Modern political debate is littered with references to ‘rights’ and claims to posses ‘rights’. A right in simple terms is an entitlement to act or to be treated in a particular way. Such entitlements may be either moral or legal in character. In Locke’s view rights are ‘natural’ in that they are invested in human beings by nature or God. Natural rights are now more commonly called human rights. Human rights are inalienable because human beings are entitled to them by virtue of being human so therefore they cannot, in that sense be taken away. Natural rights are thus thought to establish the essential conditions for leading a truly human existence. For Locke, there were three such rights, these three rights were ‘life, liberty and property’. However there was some opposition to Locke’s rights from Jefferson another natural rights theorist. Jefferson did not accept that property was a natural God-given right, but rather one that had developed for human convenience. In the American Declaration of independence he therefore described inalienable rights as those of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.
Liberalism places great emphasis on Individualism, Liberalism is based on individualism. To leave the individual to make up there own mind on most things, as opposed to a authoritarian leader doing so. There was a return to classical principles in the seventeenth century adopting principles such as constitutional government, individual rights and government by consent. As the laws must represent what the majority of individuals want. The public don’t have a vote in early liberalism so it is not a democracy, government just do what they think is best. Individualism is the belief in the supreme importance of the individual over any social group or collective body. In the form of methodological individualism, this suggests that the individual is central to any political theory or social explanation. Thus, all statements about society should be made in terms of the individuals who compose it. Ethical individualism is another form of individualism. Ethical individualism, on the other hand, implies that society should be constructed so as to benefit to the individual, giving moral priority to individual rights, needs or interests. Classical liberals and the new right subscribe to egotistical individualism, which places emphasis on self-interestedness and self-reliance. Modern liberals, in contrast, have advanced a development form of individualism that prioritises human flourishing over the quest for interest satisfaction.
A belief in the supreme importance of the individual leads naturally to a commitment to individual freedom. Individual liberty is for liberals the supreme political value, and in many ways the unifying principle within liberal ideology. For early liberals, liberty was a natural right, an essential requirement for leading a truly human existence. It also gave individuals the opportunity to pursue there own interests by exercising choice – The choice of where to live, what to buy and who to work for etc Later liberals have seen liberty as the only way in which people are able to develop there skills and talents and fulfil there potential. However liberals do not believe nor accept that individuals have an absolute entitlement to freedom. As, if liberty is unlimited it can become a licence, a warrant for the right to abuse others.
In the late eighteenth century came the American and the French Revolutions. The American and French Revolutions both embodied elements that were distinctly liberal (although the word ‘liberal’ was not at the time used in a political sense). The Liberals challenged the absolute power of the monarchy, which was supposedly based upon the doctrine of the ‘divine right of kings’. In place of absolutism they advocated constitutional and, later, representative government. Liberals critised and also thought it was unfair, the political and economic privileges the landed aristocracy got. It was unfair as the only possible way for someone to gain these privileges and the social position was purely determined by the ‘accident of birth’. This was completely un-liberal as the individual himself did not, and importantly was not able to determine there own future and be free to do and fulfil what they wanted.
Separation of powers is an important theory in Liberalism. The separation of powers is credited to Montesquieu, who was a French enlightenment political philosopher. The separation of powers is a model for the governance of democratic states. Under this model, the is divided into branches or , each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility. The normal division of estates is into an , a , and a . However, separation of powers is criticized, and liberals are aware of the potential dangers. Although the separation of powers theory believes that it protects and , avoiding . Opponents of separation of powers question whether it indeed does protect liberty, pointing out that it may slow down the process of governing, through and other means, promote excesses of executive power and unaccountability. It reflects the liberal fear of power. As according to liberalism human beings are self-seeking creatures, if they have power, and the ability to influence the behavior of others, they will naturally use it for their own benefit and at the expense of others. Meaning, the liberal position is that egoism plus power equals corruption. This was expressed by Lord Acton with his famous warning: ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’.
Another individual who had an important view in the eighteenth century regarding the demands for constitutional and representative government was Paine. Thomas Paine was an English , , , , and intellectual. He greatly influenced the French revolution, and it without him there probably wouldn’t have been an American revolution. He was an early advocate of and , dismissing , and viewing government as a necessary evil. He opposed , proposed universal, free , a , and other ideas then considered radical. Paine thought that the best way to build a strong democracy was to tax the wealthy to give the poor bootstraps by which they could pull themselves up. Paine opposed religion and his ‘The Age of Reason’ was an attack on organised religion. Paine is often seen as the father of modern liberalism.
Natural rights theories were not the only basis of early liberalism. An alternative and highly influential theory of human was put forward in the early nineteenth century by the utilitarian’s, notably Jeremy Bentham and James Mill. Bentham regarded the idea of ‘rights’ as nonsense and called natural rights ‘nonsense on stilts’. In their place, he proposed what he believed to be the more scientific and objective idea that individuals are motivated by self-interest and that these interests can be defined as the desire for pleasure, or happiness, and the wish to avoid pain. So, the moral worth of an is determined by its outcome, the ends justify the means. Utility is good to be maximized. There theory equated ‘good’ with pleasure or happiness and ‘evil’ with pain or unhappiness.
John Stuart Mill was a , , civil servant and . He was an influential thinker of the nineteenth century. He was an major contributor of , an ethical theory developed by , although his conception of it was very different from Bentham, his conception of utilitarianism was so different from Bentham's that some modern thinkers have argued that he demonstrated ideals. Bentham's famous formulation of Utilitarianism is known as the "greatest happiness principle." It holds that one must always act so as to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (within reason). One of Mill's major contributions to Utilitarianism is his argument for the qualitative separation of pleasures. Bentham treats all forms of happiness as equal, whereas Mill argues that intellectual and moral pleasures are superior to more physical forms of pleasure. Mill distinguishes between "happiness" and "contentment," claiming that the former is of higher value than the latter, a belief wittily encapsulated in his statement that "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig.
Also, in the nineteenth century was the introduction of the concept of ‘self regarding’ actions and ‘negative freedom’. There have been many explanations and theories on distinguishing what is exercising freedom and what is infringing and, or abusing other people and there rights. JS Mill argues that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. This is a libertarian statement by JS Mill as it only accepts minimal restrictions on individual freedom. This leads into the concept of ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other-regarding’ actions. ‘Self-regarding’ actions are those which effect only yourself so therefore the you can exercise absolute freedom. Whereas ‘other-regarding’ actions which can restrict the freedom of others or do them damage. However Mill did impose any restrictions on the individual that were designed to prevent a person from damaging themselves, either physically or morally. ‘self-regarding’ actions and ‘other-regarding actions’ can be seen as vague, and ambiguous. As a person going to a shop and buying a packet of crisps can be seen as self-regarding, however if it was the last packet in the shop it prevents the next customer who comes in for a packet of crisps getting one. The same can be said about damaging yourself physically to be a self-regarding. If a person were to commit suicide the person parents, grand-parents siblings, children, friends etc will be affected. Negative freedom is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. The individual has negative freedom to the extent that actions are available to them in this negative sense. However, critically, although there is the freedom and the absence of restrains, there are no resources in negative freedom for one to fulfill what they want to do. There are no barriers or restraints stopping someone from buying a private jet, apart from money. Likewise there is nothing preventing someone from doing a degree in Medicine and becoming a Doctor. However, if there are no universities or courses, it is not possible for someone to fulfill there goal, as the resources are not there.
The late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries witnessed the development of classical economic theory in the work of political economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Liberalism began to connect the political values of choice, freedom and individualism with the perceived existence of those same values in the capitalist free market. The main features of capitalism are: a market economy – were production and consumption are tied to prices, competition, profit and risk and capital risk being privately owned thus not much being owned by the government, and capital not being equally distributed. Adam Smith was capitalist and believed the individual should be able to choose. Smith favoured a ‘laisser-faire’ market which translated meant a free market economy. Smith wanted minimal government interference, this meant getting rid of such things as apprenticeship rules, monopolies, tariffs and duties. Ultimately having a free market economy is impossible as the government will always need money, such as for the army so they will tax people. Tax is a form of government intervention. Smith had strong views on the free market. He argued that if there was an exchange of goods in a freely competitive market in which prices were fixed solely by the choices of the individuals involved, then each would buy as cheap as possible and sell as high as possible. This fell into Smiths idea of ‘simple principle of natural liberty’, in which Smith would set an ‘equilibrium’ price at which most would be prepared to buy and sell. Hence the market being said to serve the interests of all alike – the greatest good of the greatest number. Another of Smiths famous theories was the dovetailing of individual and public interests in the metaphor of an ‘’invisible hand’’. Smith believed that individual action, hard work and effort bring appropriate rewards – that work is good and idleness is bad. This view fitted in well with the ideology in his society.
The Free market was viewed positively. As free market eliminates economimies which are not in the public interest. Also, the free market produces competition, and competition drives down prices. As the more firms in the economy, the more they compete. Not only does the free market benefit the individual with low prices it also gives the consumer more choice. Along with the goods being more efficient, and quality controlled as opposed to monopolies were one provider is the sole provider of the particular good therefore it face no competition this means that they don’t to raise or maintain standards, neither do they need to come up with new developments to try and out-do there rivals as there are no rivals. The free market eliminated monopolies. The individual should make the decision and what they and buy and sell and the government should not legislate it. Competition and profit should also not be restrained as there would be no incentive to open a business. Profit is justified by risk therefore profit is the compensation for taking a risk. So ultimately how a freely competitive works is by the ‘’simple principle of natural liberty’’, each individual wants to buy as cheap as possible and sell as high as possible, so the market sets an equilibrium, well supply and demand meet, the price at which most would buy and sell. Therefore prices are fixed solely by the of the individuals involved and each is free to buy and sell at any price.
