Liberalism encompasses a variety of perspectives, but all liberal traditions share several core principles. The most important of these is the emphasis placed on the individual and on personal freedom. Much of liberal thought has focused on understanding human nature and how it supports concepts such as individual rights and liberty. Closely connected to this is the belief that people should be able to govern themselves and be governed with as little coercion or interference as possible. Emerging alongside the Enlightenment, liberalism often developed as a challenge to religious authority and absolute monarchy. Liberal ideas can be traced back to early modern political thought, particularly the work of John Locke. Writing during the period surrounding the Glorious Revolution, Locke rejected the belief that monarchs ruled by divine right. Instead, he argued that all individuals possess natural rights granted by God, including the rights to life, health, liberty, and property. Locke’s vision of a civil society composed of free and equal individuals governed by the rule of law, as well as his connection between liberty and property rights, became foundational to liberal political theory. His ideas also strongly influenced the drafting of the United States Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

On the European continent, Enlightenment thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Voltaire, and Marquis de Condorcet emphasized reason, individual autonomy, and limited government. Their ideas significantly shaped liberal thought.

English economist Adam Smith was among the first authors to put forth a theoretical and ideological analysis of capitalism and liberalism in his book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). Smith believed that people naturally tend to seek self-interest and improve their material conditions. He also believed that people have a natural tendency to buy and sell goods. For him, the best economic system is the one that promotes selfishness, entrepreneurship, competition, a laissez-faire market, and international free trade. Smith was decidedly against practices like mercantilism, guild restraints on participation and apprenticeship rules, protectionism, and monopolies. Smith believed that the role of government should be limited.

During the nineteenth century, English liberalism became increasingly influenced by rationalism and utilitarianism. Thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham and James Mill argued that social institutions should be designed according to reason. They developed the principle of utility, which holds that actions and policies should be evaluated according to whether they produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Bentham’s utilitarianism was shaped by three defining ideas: the principle of the greatest happiness, universal egoism, and the artificial identification of someone’s interests.

                                      John Stuart Mill

In the book On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill proposed what he called a very simple principle, which refers to the notion that the government cannot impose any restrictions on individual freedom and liberty apart from preventing someone from causing harm to others. This principle also states that the state has no right to impose restrictions on an individual’s behavior to protect his moral or physical well-being. Mill wanted society and individuals to achieve moral progress, although not by coercion but through liberty, as freedom of speech and thought can bring about innovation, experiments, and new ideas and thus create new social forms, new forms of domestic life, and new types of economic organization. This would ensure that society overcomes mediocrity and stagnation. In that way, liberty ensures the greatest utility for everybody.   

In Considerations on Representative Government (1861), Mill expands on ideas introduced in On Liberty, showing how positive organization of political institutions can embody and promote the utility of liberty. He introduced two criteria for judging government and its institutions – education and efficiency. Efficiency ensures the optimal use of good qualities in people, while education promotes the rise of those good qualities. In the book, Mill analyzes how best to balance education and efficiency in different political institutions. Concerning the right to vote, he reasoned that everybody has to have the right to vote to ensure that their interests are protected and represented. But, on the other hand, he was opposed to secret voting, because public voting would prevent selfish behavior and necessitate voters to justify their choices based on reason and social utility. Mill also advocated for plural voting for educated and professional individuals, and the implementation of education tests as a condition for the right to vote. He argued that new legislation should be created by commissions of experts, and not by elected representatives. Mill distinguished between True democracy and False democracy. In True democracy, voters are encouraged to use reason in making political decisions but are prevented from making unreasonable decisions. The ultimate goal of the government is to help individuals develop their own path to happiness, although everyone is responsible for creating that path and achieving happiness.     

Mill was a follower of Bentham’s philosophy of utilitarianism, and, in his book Utilitarianism(1863), Mill made important modifications to Bentham’s utilitarianism. Mill argued that knowledge of social and historical context that shaped some social institution is needed to judge the utility of that institution. Another alteration to the principle of utility concerns the possibility of distinguishing between higher and lower qualities of pleasure. As pleasure is the source of happiness and utility, we need to study both the quality and quantity of different pleasures to determine the greatest utility for an individual. Mill sees altruism, higher feelings, and intellect as some of the important sources of higher pleasure. While Bentham studied utility from the point of the individual, to regulate individual actions, Mill argued that the principle of utility should be used on the level of society, to shape its practices and institutions. Mill stated that utility shouldn’t replace conventional morality.  

Mill, influenced by his longtime friend and later wife, Harriet Taylor, wrote The Subjection of Women (1869). In this book, radical for its time, Mill argued for women’s rights and overall equality for women and their self-development. Cultural rules are used to subjugate women and limit their development. Allowing women to join the workforce and other social positions would lead, not only to the liberation of women but also to the progress of society, as every position in society would be filled by the most qualified person. As a member of parliament, Mill tried to amend the 1867 Reform Bill, which was passed and extended voting rights, to include an amendment that would grant voting rights to women but was eventually unsuccessful.

                              Herbert Spencer's Liberalism

In the book The Man Versus the State (1884), Herbert Spencer expresses his belief that society exists to achieve the well-being of its members, and therefore the state cannot have separate imperatives that exceed the interests of individuals who live in it. His concept of justice is a state in which the individual rights of people have absolute priority, that is, when people are completely free to regulate their own activities and seek happiness, as long as they do not diminish the freedom of other individuals to seek happiness. The freedom of every human being is complete, and it is limited only when it violates the freedom of another person. The goal of democracy should be to achieve equal freedom for all, so the government and the parliament should have a very limited role, that is: to act to ensure equal freedom for all; to ensure the fulfillment of treaty obligations; to prevent crime; and to provide military defense from other states. People's self-government should be maximally developed until it enters the domain of the prerogatives of the administrative system. He also advocated complete economic freedoms and the absence of state intervention in the economy, so he was a great opponent, not only of socialism, but also of all forms of social benefits, charities, and state institutions (schools, museums, etc.) that are financed through taxes, and which are not necessary for the functioning of the state.

                              William Graham Sumner

Sumner presented his defense of extreme economic liberalism in his book What Social Classes Owe to Each Other (1877). Sumner especially respects the middle class, which he considers valuable, independent, and modest, and which gives the greatest contribution to the development of society. He believes that any expansion of state intervention brings the most damage to the middle class. In addition, paternalistic legislation leads to the exploitation of society by corrupt plutocracy. In the end, Sumner concludes that social classes owe each other nothing but mutual respect and the pursuit of freedom and security in society.

                                    Friedrich Hayek

One of Hayek's most influential critiques was aimed at the concept of central planning, which he vehemently opposed. In his seminal work The Road to Serfdom (1944), he argued that attempts at comprehensive government planning inevitably lead to a loss of individual liberties and a descent into totalitarianism. Hayek's insights were particularly relevant in the context of the mid-20th century when many countries were experimenting with various forms of state-controlled economies. He cautioned against the concentration of power in the hands of a few planners who, despite their intentions, could not possibly possess the knowledge required to make efficient and effective decisions for an entire economy.

Hayek believed that the market is a form of communication system that uses unregulated and competitive prices as a signal to all market participants. A market that is guided by decentralized decision-making and price signals is a prime example of spontaneous order. According to him, prices transmit information about supply and demand that is dispersed throughout society, allowing individuals to make informed choices without requiring a central authority.

Hayek's advocacy for individualism and personal freedom was closely tied to his economic views. He believed that a free market economy not only promoted efficient resource allocation but also safeguarded individual liberties. His emphasis on individualism was not a call for unchecked selfishness but rather an acknowledgment of individuals' diverse knowledge and preferences. Hayek contended that personal freedom, within the bounds of the rule of law, allowed for creativity, innovation, and the flourishing of human potential. He warned against the allure of collectivist ideologies that sought to subsume individual rights for the sake of a perceived greater good.

                                            Karl Popper

In The Open Society and its Enemies (1945), Karl Popper uses his logical method of falsification to explore what type of society is optimal and provides most freedoms. He argues that theories of the organization of the state and society championed by authors like Plato, Hegel, and Marx are antithetical to freedom as they favor a collectivistic and organismic whole and represent philosophical precursors of political totalitarianism. All those ideas about radical social transformations have two great deficiencies: first, they require an unelected minority with supposedly superior knowledge to impose their will on everybody else, at second social arrangements they propose may lead to unintended and unforeseen negative consequences that are hard to correct. In place of those kinds of radical social transformations, Popper strongly argues for a “piecemeal social engineering,” i.e., incremental improvements that are easily controlled and are able to be amended. This trial-and-error model of social improvement can be subjected to a falsificationist form of social research, which allows society to correct unforeseen and undesirable effects of changes. Instead of using the positive utilitarian principle of maximization of happiness, he proposes using the “negative utilitarian” principle of minimizing suffering. In a similar vein, Popper suggests that we should forgo the traditional question “who should rule” and replace it with the question of how to minimize the risk of bad rulers coming to and keeping their power. Another prerequisite for a good government and open society is having individuals who are personally responsible for their decisions but are also able to effectively criticize and influence the government and regulations.

                                           John Rawls

John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice (1971), takes inspiration from the political philosophers of the social contract tradition, especially Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant, in order to develop his political philosophy. Rawls, like the philosophers mentioned above, wanted to paint a picture of the best society for all people. To do so, he starts by proposing a fictional hypothetical scenario, kind of a “thought experiment”, in which hypothetical individuals start from what he called “the original position.” In that original position, individuals are rational actors who have to conjure the best society, but the challenge they face is that they are faced with “the veil of ignorance.” The veil of ignorance refers to the fact that those hypothetical individuals do not have any knowledge about their individual characteristics: ‘‘no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like’’ (Rawls 1971, p. 12). Rawls presupposes that people would use the method of  “reflective equilibrium”, that is, common agreement is to be achieved through rational deliberation and mutual adjustment, based on general moral principles, of which justice is the most important one. The goal is to create norms for the distribution of “primary goods” – rights, liberties, political and legal institutions, and wealth – that are created by social cooperation. Individuals participating in this thought experiment should create the “basic structure”  - the most important political, legal, and economic institutions – that will be responsible for the distribution of primary goods to all. Rawls argues that the only rational solution for the framing of the basic structure, that incorporates the conception of justice, is the one based on two principles – the “principle of liberty” and “principle of difference”. The principle of liberty states that everybody has the most extensive basic liberties, insofar as they don’t restrict similar liberties of others. Liberties afforded to all people would include: ‘‘political liberty (the right to vote and to be eligible for public office) together with freedom of speech and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person along with the right to hold (personal) property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by the concept of the rule of law’’ (Rawls 1971, p. 61).  The principle of difference states that social and economic inequalities are permitted only to the extent that they are based on individual contributions that benefit all, in the conditions of equal opportunity for all to access every position or function in a society; otherwise, the system should redistribute primary goods in a way that would give the most benefits to the people with the least advantages. This system would guarantee the best outcomes (maximization of primary goods) for the ones who are in the worst position. Similarly, equality of opportunity goes beyond legal equality and necessitates equal access to education, training, and other resources. Rawls sees his approach to justice as “justice as fairness”, that is, the one that would lead to a true meritocracy.

Rawls’ book Political Liberalism (1996) explores the relationship between democratic pluralism and the plurality of „comprehensive doctrines“ - religious, philosophical, ideological, and ethical worldviews. He concludes that individuals and groups that support opposite views can achieve an “overlapping consensus” by applying the principles of justice as fairness, as it minimizes the possibility of conflict as it (justice) remains neutral to those views while encouraging rational debate and tolerance, and allows everybody to pursue their interests and their version of the good life. In The Law of Peoples (1999) Rawls extends the principles of justice as fairness to international relations and international justice. In his final book Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (2001) he argues that the principles he introduced in A Theory of Justice should be understood more as a political guideline, rather than as a strict moral doctrine.

                                    Francis Fukuyama

Francis Fukuyama, in The End of History and the Last Man (1992), argues that after the fall of Soviet Union and other socialist regimes liberal democracy proved to be the best political and economic form, and may represent the final stage in the evolution of political ideas, not because events or conflicts cease, or because all countries would necessarily became liberal democracies, but because no superior ideological alternative remains. Drawing heavily on Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Fukuyama claims that human beings are driven not only by material needs but, more fundamentally, by a desire for recognition—being acknowledged as equal and dignified. This desire for recognition underpins both the moral foundation and the spread of democracy. Nondemocratic regimes deny recognition, producing resentment and motivating people to demand dignity through democratic systems. Liberal democracy, combined with capitalism, is seen as the most effective system because it satisfies both key human desires: capitalism generates wealth, while democracy ensures political freedom and equal recognition.

Fukuyama contrasts his view with that of Karl Marx, rejecting Marx’s materialism in favor of Hegel’s emphasis on ideas and recognition. He also draws on Plato and Alexandre Kojève, introducing the concept of thymos (spiritedness). This includes megalothymia (the desire for superiority) and isothymia (the desire for equality). History, in this view, is shaped by the tension between these drives. Liberal democracy succeeds because it reconciles them by promoting equality while channeling ambition into economic competition rather than domination.

Fukuyama also argues that capitalism has adapted to overcome its internal contradictions, as suggested by Kojève, and that the global spread of liberal democracy has reduced ideological conflict and war among major powers. However, he cautions that this “end of history” may create new problems. Excessive equality and comfort could suppress ambition, producing passive individuals—what Friedrich Nietzsche called “last men.” Without meaningful outlets for excellence and achievement, societies risk stagnation or decline. Thus, while liberal democracy may be the endpoint of ideological development, Fukuyama warns that it is not guaranteed to remain stable or fulfilling.

References:

Bellah. Varieties of Civil Religion (1980);

Berlin, Isaiah. Two Concepts of Liberty (1958).

Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790);

Dewey. Liberalism and Social Action (1935);

Etzioni, Amitai. The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics (1988);

Foucault, Michel. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978--1979 (2010, in French 2004c);

Girvetz, Harry K. The Evolution of Liberalism (1966);

Halevy, Elie. The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism (1928);

Harvey. A Brief History of Neoliberalism (2005);

Hayek, Friedrich A. von. The Constitution of Liberty (1978);

Hobhouse. Liberalism (1911);

Laski, Harold J. The Rise of European Liberalism (1936);

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government (1988);

MacIntyre, Alisdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (1981);

Marcuse. One-Dimensional Man (1964);

Mehta, Uday Sing. Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century British Liberal Thought (1999);

Merton. Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-century England (1936);

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty (1859); 

Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974);

Ortega y Gasset. The Revolt of the Masses (1994, in Spanish 1929);

Popper, Karl. The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945);

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice (1971);

    -    Political Liberalism (1993);

Sandel, Michael.“The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self”, in Political Theory (1984);

Sandel, Michael J. Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy (1996);

Sklair. Capitalism and its Alternatives (2002);

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776);

Spencer. On The Proper Sphere of Government (1843);

     -    The Man Versus the State (1884);

Sumner. What Social Classes Owe to Each Other (1877);

Taylor, Charles. “Atomism”, in Powers, Possessions, and Freedom: Essays in Honour of C. B. Macpherson (1979);

Touraine. Beyond Neoliberalism (2001, in French 1998); 

Wallerstein. After Liberalism (1995).