the liberals can be divided into three separate fractions. those being classic liberals, who believe in minimal state intervention and its function is limited to the maintenance of domestic order and personal security. The neo liberals, believing that personal liberty is maximised by limiting government interference in the operation of free markets. Finally modern liberals, who accept the state should help people to help themselves, but not directly by the state. due to these divisions there is often debate or disagreement over what the role of the state is, and what is best. roles of the state could include social insurance, correction of externalities and justice. although all liberals will agree these are all essential to a functional society,
…show more content…
this can come in the form of social help, for example providing health care. Or in an economic way, via a benefits system. from a classical liberal standpoint they would not intervene in the system by offering support as this goes against the ideology. thier belief is that the wealth and prosperity can come from the individual themselves and should rely upon help from the state. therefores they think its best the state should take non intrusive approach and remain to act as an umpire, and only intervene when necessary. neo liberals do in fact agree with classic liberals on social policy. where the individual is responsible for their own personal well-being. however this individualism leads to a fear of power, where human being are self seeking creatures and have vested interests. for this reason neo liberals remain alert to economic situations, therefore potentially removing some freedom/individualism with state intervention(G.McCoy+R.Peddle(2012)Neoliberal policy and its influence on welfare ideology: A source of social injustice?Vol.3 issue.2 p.5). finally there are the modern liberals, who believe in a more enabling or welfare state. this is where the main disagreement is, as modern liberals believe the state should help people to help themselves, rather than be completely withdrawn from the system. so social welfare is an aspect that is strongly supported, but only to a certain extent. social welfare …show more content…
the division here is how much power (or oversight) should the individual have when making a decision which could ultimately affect everyone. as from a classic libertarian standpoint, they may want to promote individualism, and the people to make their own decisions on the majority of things. this could be done by forms of direct democracy such as referendums or ballot measures, instead of allowing elected representatives to vote on the issue. for example proposition 8 in California to ban gay marriage in 2008 (voted yes) was decided by the people. similarly the 2014 Scottish referendum. whereas modern and neo liberals would argue that the people should not have full control over issues. instead the government should check the legitimacy, then potentially oversee the process. for example when people called to legalise marijuana in the UK, the government chose to produce a report on the issue, but then no vote or referendum happened. so although they won’t go to the full extent of leaving the people out, they do offer information. also with the introduction of E-petitions in the UK, people are able to put forward their issues, then if it meets the quota of signatures it can be discussed in westminster hall, then voted
this can come in the form of social help, for example providing health care. Or in an economic way, via a benefits system. from a classical liberal standpoint they would not intervene in the system by offering support as this goes against the ideology. thier belief is that the wealth and prosperity can come from the individual themselves and should rely upon help from the state. therefores they think its best the state should take non intrusive approach and remain to act as an umpire, and only intervene when necessary. neo liberals do in fact agree with classic liberals on social policy. where the individual is responsible for their own personal well-being. however this individualism leads to a fear of power, where human being are self seeking creatures and have vested interests. for this reason neo liberals remain alert to economic situations, therefore potentially removing some freedom/individualism with state intervention(G.McCoy+R.Peddle(2012)Neoliberal policy and its influence on welfare ideology: A source of social injustice?Vol.3 issue.2 p.5). finally there are the modern liberals, who believe in a more enabling or welfare state. this is where the main disagreement is, as modern liberals believe the state should help people to help themselves, rather than be completely withdrawn from the system. so social welfare is an aspect that is strongly supported, but only to a certain extent. social welfare …show more content…
the division here is how much power (or oversight) should the individual have when making a decision which could ultimately affect everyone. as from a classic libertarian standpoint, they may want to promote individualism, and the people to make their own decisions on the majority of things. this could be done by forms of direct democracy such as referendums or ballot measures, instead of allowing elected representatives to vote on the issue. for example proposition 8 in California to ban gay marriage in 2008 (voted yes) was decided by the people. similarly the 2014 Scottish referendum. whereas modern and neo liberals would argue that the people should not have full control over issues. instead the government should check the legitimacy, then potentially oversee the process. for example when people called to legalise marijuana in the UK, the government chose to produce a report on the issue, but then no vote or referendum happened. so although they won’t go to the full extent of leaving the people out, they do offer information. also with the introduction of E-petitions in the UK, people are able to put forward their issues, then if it meets the quota of signatures it can be discussed in westminster hall, then voted