The Similarities Between Classical and Modern Liberalism Are Greater Than the Differences
Similarities between classical and modern liberalism are greater than the differences. Discuss. (45 marks)
Typically, liberalism is categorised into two separate components; classical liberalism, which was fashioned during the 19th century as a result of the industrial revolution, and the more recent Modern Liberalism which emerged as industrialisation continued within the UK. Although both divisions of Liberalism unavoidably overlap in attitudes and approaches regarding the theory behind the ideology, I believe, fundamentally, that clear tensions between these aspects of Liberalism are more evident when analysing this ideology.
Some will say that both classical and modern liberalists possess a number of parallel approaches towards this political theory and its key concepts.
Firstly, both strands of Liberalism believe in the necessity of some kind of a state, since life without a state, as Thomas Hobbes stated, would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. Both views consider the existence of a state to be essential in order to protect individual rights. Since liberals generally considered humanity to be self-interested and egoistical, a state was needed to ensure that individuals did not exploit other individuals’ rights, through acts of stealing, harming, or even slavery, and was therefore the only thing that was capable of restraining all individuals and groups within society. Hobbes and Locke particularly stressed the importance of creating a ‘social contract’ where an agreement amongst individuals would be initiated, to form a state in order to escape from the disorder and chaos of ‘the state of nature’, which was a society with unrestrained freedom, but lacking any establish authority. Therefore, the state is there to act almost as a neutral referee in society, by implementing laws enshrined in the constitution and by democracy. Thus an approach similar to Abraham Lincolns “government of the people, by the people, for the people” was adopted and
Typically, liberalism is categorised into two separate components; classical liberalism, which was fashioned during the 19th century as a result of the industrial revolution, and the more recent Modern Liberalism which emerged as industrialisation continued within the UK. Although both divisions of Liberalism unavoidably overlap in attitudes and approaches regarding the theory behind the ideology, I believe, fundamentally, that clear tensions between these aspects of Liberalism are more evident when analysing this ideology.
Some will say that both classical and modern liberalists possess a number of parallel approaches towards this political theory and its key concepts.
Firstly, both strands of Liberalism believe in the necessity of some kind of a state, since life without a state, as Thomas Hobbes stated, would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. Both views consider the existence of a state to be essential in order to protect individual rights. Since liberals generally considered humanity to be self-interested and egoistical, a state was needed to ensure that individuals did not exploit other individuals’ rights, through acts of stealing, harming, or even slavery, and was therefore the only thing that was capable of restraining all individuals and groups within society. Hobbes and Locke particularly stressed the importance of creating a ‘social contract’ where an agreement amongst individuals would be initiated, to form a state in order to escape from the disorder and chaos of ‘the state of nature’, which was a society with unrestrained freedom, but lacking any establish authority. Therefore, the state is there to act almost as a neutral referee in society, by implementing laws enshrined in the constitution and by democracy. Thus an approach similar to Abraham Lincolns “government of the people, by the people, for the people” was adopted and