Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that

consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Modern liberalism has its roots in
the Age of Enlightenment.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of
liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number
of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of
governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and
a transparent system of government. All liberals as well as some adherents of other political ideologies
support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair
elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.
Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government,
such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the
belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously
adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also
strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain
unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of
human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support to some extent, including rights to life,
liberty, and property.
Within liberalism there are two major streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal"
and have been known to clash on many issues as they differ on their understanding of what constitutes
freedom. Classical liberals, believe that the only real freedom is freedom from coercion. As a result they
see state intervention in the economy as a coercive power that restricts the economic freedom of
individuals and favour laissez-faire economic policy. They oppose the welfare state. Social liberals argue
that governments must take an active role in promoting the freedom of citizens. They believe that real
freedom can only exist when citizens are healthy, educated, and free from dire poverty. They generally
favour the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a minimum wage. Some also
favour laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment,
and the provision of welfare, including unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported
by progressive taxation.

Etymology and historical usage

The word "liberal" derives from the Latin liber ("free, not slave"). It is widely associated with the word
"liberty" and the concept of freedom. Livy's History of Rome from Its Foundation describes the struggles
for freedom between theplebeian and patrician classes. Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations writes about
"...the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea
of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed... ." Largely dormant
during the vicissitudes of the Middle Ages, the struggle for freedom began again in the Italian
Renaissance, in the conflict between the supporters of free city states and supporters of the Pope or the
Holy Roman Emperor. Niccol Machiavelli, in his Discourses on Livy, laid down the principles
of republican government. John Locke in England and the thinkers of
the French Enlightenmentarticulated the struggle for freedom in terms of the Rights of Man.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) indicates that the word liberal has long been in the English
language with the meanings of "befitting free men, noble, generous" as in liberal arts; also with the
meaning "free from restraint in speech or action", as in liberal with the purse, or liberal tongue, usually as
a term of reproach but, beginning 177688 imbued with a more favorable sense by Edward Gibbon and
others to mean "free from prejudice, tolerant."
The first English language use to mean "tending in favour of freedom and democracy", according to
the OED, dates from about 1801 and comes from the French libral, "originally applied in English by its
opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness)". An early English language
citation: "The extinction of every vestige of freedom, and of every liberal idea with which they are
associated."
The American War of Independence established the first nation to craft a constitution based on the
concept of liberal government, especially the idea that governments rule by the consent of the governed.
The more moderatebourgeois elements of the French Revolution tried to establish a government based
on liberal principles. Economists such as Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), enunciated the
liberal principles of free trade. The editors of the Spanish Constitution of 1812, drafted in Cdiz, may have
been the first to use the word liberal in a political sense as a noun. They named themselves the Liberales,
to express their opposition to the absolutist power of the Spanish monarchy.
Beginning in the late 18th century, liberalism became a major ideology in virtually all developed countries.

Trends within liberalism

Within the above framework, there are deep, often bitter, conflicts and controversies among liberals.
Emerging from those controversies, out of classical liberalism, are a number of different trends within
liberalism. As in many debates, opposite sides use different words for the same beliefs, and sometimes
use identical words for different beliefs. For the purposes of this article, we will use " political liberalism"
for the support of (liberal) democracy (either in a republic or a constitutional monarchy), over absolute
monarchy or dictatorship; " cultural liberalism" for the support of individual liberty over laws limiting liberty
for patriotic or religious reasons; " economic liberalism" for the support of private property, over
government regulation; and " social liberalism" for the support of equality under the law, and relief
provided by the government from suffering caused by poverty or natural disaster. By "modern liberalism"
we mean the mixture of these forms of liberalism found in most First World countries today, rather than
any one of the pure forms listed above.

Liberalism wagers that a state... can be strong but constrained strong because
constrained... Rights to education and other requirements for human development and
security aim to advance equal opportunity and personal dignity and to promote a creative
and productive society. To guarantee those rights, liberals have supported a wider social and
economic role for the state, counterbalanced by more robust guarantees of civil liberties and
a wider social system of checks and balances anchored in an independent press and
pluralistic society. Paul Starr, sociologist at Princeton University, The New Republic, March
2007

Some principles liberals generally agree upon:

Political liberalism is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that
society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals, without showing favour to
those of higher social rank. Magna Carta is an example of a political document that asserted
the rights of individuals even above the prerogatives of monarchs. Political liberalism stresses
the social contract, under which citizens make the laws and agree to abide by those laws. It is
based on the belief that individuals know best what is best for them. Political liberalism
enfranchises all adult citizens regardless of sex, race, or economic status. Political liberalism
emphasizes the rule of law and supports liberal democracy.

Cultural liberalism focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle,
including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and
protection from government intrusion into private life. John Stuart Mill aptly expressed cultural
liberalism in his essay "On Liberty," when he wrote,

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in
interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That
the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of
a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good,
either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

Cultural liberalism generally opposes government regulation

of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal
illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances. Most liberals oppose some or all
government intervention in these areas. The Netherlands, in this respect, may be the most liberal
country in the world today.
However, some trends within liberalism reveal stark differences of opinion:

Economic liberalism, also called classical liberalism or Manchester liberalism, is an

ideology which supports the individual rights of property and freedom of contract, without
which, it argues, the exercise of other liberties is impossible. It advocates laissezfaire capitalism, meaning the removal of legal barriers to trade and cessation of governmentbestowed privilege such as subsidy and monopoly. Economic liberals want little or no
government regulation of the market. Some economic liberals would accept government
restrictions of monopolies and cartels, others argue that monopolies and cartels are caused
by state action. Economic liberalism holds that the value of goods and services should be set
by the unfettered choices of individuals, that is, of market forces. Some would also allow
market forces to act even in areas conventionally monopolized by governments, such as the

provision of security and courts. Economic liberalism accepts the economic inequality that
arises from unequal bargaining positions as being the natural result of competition, so long as
no coercion is used. This form of liberalism is especially influenced by English liberalism of
the mid 19th century. Minarchism and anarcho-capitalism are forms of economic liberalism.
(See also Free trade, Neo-liberalism,liberalization)

Social liberalism, also known as new liberalism (not to be confused with 'neoliberalism')
and reform liberalism, arose in the late 19th century in many developed countries,
influenced by the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Generally speaking,
social liberals support free trade and a market-based economy in which the basic needs of all
individuals are met. Furthermore, socially progressive ideas are commonly advocated by
social liberals, based on the idea that social practices ought to be continuously adapted in
such a manner as to benefit the substantive freedom of all members of society. According to
the tenets of this form of liberalism, as explained by writers such as John Dewey
and Mortimer Adler, since individuals are the basis of society, all individuals should have
access to basic necessities of fulfillment, such as education, economic opportunity, and
protection from harmful macro-events beyond their control. To social liberals, these benefits
are considered rights. ; this concept of positive rights is qualitatively different from the
emphasis that economic liberals place on negative rights. Social liberals believe that in order
for all people to have substantive liberty, the provision of basic necessities to all citizens
ought to be ensured by the political community through means such as taxation, towards
ends such as public education, universal healthcare, infrastructure, and social security.
Social liberalism advocates some restrictions on matters that economic
liberals view as fundamental rights. For example, social liberals may
favour minimum wage laws, which classical liberals view as violating of
the liberty to contract. Social liberals argue that power disparities cause
contracts to favour the rich. To which economic liberals reply, "Then don't
sign."
The struggle between economic freedom and social equality is almost as old
as the idea of freedom itself. Plutarch, writing about Solon (c. 639 c. 559
BCE), the lawgiver of ancient Athens, wrote:

The remission of debts was peculiar to Solon; it was his great

means for confirming the citizens' liberty; for a mere law to give
all men equal rights is but useless, if the poor must sacrifice
those rights to their debts, and, in the very seats and sanctuaries
of equality, the courts of justice, the offices of state, and the

public discussions, be more than anywhere at the beck and

bidding of the rich.
All forms of liberalism claim to protect freedom. They disagree only about the
true meaning of freedom. Liberalism is so widespread in the modern world that
most Western nations at least pay lip service to individual liberty as the basis
for society.

Development of liberal thought

Origins of liberal thought

John Locke

The focus on liberty as an essential right of people within the polity has been repeatedly asserted
throughout history. These include are the conflicts between the plebeians and patricians in ancient
Rome and the struggles of Italian city states against the Papal States. The republics of Florence
and Venice had forms of elections, the rule of law, and pursuit of free enterprise through much of the
1400s until domination by outside powers in the 16th century. The Dutch resistance against (Spanish)
Catholic oppression during the Eighty Years' War is often despite its refusal to give freedom to
Catholics considered a predecessor of liberal values. Other precursors to liberalism include certain
aspects of the Magna Carta and medieval Islamic ethics.
The modern ideology of liberalism can be traced back to the humanism which challenged the authority of
the established church during the Renaissance, and the Whigs of the Glorious Revolution in Great Britain,
whose assertion of their right to choose their king can be seen as a precursor to claims of popular
sovereignty. However, movements generally labeled as truly "liberal" date from the Enlightenment,
particularly the Whig party in Britain, the philosophes in France, and the movement towards selfgovernment in colonial America. These movements opposed absolute monarchy, mercantilism, and
various kinds of religious orthodoxy and clericalism. They were also the first to formulate the concepts of
individual rights under the rule of law, as well as the importance of self-government through elected
representatives.
The definitive break with the past was the conception that free individuals could form the foundation for a
stable society. This idea is generally dated from the work of John Locke (1632-1704), whose Two

Treatises on Governmentestablished two fundamental liberal ideas: economic liberty, meaning the right to
have and use property, and intellectual liberty, including freedom of conscience, which he expounded in A
Letter Concerning Toleration (1689). However, he did not extend his views on religious freedom to Roman
Catholics . Locke developed further the earlier idea of natural rights, which he saw as "life, liberty and
property". His "natural rights theory" was the distant forerunner of the modern conception of human rights.
However, to Locke, property was more important than the right to participate in government and public
decision-making: he did not endorse democracy, because he feared that giving power to the people
would erode the sanctity of private property. Nevertheless, the idea of natural rights played a key role in
providing the ideological justification for the American revolution and the French revolution.

Montesquieu

On the European continent, the doctrine of laws restraining even monarchs was expounded by Charles
de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, whose The Spirit of the Laws argues that "Better is it to say, that the
government most conformable to nature is that which best agrees with the humour and disposition of the
people in whose favour it is established," rather than accept as natural the mere rule of force. Following in
his footsteps, political economist Jean-Baptiste Say and Destutt de Tracy were ardent exponents of the
"harmonies" of the market, and in all probability it was they who coined the term laissez-faire. This
evolved into the physiocrats, and to the political economy of Rousseau.
The late French enlightenment saw two figures who would have tremendous influence on later liberal
thought: Voltaire who argued that the French should adopt constitutional monarchy, and disestablish
theSecond Estate, and Rousseau who argued for a natural freedom for mankind. Both argued, in different
forms, for changes in political and social arrangements based around the idea that society can restrain a
natural human liberty, but not obliterate its nature. For Voltaire the concept was more intellectual, for
Rousseau, it was related to intrinsic natural rights, perhaps related to the ideas of Diderot.

Anders Chydenius

Rousseau also argued the importance of a concept that appears repeatedly in the history of liberal
thought, namely, the social contract. He rooted this in the nature of the individual and asserted that each
person knows their own interest best. His assertion that man is born free, but that education was sufficient
to restrain him within society, rocked the monarchical society of his age. His assertion of an organic will of
a nation argued for self-determination of peoples, again in contravention of established political practice.
His ideas were a key element in the declaration of the National Assembly in the French Revolution, and in
the thinking of Americans such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. In his view the unity of a
state came from the concerted action of consent, or the "national will". This unity of action would allow
states to exist without being chained to pre-existing social orders, such as aristocracy.
A main contributing group of thinkers whose work would become considered part of liberalism are those
associated with the " Scottish Enlightenment", including the writers David Hume and Adam Smith, and the
German enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant.

Adam Smith

David Hume's contributions were many and varied, but most important was his assertion that fundamental
rules of human behaviour would overwhelm attempts to restrict or regulate them, in A Treatise of Human
Nature, 1739-1740. One example of this is in his disparaging of mercantilism, and the accumulation of
gold and silver. He argued that prices were related to the quantity of money, and that hoarding gold and
issuing paper money would only lead to inflation.
Although Adam Smith is the most famous of the economic liberal thinkers, he was not without
antecedents. The physiocrats in France had proposed studying systematically political economy and the
self organizing nature of markets. Benjamin Franklin wrote in favour of the freedom of American industry
in 1750. In Sweden-Finland the period of liberty and parliamentary government from 1718 to 1772
produced a Finnish parliamentarian, Anders Chydenius, who was one of the first to propose free trade
and unregulated industry, in The National Gain, 1765. His impact has proven to be lasting particularly in
the Nordic area, but it also had a powerful effect in later developments elsewhere.
The Scotsman Adam Smith (17231790) expounded the theory that individuals could structure both moral
and economic life without direction from the state, and that nations would be strongest when their citizens

were free to follow their own initiative. He advocated an end to feudal and mercantile regulations, to stategranted monopolies and patents, and he promulgated " laissez-faire" government. In The Theory of Moral
Sentiments, 1759, he developed a theory of motivation that tried to reconcile human self-interest and an
unregulated social order. In The Wealth of Nations, 1776, he argued that the market, under certain
conditions, would naturally regulate itself and would produce more than the heavily restricted markets that
were the norm at the time. He assigned to government the role of taking on tasks which could not be
entrusted to the profit motive, such as preventing individuals from using force or fraud to disrupt
competition, trade, or production. His theory of taxation was that governments should levy taxes only in
ways which did not harm the economy, and that "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards
the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in
proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." He agreed with
Hume that capital, not gold, is the wealth of a nation.

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was strongly influenced by Hume's empiricism and rationalism. His most important
contributions to liberal thinking are in the realm of ethics, particularly his assertion of the categorical
imperative. Kant argued that received systems of reason and morals were subordinate to natural law, and
that, therefore, attempts to stifle this basic law would meet with failure. His idealism would become
increasingly influential, since it asserted that there were fundamental truths upon which systems of
knowledge could be based. This meshed well with the ideas of the English Enlightenment about natural
rights.

Revolutionary liberalism
These thinkers, however, worked within the political framework of monarchies and in societies in which
the class system and an established church were the norm. Although the earlier Wars of the Three
Kingdoms had resulted in the republican Commonwealth of England between 1649 and 1660, the idea
that ordinary human beings could structure their own affairs had been suppressed with the Restoration
and then remained theoretical until the American and French Revolutions. (The Glorious Revolution of
1688 is often cited as a precedent, but it replaced one monarch with another monarch. It had, however,
weakened the power of the monarch and strengthened the British Parliament which had refused to accept
the Jacobite succession.) The republican ideas of Radicals influenced these two late 18th century
revolutions which became the examples which later revolutionary liberals followed. Both used as their
philosophical justification the Rights of Man or the rights given, in the words of Henry St. John, by "Nature
and Nature's God". They rejected both tradition and established power.

Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams would be instrumental in persuading their fellow
Americans to revolt in the name of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, echoing Locke, but with one
important change (opposed by Alexander Hamilton). Jefferson replaced Locke's word "property" by "the
pursuit of happiness". The "American Experiment" would be in favour of democratic government and
individual liberty.
James Madison was prominent among the next generation of political theorists in America, arguing that in
a republic self-government depended on setting "interest against interest", thus providing protection for
the rights of minorities, particularly economic minorities. The American constitution instituted a system of
checks and balances: federal government balanced against states' rights; executive, legislative, and
judicial branches; and a bicameral legislature. The goal was to insure liberty by preventing the
concentration of power in the hands of any one man. Standing armies were held in suspicion, and the
belief was that the militia would be enough for defense, along with a navy maintained by the government
for the purpose of trade.

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

The French Revolution overthrew monarch, aristocratic social order, and an established Roman Catholic
Church. These revolutionaries were more vehement and less compromising than those in America. A key
moment in the French Revolution was the declaration by the representatives of the Third Estate that they
were the "National Assembly" and had the right to speak for the French people. During the first few years
the revolution was guided by liberal ideas, but the transition from revolt to stability was to prove more
difficult than the similar American transition. In addition to native Enlightenment traditions, some leaders

of the early phase of the revolution, such as Lafayette, had fought in the U.S. War of Independence
against Britain, and brought home Anglo-American liberal ideas. Later, under the leadership of Maximilien
Robespierre, a Jacobin faction greatly centralized power and dispensed with most aspects of due
process, resulting in the Reign of Terror. Instead of an ultimately republican constitution, Napoleon
Bonaparte rose from Director, to Consul, to Emperor. On his death bed he confessed "They wanted
another Washington", meaning a man who could militarily establish a new state, without desiring a
dynasty. Nevertheless, the French Revolution would go farther than the American Revolution in
establishing liberal ideals with such policies as universal male suffrage, national citizenship, and a far
reaching " Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen", paralleling the American Bill of Rights. One of
the side-effects of Napoleon's military campaigns was to carry these ideas throughout Europe.

Benito Jurez

The examples of United States and France were followed in many other countries. The usurpation of the
Spanish monarchy by Napoleon's forces in 1808 led to autonomist and independence movements across
Latin America, which often turned to liberal ideas as alternatives to the monarchical-clerical corporatism of
the colonial era. Movements such as that led by Simn Bolvar in the Andean countries aspired to
constitutional government, individual rights, and free trade. The struggle between liberals and corporatist
conservatives continued for the rest of the century in Latin America, with anti-clerical liberals like Benito
Jurez of Mexico attacking the traditional role of the Roman Catholic Church.
The transition to liberal society in Europe sometimes came through revolutionary or secessionist violence,
and there were repeated explicitly liberal revolutions and revolts throughout Europe in the first half of the
19th century. However, in Britain and many other nations, the process was driven more by politics than
revolution, even if the process was not entirely tranquil. The anti-clerical violence during the French
Revolution was seen by opponents at the time, and for most of the 19th century, as explicitly liberal in
origin. At the same time many French liberals too were victim of the Jacobin terror.
With the coming of romanticism, liberal notions moved from being proposals for reform of existing
governments, to demands for change. The American Revolution and the French Revolution would add
"democracy" to the list of values which liberal thought promoted. The idea, that the people were
sovereign, and capable of making all necessary laws and enforcing them, went beyond the conceptions of
the Enlightenment. Instead of merely asserting the rights of individuals within the state, all of the state's
powers were derived from the nature of man ( natural law), given by God (supernatural law), or by
contract ("the just consent of the governed".) This made compromise with previously autocratic orders far
less likely, and the resulting violence was justified, in the minds of monarchists, to restore order.

The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right (1762) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. From an early pirated edition
possibly printed in Germany

The contractual nature of liberal thought to this point must be stressed. One of the basic ideas of the first
wave of thinkers in the liberal tradition was that individuals made agreements and owned property. This
may not seem a radical notion today, but at the time most property laws defined property as belonging to
a family or to a particular figure within it, such as the "head of the family". Obligations were based on
feudal ties of loyalty and personal fealty, rather than an exchange of goods and services. Gradually, the
liberal tradition introduced the idea that voluntary consent and voluntary agreement were the basis for
legitimate government and law. This view was further advanced by Rousseau with his notion of a social
contract.
Between 1774 and 1848, there were several waves of revolutions, each revolution demanding greater
and greater primacy for individual rights. The revolutions placed increasing value on self-governance.
This could lead to secession a particularly important concept in the revolutions which ended Spanish
control over much of her colonial empire in the Americas, and in the American Revolution. European
liberals, particularly after the French Constitution of 1793, thought that democracy, considered as majority
rule by propertyless men, would be a danger to private property, and favored a franchise limited to those
with a certain amount of property. Later liberal democrats, like de Tocqueville, disagreed. In countries
where feudal property arrangements still held sway, liberals generally supported unification as the path to
liberty. The strongest examples of this are Germany and Italy. As part of this revolutionary program, the
importance of education, a value repeatedly stressed from Erasmus onward, became more and more
central to the idea of liberty.
Liberal parties in many European monarchies agitated for parliamentary government, increased
representation, expansion of the franchise where present, and the creation of a counterweight to
monarchical power. This political liberalism was often driven by economic liberalism, namely, the desire to
end feudal privileges, guild or royal monopolies, restrictions on ownership, and laws which did not permit

the full range of corporate and economic arrangements being developed in other countries. To one
degree or another, these forces were seen even in autocracies such as Turkey, Russia and Japan. As the
Russian Empire crumbled under the weight of economic failure and military defeat, it was the liberal
parties who took control of the Duma, and in 1905 and 1917 began revolutions against the government.
Later Piero Gobetti would formulate a theory of "Liberal Revolution" to explain what he felt was the radical
element in liberal ideology. Another example of this form of liberal revolution is from Ecuador where Eloy
Alfaro in 1895 lead a "radical liberal" revolution that secularized the state, opened marriage laws,
engaged in the development of infrastructure and the economy.

Splits within liberalism

Role of the State
By the end of the 19th century, a growing body of liberal thought asserted that, in order to be free,
individuals needed access to the requirements of fulfillment, including protection from exploitation and
education. In 1911, L.T. Hobhouse published Liberalism, which summarized the new liberalism, including
qualified acceptance of government intervention in the economy, and the collective right to equality in
dealings, what he called "just consent."
Opposed to these changes was a strain of liberalism which became increasingly anti-government, in
some cases adopting anarchism. Gustave de Molinari in France and Herbert Spencer in England were
prominent.

Natural rights vs. utilitarianism

Wilhelm von Humboldt

John Stuart Mill

The German Wilhelm von Humboldt developed the modern concepts of liberalism in his book The Limits
of State Action. John Stuart Mill popularized and expanded these ideas in On Liberty (1859) and other
works. He opposed collectivist tendencies while still placing emphasis on quality of life for the individual.
He also had sympathy for female suffrage and (later in life) for labor co-operatives.
One of Mill's most important contributions was his utilitarian justification of liberalism. Mill grounded liberal
ideas in the instrumental and pragmatic, allowing the unification of subjective ideas of liberty gained from
the French thinkers in the tradition of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the more rights-based philosophies
of John Locke in the British tradition.

Liberalism and democracy

The relationship between liberalism and democracy may be summed up by Winston Churchill's famous
remark, "...democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms..." In short, there is
nothing about democracy per se that guarantees freedom rather than a tyranny of the masses. The
coinage liberal democracy suggests a more harmonious marriage between the two principles than
actually exists. Liberals strive after the replacement of absolutism by limited government: government by
consent. The idea of consent suggests democracy. At the same time, the founders of the first liberal
democracies feared mob rule, and so they built into the constitutions of liberal democracies checks and
balances intended to limit the power of government by dividing those powers among several branches.
For liberals, democracy is not an end in itself, but an essential means to secure liberty, individuality and
diversity.

Liberalism and radicalism

In various countries in Europe and Latin-America the nineteenth century and the beginning of the
twentieth century show the existence of a radical political tendency next to or as successor of a more
doctrinal liberal tendency. In some countries the radical tendency is a variant of liberalism that is less
doctrinal and more willing to accept democratic reforms than traditional liberals. In the United
Kingdom the Radicals unite with the more traditional liberalWhigs into the Liberal Party. In other countries,
these left wing liberals form their own radical parties with various names (e.g.
in Switzerland and Germany (the Freisinn), Bulgaria, Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands but
alsoArgentina and Chile. This doesn't mean that all radical parties were formed by left wing liberals. In the
French political literature it is normal to make clear separation between liberalism and radicalism
in France. In Serbia liberalism and radicalism had and have almost nothing in common. But even the
French radicals were aligned to the international liberal movement in the first half of the twentieth century,
in the Entente Internationale des Partis Radicaux et des Partis Dmocratiques similaires

Liberalism and the great depression

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Despite some dispute whether there was an actual laissez-faire capitalist state in existence at the time ,
the Great Depression of the 1930s shook public faith in "laissez-faire capitalism" and "the profit motive,"
leading many to conclude that the unregulated markets could not produce prosperity and prevent poverty.
Many liberals were troubled by the political instability and restrictions on liberty that they believed were
caused by the growing relative inequality of wealth. Key liberals of this persuasion, such as John
Dewey, John Maynard Keynes, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, argued for the creation of a more elaborate
state apparatus to serve as the bulwark of individual liberty, permitting the continuation of capitalism while
protecting the citizens against its perceived excesses. Some liberals, including Hayek, whose work The
Road to Serfdom remains influential, argued against these institutions, believing the Great Depression
and Second World War to be individual events, that, once passed, did not justify a permanent change in
the role of government.
Key liberal thinkers, such as Lujo Brentano, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, Thomas Hill Green, John
Maynard Keynes, Bertil Ohlin and John Dewey, described how a government should intervene in the
economy to protect liberty while avoiding socialism. These liberals developed the theory of modern
liberalism (also "new liberalism," not to be confused with present-day neoliberalism). Modern liberals
rejected both radical capitalism and the revolutionary elements of the socialist school. John Maynard
Keynes, in particular, had a significant impact on liberal thought throughout the world. The Liberal Party in
Britain, particularly since Lloyd George's People's Budget, was heavily influenced by Keynes, as was
the Liberal International, the Oxford Liberal Manifesto of 1947 of the world organization of liberal parties.
In the United States and in Canada, the influence of Keynesianism on Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal
and on William Lyon Mackenzie King has led modern liberalism to be identified with American liberalism
and Canadian Liberalism.
Other liberals, including Friedrich August von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises, argued that
the great depression was not a result of "laissez-faire" capitalism but a result of too much government
intervention and regulation upon the market. In Friedman's work, "Capitalism and Freedom" he elucidated
government regulation that occurred before the great depression including heavy regulations upon banks
that prevented them, he argued, from reacting to the markets' demand for money. Furthermore, the U.S.
Federal government had created a fixed currency pegged to the value of gold. This pegged value created
a massive surplus of gold, but later the pegged value was too low which created a massive migration of
gold from the U.S. Friedman and Hayek both believed that this inability to react to currency demand
created a run on the banks that the banks were no longer able to handle, and that and the fixed exchange
rates between the dollar and gold both worked to cause the Great Depression by creating, and then not
fixing, deflationary pressures. He further argued in this thesis, that the government inflicted more pain
upon the American public by first raising taxes, then by printing money to pay debts (thus causing
inflation), the combination of which helped to wipe out the savings of the middle class.
Only in 1974 was Hayek awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for, among other reasons, his theory of
business cycles and his conception of the effects of monetary and credit policies and for being "one of the
few economists who gave warning of the possibility of a major economic crisis before the great crash
came in the autumn of 1929."

Liberalism against totalitarianism

In the mid-20th century, liberalism began to define itself in opposition to totalitarianism. The term was first
used by Giovanni Gentile to describe the socio-political system set up by Mussolini. Stalin would apply it
to GermanNazism, and after the war it became a descriptive term for what liberalism considered the
common characteristics of fascist, Nazi and Marxist-Leninist regimes. Totalitarian regimes sought and
tried to implement absolute centralized control over all aspects of society, in order to achieve prosperity
and stability. These governments often justified such absolutism by arguing that the survival of their
civilization was at risk. Opposition to totalitarian regimes acquired great importance in liberal and
democratic thinking, and they were often portrayed as trying to destroy liberal democracy. On the other
hand, the opponents of liberalism strongly objected to the classification that unified mutually hostile fascist
and communist ideologies and considered them fundamentally different.
In Italy and Germany, nationalist governments linked corporate capitalism to the state, and promoted the
idea that their nations were culturally and racially superior, and that conquest would give them their
"rightful" place in the world. The propaganda machines of these countries argued that democracy was
weak and incapable of decisive action, and that only a strong leader could impose necessary discipline. In
Soviet Union, the ruling communists banned private property, claiming to act for the sake of economic and
social justice, and the government had full control over the planned economy. The regime insisted that
personal interests be linked and inferior to those of the society, of class, which was ultimately an excuse
for persecuting both oppositions as well as dissidents within the communists ranks as well as arbitrary
use of severe penal code.
The rise of totalitarianism became a lens for liberal thought. Many liberals began to analyze their own
beliefs and principles, and came to the conclusion that totalitarianism arose because people in a
degraded condition turn to dictatorships for solutions. From this, it was argued that the state had the duty
to protect the economic well being of its citizens. As Isaiah Berlin said, "Freedom for the wolves means
death for the sheep." This growing body of liberal thought argued that reason requires a government to
act as a balancing force in economics.
Other liberal interpretations on the rise of totalitarianism were quite contrary to the growing body of
thought on government regulation in supporting the market and capitalism. This included Friedrich
Hayek's work, The Road to Serfdom. He argued that the rise of totalitarian dictatorships was the result of
too much government intervention and regulation upon the market which caused loss of political and civil
freedoms. Hayek also saw these economic controls being instituted in the United Kingdom, the United
States, and in Canada and warned against these "Keynesian" institutions, believing that they can and will
lead to the same totalitarian governments "Keynesians liberals" were attempting to avoid. Hayek saw
authoritarian regimes such as the fascist, Nazis, and communists, as the same totalitarian branch; all of
which sought the elimination or reduction of economic freedom. To him the elimination of economic
freedom brought about the elimination of political freedom. Thus Hayek believes the differences between
Nazis and communists are only rhetorical.
Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman stated that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the
creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. Hayek believed the same totalitarian outcomes
could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the
individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt.

One of the most influential critics of totalitarianism was Karl Popper. In The Open Society and Its
Enemies he defended liberal democracy and advocated open society, in which the government can be
changed without bloodshed. Popper argued that the process of the accumulation of human knowledge is
unpredictable and that the theory of ideal government cannot possibly exist. Therefore, the political
system should be flexible enough so that governmental policy would be able to evolve and adjust to the
needs of the society; in particular, it should encourage Pluralism and multiculturalism.

Liberalism after World War II

In much of the West, expressly liberal parties were caught between "conservative" parties on one hand,
and "labor" or social democratic parties on the other hand. For example, the UK Liberal Party became a
minor party. The same process occurred in a number of other countries, as the social democratic parties
took the leading role in the Left, while pro-business conservative parties took the leading role in the Right.
The post-war period saw the dominance of modern liberalism. Linking modernism and progressivism to
the notion that a populace in possession of rights and sufficient economic and educational means would
be the best defense against totalitarian threats, the liberalism of this period took the stance that by
enlightened use of liberal institutions, individual liberties could be maximized, and self-actualization could
be reached by the broad use of technology. Liberal writers in this period include economist John Kenneth
Galbraith, philosopher John Rawls and sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf. A dissenting strain of thought
developed that viewed any government involvement in the economy as a betrayal of liberal principles.
Calling itself "libertarianism," this movement was centered around such schools of thought as Austrian
Economics.
The debate between personal liberty and social optimality occupies much of the theory of liberalism since
the Second World War, particularly centering around the questions of social choice and market
mechanisms required to produce a "liberal" society. One of the central parts of this argument
concerns Kenneth Arrow's General Possibility Theorem. This thesis states that there is no consistent
social choice function which satisfies unbounded decision making, independence of choices, Pareto
optimality, and non-dictatorship. In short, according to the thesis which includes the problem of liberal
paradox, it is not possible to have unlimited liberty, a maximum amount of utility, and an unlimited range of
choices at the same time. Another important argument within liberalism is the importance of rationality in
decision making whether the liberal state is best based on rigorous procedural rights or whether it
should be rooted in substantial equality.
One important liberal debate concerns whether people have positive rights as members of communities in
addition to being protected from wrongs done by others. For many liberals, the answer is "yes":
individuals have positive rights based on being members of a national, political, or local unit, and can
expect protection and benefits from these associations. Members of a community have a right to expect
that their community will to a certain degree regulate the economy since rising and falling economic
circumstances cannot be controlled by the individual. If individuals have a right to participate in a public
capacity, then they have a right to expect education and social protections against discrimination from
other members of that public. Other liberals would answer "no": individuals have no such rights as
members of communities, for such rights conflict with the more fundamental "negative" rights of other
members of the community.

After the 1970s, the liberal pendulum had swung away from increasing the role of government, and
towards a greater use of the free market and laissez-faire principles. In essence, many of the old preWorld War I ideas were making a comeback.
In part this was a reaction to the triumphalism of the dominant forms of liberalism of the time, but as well it
was rooted in a foundation of liberal philosophy, particularly suspicion of the state, whether as an
economic or philosophical actor. Even liberal institutions could be misused to restrict rather than promote
liberty. Increasing emphasis on the free market emerged with Milton Friedman in the United States, and
with members of the Austrian School in Europe. Their argument was that regulation and government
involvement in the economy was a slippery slope, that any would lead to more, and that more was difficult
to remove.

Contemporary liberalism
The impact of liberalism on the modern world is profound. The ideas of individual liberties, personal
dignity, free expression, religious tolerance, private property, universal human rights, transparency of
government, limitations on government power, popular sovereignty, national self-determination, privacy,
"enlightened" and "rational" policy, the rule of law, fundamental equality, a free market economy, and free
trade were all radical notions some 250 years ago. Liberal democracy, in its typical form of multiparty
political pluralism, has spread to much of the world. Today all are accepted as the goals of policy in most
nations, even if there is a wide gap between statements and reality. They are not only the goals of
liberals, but also of social democrats, conservatives, and Christian Democrats. There is, of course,
opposition.

Positions of liberal parties

Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. (See Liberalism worldwide.) One of
the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and in Canada and usage in
Continental Europe. In the US, liberalism is usually understood to refer to modern liberalism, as
contrasted with conservatism. American liberals endorse regulation for business, a limited social welfare
state, and support broad racial, ethnic, sexual and religioustolerance, and thus more readily
embrace Pluralism, and affirmative action. In Europe, on the other hand, liberalism is not only contrasted
with conservatism and Christian Democracy, but also with socialism and social democracy. In some
countries, European liberals share common positions with Christian Democrats.
Before an explanation of this subject proceeds, it is important to add this disclaimer: There is always a
disconnect between philosophical ideals and political realities. Also, opponents of any belief are apt to
describe that belief in different terms from those used by adherents. What follows is a record of those
goals that overtly appear most consistently across major liberal manifestos (e.g., the Oxford Manifesto of
1947). It is not an attempt to catalogue the idiosyncratic views of particular persons, parties, or countries,
nor is it an attempt to investigate any covert goals, since both are beyond the scope of this article.

Freedom
Most political parties which identify themselves as liberal claim to promote the rights and responsibilities
of the individual, free choice within an open competitive process, the free market, and the dual
responsibility of the state to protect the individual citizen and guarantee their liberty. Critics of liberal
parties tend to state liberal policies in different terms. Economic freedom may lead to gross inequality.

Free speech may lead to speech that is obscene, blasphemous, or treasonous. The role of the state as
promoter of freedom and as protector of its citizens may come into conflict.

Democracy
Liberalism stresses the importance of representative liberal democracy as the best form of
government. Elected representatives are subject to the rule of law, and their power is moderated by
a constitution, which emphasizes the protection of rights and freedoms of individuals and limits the
will of the majority. Liberals are in favour of a pluralist system in which differing political and social
views, even extreme or fringe views, compete for political power on a democratic basis and have the
opportunity to achieve power through periodically held elections. They stress the resolution of
differences by peaceful means within the bounds of democratic or lawful processes. Many liberals
seek ways to increase the involvement and participation of citizens in the democratic process. Some
liberals favour direct democracy instead of representative democracy.

Civil rights
Liberalism advocates civil rights for all citizens: the protection and privileges of personal liberty
extended to all citizens equally by law. It includes the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective
of race, gender and class. Liberals are divided over the extent to which positive rights are to be
included, such as the right to food, shelter, and education. Critics from an internationalist
human rights school of thought argue that the civil rights advocated in the liberal view are not
extended to all people, but are limited to citizens of particular states. Unequal treatment on the
basis of nationality is therefore possible, especially in regard to citizenship itself.

Rule of law
The rule of law and equality before the law are fundamental to liberalism. Government
authority may only be legitimately exercised in accordance with laws that are adopted through
an established procedure. Another aspect of the rule of law is an insistence upon the
guarantee of an independent judiciary, whose political independence is intended to act as a
safeguard against arbitrary rulings in individual cases. The rule of law includes concepts such
as thepresumption of innocence, no double jeopardy, and Habeas Corpus. Rule of law is seen
by liberals as a guard against despotism and as enforcing limitations on the power of
government. In the penal system, liberals in general reject punishments they see as inhumane,
including capital punishment

Neutral government
Liberals generally believe in neutral government, in the sense that it is not for the state to
determine personal values. As John Rawls put it, "The state has no right to determine a
particular conception of the good life". In the United States this neutrality is expressed in
the Declaration of Independence as the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Both in Europe and in the United States, liberals often support the pro-choice movement and
advocate equal rights for women and homosexuals.

Equality
Racism is incompatible with liberalism. Liberals in Europe are generally hostile to any attempts
by the state to enforce equality in employment by legal action against employers, whereas in
the United States many liberals favour such affirmative action. Liberals in general support
equal opportunity, but not necessarily equal outcome. Most European liberal parties do not
favour employment quotas for women and ethnic minorities as the best way to endgender and
racial inequality. However, all agree that arbitrary discrimination on the basis of race or gender
is morally wrong.

Free market
Economic liberals today stress the importance of a free market and free trade, and seek
to limit government intervention in both the domestic economy and foreign trade. Modern
liberal movements often agree in principle with the idea of free trade, but maintain some
skepticism, seeing unrestricted trade as leading to the growth of multi-national
corporations and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. In the
post-war consensus on the welfare state in Europe, liberals supported government
responsibility for health, education, and alleviating poverty while still calling for a market
based on independent exchange. Liberals agree that a high quality of health care and
education should be available for all citizens, but differ in their views on the degree to
which governments should supply these benefits. Since poverty is a threat to personal
liberty, liberalism seeks a balance between individual responsibility and community
responsibility. In particular, liberals favour special protection for the handicapped, the sick,
the disabled, and the aged.
European liberalism turned back to more laissez-faire policies in the 1980s and 1990s,
and supported privatisation and liberalisation in health care and other public sectors.
Modern European liberals generally tend to believe in a smaller role for government than
would be supported by most social democrats, let alone socialists or communists. The
European liberal consensus appears to involve a belief that economies should be
decentralized. In general, contemporary European liberals do not believe that the
government should directly control any industrial production through state owned
enterprises, which places them in opposition to social democrats.

Environment
Many liberals share values with environmentalists, such as the Green Party. They
seek to minimize the damage done by the human species on the natural world, and
to maximize the regeneration of damaged areas. Some such activists attempt to
make changes on an economic level by acting together with businesses, but others
favour legislation in order to achieve sustainable development. Other liberals do not
accept government regulation in this matter and argue that the market should
regulate itself in some fashion.

International relations
There is no consensus about liberal doctrine in international politics, though
there are some central notions, which can be deduced from, for example, the
opinions of Liberal International. Social liberals often believe that war can be
abolished. Some favour internationalism, and support the United Nations.
Economic liberals, on the other hand, favour non-interventionism rather than
collective security. Liberals believe in the right of every individual to enjoy the
essential human liberties, and support self-determination for national
minorities. Essential also is the free exchange of ideas, news, goods and
services between people, as well as freedom of travel within and between all
countries. Liberals generally oppose censorship, protective trade barriers, and
exchange regulations.
Some liberals were among the strongest advocates of international cooperation and the building of supra-national organizations, such as
the European Union. In the view of social liberals, a global free and fair market
can only work if companies worldwide respect a set of common minimal social
and ecological standards. A controversial question, on which there is no liberal
consensus, is immigration. Do nations have a right to limit the flow of
immigrants from countries with growing populations to countries with stable or
declining populations?

Conservative liberalism
Conservative liberalism represents the right-wing of the liberal
movement, stressing much on economic issues and combining
some conservative elements. Examples include the People's Party for
Freedom and Democracy in theNetherlands, the Liberal Party of
Denmark and, in some ways, the Free Democratic Party of Germany.

Liberal conservatism
Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism which includes
some liberal elements. This strain often emerged in countries with
strong socialist and/or labour parties, and is often strongly
influenced by the writings of Edmund Burke. Examples include
the Conservative Party of Canada, the Republican Party of the
United States, the Liberal Front Party (Brazil), the Moderate Party
(Sweden), Forza Italia, Civic Platform (Poland), the Liberal
Democratic Party in Japan, National Renewal in Chile, and
the Liberal Party of Australia. These parties are mainly member of
the International Democratic Union, not of the Liberal International.

Liberal international relations theory

"Liberalism" in international relations is a theory that holds that
state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the

primary determinant of state behaviour. Unlike realism where

the state is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism allows for
plurality in state actions. Thus, preferences will vary from state
to state, depending on factors such as culture, economic
system or government type. Liberalism also holds that
interaction between states is not limited to the political/security
("high politics"), but also economic/cultural ("low politics")
whether through commercial firms, organizations or
individuals. Thus, instead of an anarchic international system,
there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader
notions of power, such as cultural capital (for example, the
influence of a country's films leading to the popularity of its
culture and the creation of a market for its exports worldwide).
Another assumption is that absolute gains can be made
through co-operation and interdependence thus peace can
be achieved.
Liberalism as an international relations theory is not inherently
linked to liberalism as a more general domestic political
ideology. Increasingly, modern liberals are integrating critical
international relations theory into their foreign policy positions.

Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism is a label for some economic liberal
doctrines. The swing away from government action in
the 1970s led to the introduction of this term, which
refers to a program of reducing trade barriers and
internal market restrictions, while using government
power to enforce opening of foreign markets.
Neoliberalism accepts a certain degree of government
involvement in the domestic economy, particularly a
central bank with the power to print fiat money. This is
strongly opposed by libertarians. While neoliberalism is
sometimes described as overlapping with Thatcherism,
economists as diverse as Joseph Stiglitz and Milton
Friedman have been described by others as
"neoliberal". This economic agenda is not necessarily
combined with a liberal agenda in politics: neoliberals
often do not subscribe to individual liberty on ethical
issues or in sexual mores. An extreme example was the
Pinochet regime in Chile, but some also classify Ronald
Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and even Tony
Blair and Gerhard Schrder as being neo-liberal.

In the 1990s, many social democratic parties adopted

"neoliberal" economic policies such as privatization of
industry and open markets, much to the dismay of many
of their own voters. This has led these parties to
become de facto neoliberal, and has often resulted in a
drastic loss of popular support. For example, critics to
the left of the German Social Democratic Party and the
British Labour Party accuse them of pursuing neoliberal
policies by refusing to renationalise industry. As a result
of this, much support for these parties has been lost to
the Christian Democratic Union and the Liberal
Democrats, respectively. This "adopting of the wolves
clothes" has led Labour in the UK to spectacular
electoral success. However, tensions between the
executive and Labour's backbenches is a consistent
issue.
Sometimes "Neoliberalism" is used as a catch-all term
for the anti-socialist reaction which swept through some
countries during the 70s, 80s and 90s. "Neoliberalism" in
the form of Thatcher, Reagan, and Pinochet claimed to
move from a bureaucratic welfare-based society toward
a meritocracy acting in the interests of business. In
actuality, these governments cut funding for education
and taxed income more heavily than wealth, which
increased the influence of big business and the upper
class.
Some conservatives see themselves as the true
inheritors of classical liberalism. Jonah Goldberg
of National Review argues that "most conservatives are
closer to classical liberals than a lot of Reasonlibertarians" because conservatives want to preserve
some institutions that they see as needed for liberty.
Further confusing the classification of liberalism and
conservatism is that some conservatives claim liberal
values as their own.

Liberalism and social democracy

Liberalism shares many basic goals and methods with
social democracy, but in some places diverges. The
fundamental difference between liberalism and social
democracy is disagreement over the role of the state in
the economy. Social democracy can be understood to
combine features from both social liberalism

and democratic socialism. Democratic socialism seeks

to achieve some minimum equality of outcome.
Democratic socialists support a large public sector and
the nationalization of utilities such as gas and electricity
in order to avoid private monopolies, achieve social
justice, and raise the standard of living. By contrast,
liberalism, in its distrust of monopolies (both public and
private), prefers much less state intervention, choosing
for example subsidies and regulation rather than outright
nationalization. Liberalism also emphasizes equality of
opportunity, and not equality of outcome, citing the
desire for a meritocracy. American liberalism, in contrast
to liberalism in most countries, never put a major focus
on socialism nor demanded the same state social
welfare programs as its European counterparts. Today,
the United States and Canada do not share the welfare
state programs applied in most of Europe and have
implemented fewer social programs to aid those in the
lower socioeconomic level thanAustralia.

Criticisms
Collectivist opponents of liberalism reject its emphasis
on individual rights, and instead emphasize the collective
or the community to a degree where the rights of the
individual are either diminished or abolished.
Collectivism can be found both to the right and to the left
of liberalism. On the left, the collective that tends to be
enhanced is the state, often in the form of state
socialism. On the right, conservative and religious
opponents argue that liberalism has removed the
traditional mores that informally regulated societies,
replacing them with abstract and idealistic principles
which are imposed by the liberal-dominated
schools, media, courts and bureaucracy. Opponents
likeTheodore Dalrymple claim that these new principles
have actually undermined the concepts of self control
and personal responsibility which are vital to any
functional society. The liberal answer to this is that it is
not the purpose of the law to legislate morality, but to
protect the citizen from harm. However, conservatives
often see the legislation of morality as an essential
aspect of protecting citizens from harm.

Anti-statist critiques of liberalism, such as anarchism,

assert the illegitimacy of the state for any purposes.
A softer critique of liberalism can be found
in communitarianism, which emphasizes a return to
communities without necessarily denigrating individual
rights.
Beyond these clear theoretical differences, some liberal
principles can be disputed in a piecemeal fashion, with
some portions kept and others abandoned (see Liberal
democracy and Neoliberalism.) This ongoing process
where putatively liberal agents accept some traditionally
liberal values and reject others causes some critics to
question whether or not the word "liberal" has any useful
meaning at all.
In terms of international politics, the universal claims of
human rights which liberalism tends to endorse are
disputed by rigid adherents of non-interventionism, since
intervention in the interests of human rights can conflict
with thesovereignty of nations. By contrast, World
federalists criticize liberalism for its adherence to the
doctrine of sovereign nation-states, which the World
federalists believe is not helpful in the face of genocide
and other mass human rights abuses.
Liberalism has also been accused of being non-political
in the works of some critics, for instance in " Imperium:
The Philosophy of History and Politics" by Francis
Parker Yockey:
Liberalism, however, with its compromising, vague attitude,
incapable of precise formulation, incapable also of rousing
precise feelings, either affirmative or negative, is not an
idea of political force. Its numerous devotees, in the 18th,
19th and 20th centuries have taken part in practical politics
only as the ally of other groups.

Left-leaning opponents of economic liberalism reject the

view that the private sector can act for the collective
benefit, citing the harm done to those individuals who
lose out in competition. They oppose the use of the state
to impose market principles, usually through an enforced
market mechanism in a previously non-market sector.
They argue that the dominance of liberal principles in
economy and society has contributed

to inequality among states, and inequality within states.

They argue that liberal societies are characterised by
long-term poverty, and by ethnic and class differentials
in health, by (infant) mortality and lower life expectancy.
Some would even say they have much higher
unemployment than centrally planned economies.
A response to these claims is that liberal states tend to
be wealthier than less free states, that the poor in liberal
states are better off than the average citizen in nonliberal states, and that inequality is a necessary spur to
the hard work that produces prosperity. Throughout
history, poverty has been the common lot of mankind,
and it is only the progress of science and the rise of the
modern industrial state that has brought prosperity to
large numbers of people.