With John Stuart Mill we find a bridge to another conception of liberty and equality that moves more toward socialism. Mill was highly influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor, who was more of an egalitarian than a liberal. Here we find Mill arguing against classical notions of liberalism. Mill argued, contrary to Locke, that a just law is an encroachment on a person's liberty. He also contended that informal, non-coercive public opinion was a violation the rights of the individual as are traditional prohibitions, say on sexual morality or gender roles. In these moves to conceive of liberty in a broader way that simply overt coercion, Mill started to blur the line between private and public. Mill was also concerned about the distribution of wealth and income in ways that the Founders of the U.S. were not. Mill,at times, argued for a greater role for the State to actually achieve equality of result and actual liberty from others as opposed to a purely formal equality and liberty that the classical liberals sought.
These differences point to a fundamental divergence between classical and modern left liberalism. Another such difference is the basic character of human nature. Locke and the U.S. Founders believed that humans were naturally selfish and dangerous in their exercise of power. For this reason, the U.S. Founders placed explicit restrictions on the State including a Bill of Rights, federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Jefferson's admonition that the power that the State has to do something for you also has the power to do something to you follows from the doctrine of human depravity found in Christianity.
Left liberals tend to view humans as naturally good or malleable. No one is born evil. So, with the proper education and proper social and economic environment, people can naturally cooperate and care for each other. Brutal punishment is inhumane and simply aggravates past injustices making those convicted of a crime even more alienated and victimized by the unequal social order. What is needed to avert criminal behavior is greater inclusion and benevolence. The mechanism that facilitates these moral advances can be the State. Concerns over abuse of power, at least in social welfare legislation and macroeconomic policy, are not only misplaced but can be unnecessary obstacles for social progress.
Classical liberalism took a very different view of what constitutes legitimate State action. Physical punishment is seen as necessary to control those who freely choose to violate the rights of others. The State is needed to contain human evil and establish justice by retribution fairly imposed. Preparation and engaging in war can be necessary to protect a country from the attacks of an international aggressor. In both domestic and international crime, the person(s) who initiate violence forfeit their rights and violence can be justly used against them.
Some adherents of classical liberalism such as Jefferson, Tocqueville, and Benjamin Constant believed that liberty was supported in the indigenous cultures of free countries. All of the Founders of the U.S. believed that a necessary condition for liberty was moral self-control. Religion provided the average person with the moral training and habit to prepare them to live responsibly with their fellows. Leftist liberals in contrast tend to be indifferent or hostile to traditional cultures and traditional religion and morality. Following Mill, they tend to see tradition and religion as restrictions on liberty and hindrances to greater social and political equality.
These leftist liberal theorists would not only include Mill, but T.H. Green, John Dewey, Paul Samuelson, Ronald Dworkin, and John Rawls. These writers combine some elements of classical liberalism with socialism. They fear the power of established economic and social elites believing that their power must be offset by the State actively aiding less powerful groups. In apparently violating the principle of equality before the law, the State can forge a more equitable (i.e., equal in result) society.
More recent advocates of classical liberalism would include F.A. Hayek, Robert Nozick, Richard Epstein, and Milton Friedman. They are considered conservative because they are trying to conserve or preserve the original liberal tradition that can be traced back to Locke and the U.S. Founders. They clearly reject an active role for the State in achieving actual equality because such extensive and intrusive actions by the State violate individual liberty and place social planners over average people in power relationships.
A definition later to be distorted by Americans, who mainly associate "liberalism" with being left-wing on the political scale, disregarding the original and correct sense of the word.
Liberalism has nothing to do with economy. It is completely independent of capitalism or any other economic system. Liberalism is a strictly social philosophy.
It is the opposite of authoritarianism.
It is also NOT the opposite of conservatism.
Under liberalism, the government has little role in regulating social affairs. Under liberalism, the government exists to protect liberties, not take them away.
The Bill of Rights is a product of liberalism.
Liberalism literally means 'to be liberal' and liberal means 'to be loose'. THIS MEANS that liberals do not want laws. That is vaguely true, and maybe if you can find a conservative anarchist I'll be wrong. Liberalism is the establishment of liberals in politics. They usually vote for and represent democrats, John McCain = exception. Liberals advocate personal freedoms and peace, as well as recognize problems worldwide, and not the ones that only threaten us (Iraq, Afghanistan, but the first one was a hoax to help Halliburton the oil company).
Part II: Bashing
To the peopl who said Liberals are semi-retarded: type into Google 2004 election by IQ. You'll be surprised. It may not be believable at first, but the inability to find a site supporting you will lead to the stomach-turning conclusion.
To the person who said we kill babies 'for no reason': Umm, maybe you forgot that children, while a bundle of joy, cost about 225000 dollars for education, food, the works. this includes tax write-offs. And to the people who said we whine, next time listen to what we whine about. If it isnt about the 13-digit deficit our economy is suffering, which wasnt as bad as the clinton era, its about the Free trade agreement Bush signed which entitles landowners to rule their workers like serfs in the fifteenth century.
Conservatism = reflecting on America's problems and using past experiences our country has endured to create a future that can show repetitiveness and therefore we (or 'theye')can make it better this time.