of Liberalism.

Rawls explains that Liberalism depends on the legitimacy of political power. He said that, leaders ought to exercise their powers in the right manner by adhering to those principles that enhance cooperation in society and encourage collective decision making in matters affecting the citizens He further explains that, in a liberal society, the state ought to exercise its powers in agreement to everyone bound by it.

Rawls also claims that the correct social rules are conventional. The generation of wealth is the collective duty of every member of the society, and rules of justice only seek to enhance the ownership and distribution of these resources. From this idea, Rawls came up with his view of justice which he summed up in three forms.

First, he says adherence to justice is a moral duty drawn in the constitution. Second, that agreeing to a form of political organization does not disregard present doctrine but is a reasonable creation of the basic structure which enhances these doctrines. Lastly, justice depends on principles that promote democracy in a society.

Moreover, the basic structures of a society depend on institutions which oversee the rights of citizens and the distribution of the benefits that accrue from their social endeavors. The major issue behind this is that, to come up with controls that exceed the limits of the political, social and economic life, waters down aspect of respecting ones freedom and equality in a democratic society.

In comparison to the status quo, liberalism stands out for its strong stand on observing human rights and equality. It observes and tries to offset any forms of social injustice and economic inequalities regarding a countrys resources. It assures citizens of equality as structured in the constitution.

There is no form of discrimination regarding educational and economic opportunities. It also enhances equitable distribution of resources to every citizen in a non-bias manner. This way, the underprivileged easily rise to high positions in society. Status quo disregards equality, since only a few people have access to most of the resources while the majority has to share the little that remains.

Liberalism has its limitations. It creates a situation where the citizens rely so much on their government to solve their problems. Situations where this lacks, results in mass panic and protests, and also individual talents are not fully exploited. In addition, in the context of the free world trade, poor countries are often at a loss. Their local industries stagnate due to the influx of cheap imports.

Liberalisms way of addressing social issues finds favor in many people. It emphasizes equal opportunity to all regardless of ones social status. In addition, it promotes political freedom, provides economic facilities to its citizens, and creates social opportunities, guarantees transparency, and security so that people get the opportunity to develop themselves and their society. This way, the less privileged easily rise in status, thereby, creating a harmonized society. It widens the peoples choices and their well-being and spreads wealth.

In conclusion, lessons from liberalism are fascinating. It offers a safe and sure way to address the worlds problems of social injustices and inequality and should, therefore, be promoted.

Introduction: Locke and Burke, Together at Last

Even though much time has passed since the XVII century, putting the names of Locke and Burke in one sentence already seems quite provoking, as if two rivals have been seated at the same table.

Despite not being as known by the modern population as his opponent, Burke was also quite influential with his ideas at the time, and these ideas were quite conflicting with the concepts offered by Locke.

Taking a closer look at the ideas which the two philosophers expressed, one can possibly find a golden mean in their arguments.

Foundations of Political Authority: Where Power Rests

Every state needs certain regulations to be based upon, and these regulations are to be provided by the people standing at the helm of the state. Without a decent political authority, a state cannot exist, which Locke and Burke both understood well.

Offering their interpretations of what an ideal political authority must be like, they provide the ideas which, of collided, appear to be the exact opposite of each other.

Lockes equality ideas, revisited

A true Liberalist at heart, Locke focused his idea of state power on the concept of freedom and equality, which tossed the philosopher into extreme liberal ideas. As Mack explains, Locke positioned personal freedom as the primary goal of every citizen, as a specific the law of nature.

Therefore, according to Locke, political authority should emerge only when there is an urge to use its power: The motivating idea of state of nature theorizing is that we can determine what the purpose and proper extent of political authority is by seeing what sort of problems would beset us in the absence of all political authority (Mark, 2009, 23).

Burke: the power of the opposition

In a sharp contrast to Lockes free-spirited and somewhat anarchist moods, Burke displayed the desire to establish strong and down-to-earth set of laws and regulations based on monarchist ideas.

It is quite peculiar that Burke not only exercises the principle of natural right  he takes it to another extreme: it became an exclusive criterion for the legitimacy of any political power whatsoever (Parkin, 2011, 9).

However, in Burkes reality, even the law of nature is supposed to support the idea of monarchy as the only possible political system.

Looking for Utopia: the golden mean

It seems that the ideal solution is the golden mean between Locke and Burkes ideas. It is not quite reasonable to offer complete freedom to people, for they need to be guided by certain regulations to live in a state.

However, the idea of natural right seems even less appealing  while people have to relate to nature, these are the basic moral standpoints that define their humanity. Hence, Lockes ideas seem more applicable.

Glorious Revolution in the Eyes of Burke and Locke

Unlike wars, which are usually planned in the most cool-blooded manner several months and even years before starting the actual attack on the enemys state, revolutions, which are headed against the government of the native country, are usually considered a sign of a rapidly approaching change.

There are many ways to consider revolutions from a historical perspective; and the example of Locke and Burke is a perfect way to show that revolutions cannot be taken for granted. Clashing in an argument, both philosophers offer a legitimate interpretation of the Glorious Revolution and its purpose.

National tradition instead of abstract commonplaces: Burke

Weirdly enough, Burke, the man who considered order and compliance with rules the basis for the society to ground on, seemed to approve of certain types of revolutions.

While interpreting the French Revolution as another manifestation of the regicidal, destabilizing forces unleashed during the English Civil War (Rooney, 2012, 26), Burke seemed to approve of the Glorious Revolution.

However, he explained his opinion on the significance of the latter in his own manner of a logical yet unexpected argumentation, describing the Glorious revolution as a culmination of historical processes (Rooney, 2012, 26).

While the French Revolution was destructive for the society, the Glorious Revolution spurred the state development and heralded the return to the ancient laws of England (Rooney, 2012, 26).

Treatises to defend the revolution: Lockes passion

Unlike one might have expected, Locke shared Burkes vision of the Glorious Revolution as the force which is bound to change the society for the better. However, Locke believed in the success of the Glorious Revolution for different reasons than his opponent, which defined the key difference between the two.

While Burke believed that the Glorious Revolution will help England return back to its traditions, unlike the French Revolution, which made the French society even less integrated, Locke supposed that the Glorious Revolution because he saw the Glorious Revolution as an opportunity to change the political situation (Suckow, 2007, 8). Therein lies the difference between the two philosophers.

In the midst of a bloodbath: Glorious Revolution, unveiled

While the effects which the Glorious Revolution has had on England and its political situation, it is necessary to admit that it was, first of all, a huge bloodbath.

Hence, no matter what their political ideas could be, people felt that they have achieved something with a huge effort. Therefore, it seems that the Glorious Revolution was more of a revelation for the people of their power to choose and to change.

When the Elephant Meets the Unicorn: Liberals vs. Conservatives

As it follows from the example of two great philosophers mentioned above, there is no way to choose the right ideology  both Liberalism and Conservatism seem quite legitimate when their basic ideas are applied to a specific situation in a specific context.

Therefore, it is highly unlikely that one of the given theories can be proven completely wrong; it is the time context and the political situation which predetermines the reasonability to resort to either Liberal or Conservative ideas.

However, if comparing and contrasting some of the basic Liberal and Conservative ideas, one can possibly decide which of the theories works for a certain person in a specific timeslot.

Le sage Locke has its say: liberals attack

The concept offered by Locke, or le Sage, as his followers called him, seem quite in tune with the general idea of peoples rights and freedoms. Indeed, according to the key postulates of Liberals, the main idea behind their political theory lies in offering people their freedoms and leaving them to choose the path which they are going to take. As Kelly puts it,

It derives from a recognition of the equal moral worth and standing of all individuals, but it also claims that this view places limits on the scope of moral claims given the fact of reasonable pluralism of moral views in modern democratic societies. (Kelly, 2005, 3)

Hence, liberalism allows for the freedom of choice, yet this freedom is restricted by the moral standards governing in a certain state.

The father of Anglo-conservatism rises

However, the theory of Conservatism seems rather legitimate as well. As Aughey, Jones, Terence and Riches explain, the nature of conservatism at any one time in any one place is the distinctive (perhaps incoherent) discourse of its philosophical, dogmatic and policy expressions (Aughey, Jones, Terence & Riches, 1992, 20).

Rooted in the state traditions and clinging onto the approaches which have stood the time testing, Conservatism seems rather resistant to the innovative approaches yet more prone to the mistakes triggered by newly adopted solutions.

When the balance must be maintained

It seems that in the modern world, the liberal ideas are much more popular and appealing to people. Recognizing peoples rights and freedoms, liberalism must be the key political force. However, people still need conservative ideas to balance the liberal ones out.

Conclusion: Standing the Test of Time

When it comes to deciding either which of the philosophers is more influential or which of them has contributed to changing the United Kingdom as people know it, there is no way to choose between Locke and Burke  both have shaped the politics of the state greatly, as well as contributed to the development of the English philosophical thought.

Despite the fact that some of the ideas which the philosophers offered seem a bit dated nowadays, e.g., Lockes Utopian concepts, or Burkes idea of keeping the traditions of the ancestors, which he drove to a complete extreme, there is still a lot to give the two philosophers credit for.

Reference List

Aughey, A., Jones, G., Terence, W. & Riches, M. (1992). The Conservative political tradition in Britain and the United States. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Kelly, P. (2005). Liberalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Mark, E. (2009). John Locke. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Parkin, C. (2011). The moral basis of Burkes political thought: An essay. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rooney, M. (2012). The French Revolution debate and the British novel, 1790 1814: The struggle for historys authority. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Suckow, R. (2007). Preparation of the Glorious Revolution  an analysis of philosophical writings. Berlin, DE: GRIN Verlag.

Some Definitions

According to Wikipedia1, Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe and the Americas. It was committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets

Government is an authority or agency through which political establishments exist. The government formulates, implements, and monitors public policy

Adam Smith (1723-90) the Father of Economics

And a proponent of Classical liberalism

Some tenets of Classical Liberalism:

• The individual comes before the state
• Private property ownership capitalism
• Pre-political individuality
• Limited government control over trade

Smiths Idea of Government: (in His Own Words)

Smith (as cited in Gavin,2008,pp227,228) suggests

Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.

All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavor to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.

Smith; Just What Is the Government For

Role 1

The first duty of the government is to protect its people from external aggression. That is done through the military. (Gavin,2008,228)

• Economic Implications:
  • Justification of expenditure on war goods
  • Government purchase armament on the private establishment and this leads to increased aggregate demand
  • Labour of military men unproductive (does not regenerate)
  • Labor of armament producers productive (regenerates+ profit)

Role 2

The second duty of the government according to Smith (as cited in Gavin2008, 229) is & protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society

• Major Concerns:
  • Separation of state organs for greater individual liberties
  • Benefits of justice administration supersede its cost
  • Expense towards justice is provided for from tax or litigants

Role 3

The third duty of the government is divided into 3:

• Public works and institutions to facilitate commerce
  • Erect facilities like roads, which are too expensive for private enterprise
  • Maintain such infrastructure
• Education of the youth
  • Government to establish affordable district schools
  • Universal compulsory education provision
  • Intervention on curriculum development
  • Salaries to be paid from public coffers
• Education & health of people of all ages

Smith; What the Government Must Not Do

• Seek to control private property (Ludwig2008,33)
  • The government must recognize and protect personal property
• Interfere with the invisible hand that guides trade:
  • By regulating prices (supply/demand curve should determine prices).
  • By imposing trade tariffs against the free market concept
    • If tariffs are imposed on imports to protect manufacturers, consumers bear the heavy burden of high prices.
    • Left to own device, man will invest his capital in such a manner to attract high returns. This will be more beneficial to society.

Major Opponent of Classical Liberalism; Karl Marx (1818-83)

• A proponent of social engineering theory
• Spearheaded historical materialism responsible for:
  • Creating knowledge critical of existing society
  • Informing the working classes of their oppression
  • Encouraging revolution
  • Abolition of capitalist society
  • Building a new socialist, then communist society

Karl Marx; on Government

Karl Marx (as cited in Ludwig 2008,14) &Preservation of property is one and the only function of the state.

MARX: centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state because:

• Free trade will curtail workers bargaining power, thus enslave them
• Over time, workers wages will decline and so will living standards
• Smiths political economy will concentrate power and property in the hand of a few
• (Marx et al,1998)

Karl Marx Sought to Abolish Social Classes in Government Through:

• Letting the workers be responsible for business rather than the invisible hand which places wealth in the hands of a few.
• Letting society as a whole control of all resources: no private property.
• Through revolutions by the workers in a bid to get a share of wealth and power. (Marx et al,1998)

Two Forms of Governments: Capitalism v. Socialism

Times have favored Classical liberalism reasoning. Facts:

• The majority of the countries have adopted capitalism
• Capitalistic countries generally enjoy more political stability
• Countries exercising capitalism have a more stable economy
• There are better living standards and job opportunities in countries exercising capitalism.

North Korea v. South Korea

North Korea:

• Socialistic tendencies
• The government controls Business to a large extent
• The state comes before the individual
• Less integration with the outside world

South Korea:

• Capitalistic tendencies
• Free trade policies largely implemented
• The individual comes before the state
• Participates more in World affairs

North Korea v. South Korea: Outcomes

North Korea

• Poor investment climate
• Multinationals will shy away from the country
• No money from World Financial Institutions
• Individual liberties curtailed
• Staling Economy, compared to neighbors
• Relies on food donations

South Korea

• Conducive investment climate
• Multinationals invest in the country
• Financed by the World Financial Institutions
• Individuals enjoy their liberties
• Higher economic growth rate than North Korea.
• Donates foodstuffs to North Korea

Economic Freedoms North Korea v. South Korea

Regional Rank: 41 of 41

North Korea v. South Korea: Conclusions

South Korea is ranked 31st on the world economic freedom global rankings.

• This is an indication that the country has adopted the model of Adam Smith more than their neighbors North Korea
• This translates to a higher economic growth rate and better living standards

North Korea is ranked 179th in the world on the global economic freedom ranking.

• This is an indication that the country has adopted the Marxist Model.
• It has registered a lower economic growth rate compared to its neighbor South Korea, and lower living standards.
• North Korea relies on its neighbors for food aid.
• Poor living standard, in comparison with South Korea.

Reference List

Doyle, M. (1997), Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New York: Norton.

Gavin, K. (2008). Adam Smith: A Moral Philosopher and his political economy. Basingstoke, Hampshire. Palgrave Macmillan.

Gray, J. (1995) Liberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Hamowy, R. (2008) The encyclopedia of libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Hunt, E. K. (2003) Property and prophets: the evolution of economic institutions and ideologies. New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.

Kelley, D. (1998) A Life of Ones Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

Ludwig, M. (2002). Liberalism in the Classical Tradition. Francisco, California. Cobden press.

Marx, K.,& Engels, F. (1998). The Communist Manifesto. Cambridge Drive, London. Elecrobooks Classics. Web.

Mills, J. (2002) A critical history of economics. Basingstoke, Hampshire UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Oneal, J. R.; Russet, B. M. (1997). The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950-1985.International Studies Quarterly 41: 267294.

Richardson, J. L. (2001) Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

San Marx, K. (1859): A Contribution to the Critique o Political Economy. Web.

Schumpeter, J. A. (2010) Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Routledge.

Turner, M. J. (1999) British politics in an age of reform. Manchester UK: Manchester University Press.

Vincent, A. (2009) Modern Political Ideologies (Third Edition). Chichester, W. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Introduction

John Rawls have developed a comprehensive theory that can be useful in addressing contemporary issues. One of the major advantages of his theory is that it contains major principles that can be applicable nowadays.

Rawls philosophy can be used when addressing the contemporary issues associated with unequal distribution of resources.

It is also necessary to note that Rawls philosophy of liberalism is based on principles of justice, but there are still certain weaknesses in the theory.

Strengths of Rawls Philosophy

As has been mentioned above the philosophy can have specific implications in the contemporary society. The major strength of the philosophy is that it provides people with a specific tool to avoid any bias.

The veil of ignorance is an effective way to develop certain principles to govern a society (Shaw & Barry, 2012). Thus, people will never create an authoritarian society as the odds to be in the unfavorable position are too high.

Thanks to the veil of ignorance, people will try to create the society where the less well-to-do people will have all possible rights.

Apart from rights, these groups of people will have numerous opportunities, which will secure realization of potential of the most active and gifted people.

Admittedly, the present philosophy can become a good solution to the existing issues associated with unequal distribution of resources. Now less well-to-do people have few opportunities compared to more well-to-do groups.

Notably, this is one of the major issues associated with unequal distribution of resources which leads to gradual degradation as only restricted number of innovation occurs. Rawls philosophy addresses the problem of the lack of opportunities.

Another strength of the philosophy is that it does not ignore inequality which is a characteristic feature of the human society. On the contrary, Rawls justifies it and even proves that inequality is one of the factors contributing to development of the human society.

Rawls develops a model of society where the least well-to-do groups will have more resources, rights and opportunities than those in an imaginary society where all are equal.

Therefore, there is no need in trying to diminish inequality, which is simply impossible. According to Rawls philosophy, people can focus on creating a society where inequality is a tool of development.

The Major Weakness of Rawls Philosophy

As has been mentioned above, there is certain weakness in the philosophy. Thus, there are quite few tools to maintain the new order. According to Rawlss philosophy, equality is impossible as people are victims of a genetic lottery (Shaw & Barry, 2012, p. 126).

Some people will inevitably accumulate more resources and there is no guarantee that these people will remain following the principles worked out. More well-to-do-people can deprive less well-to-do people of their rights and, more importantly, opportunities.

Conclusion

It is possible to note that Rawls philosophy can be applicable in the contemporary world as it addresses major issues associated with unequal distribution of resources. Justification of inequality can be regarded as one of the major strengths of the philosophy.

At the same time, the absence of tools to maintain the created society is one of its major weaknesses. Of course, the philosophy has strengths and weaknesses, but it is important to note that it is a valuable source of knowledge that can be used to address major issues associated with unequal distribution of resources in the contemporary world, which leads to certain degradation of the human society.

Reference List

Shaw, W.H. & Barry, V. (2012). Moral issues in business. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.