Welfare Liberalism

Liberalisms generally subscribe to an ideological platform that the individual is sovereign as John Stuart Mill describes it, and the rights of the individual are infinitely more important than the rights of the government. The debate with liberalisms seems to arise from the fact that it does not pay particular attention to the role the individual plays as a member of society - a society that cannot function without unity, self-preservation, and general identification by those members of their responsibility to the overall welfare of society. One can deduce that liberalisms generally do not give as much attention to this notion of a "social fabric" as outlined by Edmund Burke but that is not to say that liberalisms' overall goal is not the welfare of society as a whole.

While neoclassical liberalism tends to recognize that society and the individual are benefited by a smaller federal government and less government intrusion on the individual, it usually favors economic competition within society as a whole. Neoclassical liberals generally believe that economic competition and overall economic stability will enhance the standard of living of all individuals. Under this ideology, one could assume that by increasing the standard of living of all individuals, society as a whole has benefited thus ensuring that this ideology does not neglect the authority of the state in general. However, one could also argue that neoclassical liberalism dismisses the authority of the federal government in some ways by attempting to minimize it as much as possible. Edmund Burke would certainly argue that neoclassical liberalism does not focus enough on the social unity needed to facilitate a thriving society. He would also argue that this ideology dismisses the nature of humans to be "self-interested...and short-sighted, which is precisely why they need the power of government to restrain them and keep their passions in check." Edmund Burke would find many flaws with neoclassical liberalism on the basis that it does not promote the general welfare of society but rather focuses on the individual rights to the extent that it neglects the "social fabric" of a society. This "social fabric" as Burke metaphorically dubs it, is an organic view which contends that "individuals are related to one another and to the society in the same way that the heart and eyes and arms are related to the body - not as separate and isolated units but as interdependent members of a living organism." This contrasts to a view of atomistic conception of humans which claims that individuals are "a loose collection of self-contained atoms who are no more connected to one another than marbles on a tray." Burke would argue that this thought is wrong on many levels including the natural dependence of humans on other humans. It also completely disregards, in Burke's view, the necessary traditions and customs of a culture by promoting individual freedom to the extent that it ignores these critical pieces of that which makes the society function and prosper.

Burke would also argue that neoclassical liberalism allows too much personal freedom without identifying the consequences of misunderstanding the negative impact some of these freedoms can have on society as a whole. He believes there should be constraints to individual freedom when he feels that it inhibits the effectiveness and productivity of society. But neoclassical liberals do not distinctly neglect the authority of the social order as much as they use the route of individual freedom to benefit the overall society. They use more pragmatic methods to obtain the most benefit for every individual in the society.

Now to examine the second distinct school of liberalism, one must differentiate between welfare liberalism and neoclassical liberalism so as to have the marked differences that separate the two distinctions. Neoclassical liberals and welfare liberals similarly agree that individual liberty is key to a prosperous society, and as the ideology itself alludes to, individual freedom supersedes governmental supremacy. But the distinction between the two schools of thought is that welfare liberals generally subscribe to a more active federal government. They feel that government can help to rectify some of the injustices faced by people who are less fortunate than others. They desire to use the government as a "positive force" to promote overall equality while still maintaining individual freedom. Welfare liberals typically distinguish between negative and positive freedom - as outlined by T.H. Green - "[f]reedom is not merely a matter of being left alone; it is the positive power or ability to do something." He believed there to be "formidable obstacles" to freedom that we must look to actively overcome in order to allow true freedom of all individuals.

Now, as discussed previously, neoclassical liberalism supports minimal government involvement to ensure that the overall society is benefited the most through a lassiez-faire economy and more overall productivity. Welfare liberalism conversely believes that more government involvement to alleviate obstacles to success is necessary for complete freedom and acceptance. Burke would argue that both liberalisms do not give enough attention to the order and authority of the government. He supported a true natural aristocracy, one that he believed would not be corrupted by the politicians pandering to the whims of the citizens, but an aristocracy that would enact a traditional order and ensure that change was undergone slowly and

...