[Topic: Liberalism Essay Examples] Continued

Liberalism Notes Essay Example for Free

Critique Of Kantian Liberalism Philosophy Essay.

E-9 John Stuart Mill, The Spirit of the Age. Introduced by F.A. Hayek. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942, xxxiii, 93 pp.
[Hayek's Introduction is entitled, "John Stuart Mill at the Age of Twenty-Four," and surveys Mill's intellectual development at the time of Mill's famous essay, "The Spirit of the Age," which represented important deviations from Benthamite Utilitarian liberalism.]

A key concept of the Mussolini essay was that fascism was a rejection of previous models: ..

The Brexit Rejection of Neoliberal Tyranny – …

Fascism istherefore opposed to allindividualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism; and it isopposed to all Jacobinistic utopias andinnovations. It does not believe in thepossibility of "happiness"on earth as conceived by the economistic literatureof the XVIIIth century, and it therefore rejects thetheologicalnotion that at some future time the human familywill secure a final settlement of all its difficulties. Thisnotion runs counter to experience which teaches that lifeis in continual flux and in process of evolution. Inpolitics Fascism aims at realism; in practice it desires to deal onlywith those problems which are the spontaneous productof historic conditions and which find or suggest theirown solutions . Onlyby entering in to the process ofreality and taking possession of the forces at work within it, can manact on man and on nature .

changed his mind about whether the New Deal was an affirmation or rejection of liberalism.

Throughout the 1970s, conservatives were developing their agenda. They knew that by mid-decade, Americans were not quite ready for a real change. What they needed to bring them back to the Executive branch was a Democrat with a failed domestic and foreign policy to come into power – and as we have seen, Jimmy Carter provided just that. Thus, Ronald Reagan ran for the Presidency at a time when Americans were ready for change - change built solidly upon modern conservatism and a rejection of social liberalism.

The Brexit Rejection of Neoliberal ..

Hegel’s Rejection of Liberalism: A Comment from a …

The Constitution clearly bars the enforcement of purely religious norms (, kosher food laws). Americans cannot conceive of such enforcement in any event. We are much less agreed on whether the state has any role to play in enforcing purely moral norms (, against adultery, prostitution, or homosexuality). But what of the creation or sanction of larger religious communities in the public sphere? This, it seems to me, is one of the hardest questions Americans face today in ordering church-state relations. Consider, again, abortion. One of the current abortion disputes concerns the right of those who object to abortion to refrain from performing, assisting, advising, or subsidizing it. Pro-choice groups concede that no individual can be compelled to directly participate in an abortion, or, grudgingly, at best, they concede that religious hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions. How, they ask, can an institution have a conscience–a question that betrays amazing ignorance of religious behavior. But they are completely unwilling to concede that, for example, a Catholic employer should have the right to refuse to pay for health insurance coverage. This, they say, is forcing the employer’s belief on the employee. It eludes them that forcing the coverage of abortion forces the employee’s religious faith on the employer. It may be that compelling employers to provide insurance covering abortion or contraception is a just result, or the most just possible result, but it is not because the employer has no claim at all. The fact that pro-choice groups simply miss the point is reflective of an individualistic understanding of religion, one that grants no legitimate social or corporate role to public, nongovernmental, religion. On the other hand, it is not clear that we would allow religious groups with substantial economic power to use that power to impose religious views on others. Too much of that, and the autonomy and equality that are essential for a liberal democracy are destroyed.

Hegel’s Rejection of Liberalism: ..

Let us now consider left-libertarianism. It holds thatnatural resources initially belong to everyone in some egalitarianmanner, or that legitimate holdings are subject to someequality-preserving constraint over time.[] We have already rejected oneversion—joint-ownership left-libertarianism—for failing tobe unilateralist (i.e., because it requires the permission of othersfor use or appropriation of unowned natural resources). We shall nowfocus on Lockean (and hence unilateralist) versions ofleft-libertarianism.

The End of Identity Liberalism - The New York Times

The State hands down to future generations the memory of those who laid down their lives to ensure its safety or to obey its laws; it sets up as examples and records for future ages the names of the captains who enlarged its territory and of the men of genius who have made it famous. Whenever respect for the State declines and the disintegrating and centrifugal tendencies of individuals and groups prevail, nations are headed for decay". Since 1929 economic and political development have everywhere emphasized these truths. The importance of the State is rapidly growing. The so-called crisis can only be settled by State action and within the orbit of the State. Where are the shades of the Jules Simons who, in the early days of liberalism proclaimed that the "State should endeavor to render itself useless and prepare to hand in its resignation "? Or of the MacCullochs who, in the second half of last century, urged that the State should desist from governing too much? And what of the English Bentham who considered that all industry asked of government was to be left alone, and of the German Humbolt who expressed the opinion that the best government was a lazy " one? What would they say now to the unceasing, inevitable, and urgently requested interventions of government in business? It is true that the second generation of economists was less uncompromising in this respect than the first, and that even Adam Smith left the door ajar - however cautiously - for government intervention in business.