1. Recognition of freedom
Classical liberals have a presumption delivery that supports individual freedom (individual freedom or liberty in English). They want to maximize freedom in our political, social and economic life, however, they have different reasons for this conclusion
For many, freedom is good in itself. They argue from the point of view of psychology that people - if they choose - would always prefer to be free than to be hated. Other advocates of natural rights say that freedom is something that God or nature has given us. While some argue that freedom is built on a social contract should
To be approved by people in the "state of nature" if they want to avoid chaos and conflict. Many suggest that freedom is an essential requirement for progress. Some point to a humanistic point of view, which says that freedom is an essential part of the meaning of being human: a person controlled by others is not a perfect person, but just a nobody. Finally, classical utilitarian liberals value freedom as the best way to maximize the well-being of society as a whole.
Track listingpersonnel
2 What is classical liberalism
What is most characteristic of classical liberals is the importance they attach to individual freedom. Of course, human beings also have other values - honesty, loyalty, security, family, and many others, but when it comes to our social, political, and economic life, classical liberals believe that we should aim to maximize the freedom that individuals enjoy. Classical liberals are committed to the fact that people should be allowed to live their lives according to their own choices, with the minimum necessary restrictions imposed by individuals or other authorities. They accept that freedom can never be absolute, as long as the freedom of one person may conflict with the freedom of another, we can all have freedom of movement, but nevertheless we cannot all move to the same spot at the same moment. Freedom does not mean that you are free to rob, threaten, coerce, attack or kill others, which leads to a violation of their freedom.
So what are the limits of individual freedom Classical liberalism does not have a single answer, it is not a dogmatic set of rules and classical liberals do not fully agree on the specific scope of personal (and state) action, but they generally agree that any answer should seek to maximize individual freedom, and anyone who wants to reduce it should have a very weighty reason.
Fourthly, society is very complex and in a constant state of change. And no authority alone can know what is best for everyone in this complex and dynamic world. Individuals are better able to make decisions for themselves, and they should be left free to do so.
3. Reducing coercion
Classical liberals would like to reduce coercion. They want a world in which people coexist peacefully, not one in which one uses force or threats to exploit others or impose one's will on them.
Accordingly, classical liberals grant a monopoly on the use of force to the government and judicial authorities. However, they want to keep this to the minimum necessary; they understand how easy it is to abuse power.
Classical liberals assert that any use of force to restrain people's actions must be justified. The burden falls on the person who wants to restrict the freedom to explain why it is necessary and useful enough for his vacation.
In general, classical liberals believe that individuals should be able to live their lives according to their choice without having to ask anyone's permission before doing something. There may be a good reason why people's actions should be restrained; but the establishment of evidence falls on the shoulders of those who want to do it.
Classical liberals see the individual as more important than the collective. And they do not sacrifice individual freedom for some collective benefit - not without at least some good justification. And they have several different reasons for this.
One of the points of view - called methodological individualism - says that the collective does not exist outside of the individuals who make it up. There is no doubt that a community is more than a collection of individuals, just as a house is more than a collection of bricks. But society does not have its own independent mind; it is individuals who think, value, choose and lead events. There is no collective public interest outside the interests of the individuals who make up that society. Secondly, these individuals are different. What is in someone's interest may be against the interest of others. And sacrificing the freedom of the individual for the benefit of the "collective" means that we will sacrifice it for the sake of a specific set of interests, and not for the sake of
Everybody.
Another reason is embodied in the simple experience. History is replete with examples of the evils inflicted on peoples when they sacrificed their freedom for the sake of one of the leaders ' erroneous idea of the benefit of the collective even more recently, one has only to look at the atrocities
Committed by Hitler, or starvation and purges under Stalin, or mass murder ordered by Pol Pot.