Liberalism evil

Liberalism can be criticized from the perspective that it is not democratic enough. Liberal democracy does not encourage or require citizens to become more knowledgeable or active in commanding the public affairs. In his book, “The Black well guide to social and political philosophy,” Robert . L . Simon, gives examples of writers who criticize liberalism. One of the writers is John Kekes, and in his book, “Against liberalism (1997)”, he criticizes liberalism for its inability to deal with the prevalence of evil. He says this inability poses big problems because the true core of liberalism is a commitment to autonomy.

Kekes goes on to say that it is the fostering of the autonomous functioning of all citizens that is the ultimate purpose and justification of liberalism. He says that human beings have a choice to do evil or good, and a society that leaves people free and encourages their freedom is likely to have a lot of social evils. Liberalism can deal with the problem only by retreating from its most fundamental commitment. (Robert L. Simon, 2002, pg 103) Another area that the liberals disagree with the anti liberalisms is the economic liberalism. The economic liberals suggest that there be no regulations set by the government in the economy.

It advocates for the right of the individuals to own property, and for the freedom to contract and carry out business freely. The absence of these would make it impossible to exercise other liberties. However, if the government failed to regulate the market, there would be unfair competition, where those who have influence or those with a good bargaining power would dominate the market, disadvantaging the others. (Smith . G. W, 2002, pg 51) Economic liberalism also says that the prices and the value of the services and the goods be set by the individuals without any interference by the government.

Again, if the individuals set the commodities at prices of their choice, it would be unfair to some people who would not be able to afford the goods. Liberals also want to invest in the businesses that are monopolized by the government, which the anti liberals reject. In general, it can be said that the economic liberalism supports the inequality in the market that is brought about by unfair bargaining, which would bring about unfair competition. (Smith . G. W, 2002, pg 51) Marxists criticize the rule of law and say that it is an instrument that the higher society uses to oppress those in the lower society.

They say that the bourgeoisie sets the laws to suit them, without considering the common man. They have analyzed the rule of law as judicial falsehood that they use to disguise the real truth that violence exists even with the authorities. The lower social class has struggled for long in the hands of the bourgeoisie, as the laws are in their favor. This perception has led to debates as to whether some laws are fair, and if they should be revised, which may not be possible. Liberalism advocates for the civil rights of all citizens.

This entails the fair and equal treatment of all people, whichever their cultural background, gender, or social class. The liberals have not been able to determine the extent to which some rights such as the right to education, right to food or shelter should be exercised. This should not be the case, because the laws and the rights are set for every body. Therefore, it is unfair for the liberals not to extend the rights to all people, but to people with certain characteristics which are pleasant to them. (Smith . G. W, 2002, pg 51) Today, the liberal ideology is in disarray.

It has dominated the thoughts of human beings for many years, yet if it gets to you; it becomes very hard for you to liberate yourself from it. However, such liberation will never happen without the knowledge and the detailed history of conservative theories. Due to lack of a history, liberal ideology attracts confused way on conservatism. It gives it a sentimental update although it does not change it. Otherwise, liberalism spins out in to radicalism, which tries to convert convictism in to something that neither works well nor liberates anyone either. (Smith . G. W, 2002 pg 55)