Liberalism Vs Paternalism

Political beliefs and party lines may be the most controversial topic across all of America. As the current Presidential debates and ensuing election draw near, most will make decisions, take sides, and debate across the supper table or in the local coffee shops. The American people will not be able to escape the debates since on most days some form of media is making their ideas and opinions known and open for discussion. Wendell Berry’s article, “Caught in the Middle,” is a select piece from his book Our Only World, which takes a look at his interpretation of politics in America as they currently stand. Controversial topics, such as abortion and homosexual marriages are discusses.

According to Robert Reich, “The liberal ideal is that everyone should have fair access and fair opportunity. This is not equality of result. It's equality of opportunity. There's a fundamental difference.” Liberals are also concerned about the concentration of wealth because it almost inevitably leads to a concentration of power that can destroy democracy.

The political groups we see today, mainly the conservative and democratic parties, stem from Democratic-republicans and Federalists who have shaped the nation from the start. The creation of the federal government, which brought upon the bill of rights, lead to the creation of these factional groups and merit debates which discuss the liberties of the common people. Jefferson and Hamilton, both posed differing opinions and ideas which supported one region more than the other in some cases. Jefferson, on one hand, focused on the farmer’s rights and opposed the government from becoming too powerful. On the other hand, Hamilton focused on the government with the elite to support the masses of the changing people with an economy based on manufacturing.

Today’s America has evolved differently from the intention of a certain group of the founder’s. This essay takes the stance that America in 2017 is moving closer to the viewpoint of the Federalists, compared to the Republicans. First, one must analyze the two parties, then draw the conclusion with supportive facts. Lastly, the comparisons will be summarized and the differences will be minimized.

A new conservatism developed in American society between the years of 1960 and 1989 out of, simply, a large scale reaction. American society was experiencing a time of increasing freedoms and rights for many oppressed groups; some Americans found this to be promising, exciting, and desirable, while others—those who would develop this new conservatism—found all of the processes occurring to be too radical and in need of slowing or ceasing completely. To put it simply, this new conservatism developed as a reaction to the prominent liberalism present at the beginning of the mentioned period and several years before. As mentioned, new conservatism was a reaction to an era of liberalism; this era was spurred on directly by the Great Depression,

The meaning of liberty is the freedom to act as one chooses as long as your actions do not interfere with the freedom or well being of theirs. Liberty is very special value that settlers from other nations desired since they had never experienced anything of its kind. The ability to be self reliant or to be one’s own master is individualism.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the declaration of independence, was heavily influenced by Locke’s beliefs. Jefferson believed that all men were created equal, which is a liberal view. The Constitution was also a liberal document that was important in this revolution. The first ten amendments of the Constitution, also known as the Bill of Rights, granted natural born rights, an idea that the liberal thinkers developed and believed in. Liberalism as it pertains to the 1700s means to believe in freedom and equal rights.

Two Concepts of Liberty Summary of the essay: In this essay, the famous political theorist Isaiah Berlin tries to differentiate between the notions of positive liberty and negative liberty. Berlin briefly discusses the meaning of the word ‘freedom’. He says that a person is said to free when no man or body of men interferes with his activity. He makes reference to many philosophers in the essay, but there is more emphasis on the thoughts of J. S. Mill and Rousseau, the former being a firm advocate of negative liberty while the latter believes strongly in the ideals of positive liberty.

The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.” During the midst of the American Revolution, authors and politicians of important documents, pamphlets, and slogans spread the basis for Revolutionary ideals and defined what is known as the “Spirit of ‘76”.

A historian once wrote that the 19th century was “a time of bitter conflict, as the world of the past fought to remain alive.” During the 19th century, there was an emergence of the political ideologies: liberalism, conservatism, and socialism. Liberalism sought to limit the government, preserve individual freedom and believed in the hierarchy of merit. Conservatism attempted to preserve the existing order and believed in tradition over reason. Socialists believed in strengthening parliaments and the working class to bolster laborers.

In Judith Shklar’s well known 1989 essay, The Liberalism of Fear, Shklar analyzes her view on political liberalism. In other words, Judith believes that liberalism has only one potential purpose/goal. Judith Shklar mentions how the goal for liberalism is to ultimately fix the political conditions which is significant for personal freedom. Using this idea, Judith Shklar further demonstrates her views on liberalism by comparing liberalism of fear and other types of liberalism in her essay ( such as John Locked John Stuart Mill) . Judith Shklar believes that John Locke’s liberalism of natural rights is simply an attempt to fulfill an determined standard order “The liberalism of natural rights envisages a just society composed of politically sturdy citizens, each able and willing to stand up for himself and others” (26-27).

After watching a variety political debates, conducting research, compiling information and writing the ‘summary’ paragraph on Conservative beliefs, I concluded that I share a lot of the same opinions and beliefs on the political issues, such as those above. However, there are four major political beliefs of the Conservatives that I do not agree with. First, I believe that the death penalty is wrong because killing, no matter the circumstance and/or severity of the crime committed, is always wrong.

Based on the argument from Mack’s article, Individualism and Libertarian Rights, and Michael Sandel’s chapter on Liberalism, they both state that people have a right to make their own choices with their beliefs, resources, and possessions. This means that people could have choose to sell their organs, send money to the poor, or even commit suicide as they wish. This is based on Michael Sandel’s examples (Sandel, 70-74). The ultimate argument is that liberals believe that a person has his right to private property in order to protect their human rights; however, they believe that some action (e.g. refusing to pay taxation) has its restrictions. When reading this text, I felt that some events cannot apply to liberalism due to the severity of

Core theories of liberalism mention freedom of individuals, cooperation of individuals and the slightly capitalistic view of private property and

Berlin first explicitly defined the ideas of negative and positive freedom. In negative sense Berlin states “What is the area within which the subject - a person or group of persons - is or should be left to do what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons” . 'Negative freedom is the freedom from interference from others; it is the benefit of being alone and not impeded. The range of negative liberty is larger if the non-interference is larger. Berlin states that law ought to restrict the negative liberty in order to enjoy it at minimum.