Answering the question of which term posesthe greatest challenge to liberalism I will support and defend socialism as asuperior ideology. The views of socialism are based on the thought that theproduction and property should be the possessed and regulated by the communityas one. While both views are inagreeance on the passing of wealth they differ on more moral grounds pertainingto the rich versus the poor. A liberal is not alarmed by the fact that theirincreased wealth is possibly exploiting the poor in their society as long asthey act is if they seek to benefit the poor in politics.
For example,Liberalism in a sense allows one to vote in the supposed interest of the poor,but act in another. It is no secret that Capitalist useliberal views to justify them exploiting the lesser-off. Mills says “that theonly purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of acivilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His owngood, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant (Sterba, p.337).” Myquestion to Mill is what would be considered harm to others? Does economicallyexploiting the poor through labour fall under this principle since it is toocausing harm to lesser-off even in a supposed equal opportunity system? Givenalready, that not everyone is on an equal playing field in liberalism, someindividuals have a better start in life. Individuals that come from poorerfamilies will automatically be behind in life versus someone who comes from arich upbringing. When looking into the citizens united court case in the U.
S.in which we see that they essentially labeled businesses and large corporationsas people and money as the voice. In a liberal society what is this telling us?The more money you have, the more influence you get or the more your heard. Liberalismlacks a voice for the lesser-off, why should the higher ups handle all decisionmaking when it comes to a country we all live and serve in? Property rights is viewed as a greatfreedom in today society although it essentially cements class inequality andcreate social classes. poverty is as far as anyone knows expected to goadindividuals to escape through the hard-working attitude andentrepreneurialism.
Property rights sitat the core of this view since they are an imperative apparatus forcharacterizing and watching the limits of private riches, and for advocatingthe unavoidably unequal results. The natural want in today society to placeproperty rules on everything to enforce social orders and to utilize law as anapparatus to force a social request of business sectors and private property asmuch as possible with the thought of collectivizing resources for personalgains. People argue that the ideology of socialism strips humans ofindividuality and that without the existence of poverty and property self-motivationin humans deteriorates in reply to this view Marx says, “that from the momentwhen labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into asocial power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment whenindividual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeoise property, intocapital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes. (Sterba, p. 376)”when labour can no longer be abused and exploited this would put a significantdent in that of the “class culture” through property. Liberalism just likecapitalism does not intend for the poor the be rich but rather spreading wealththroughout the already rich.
Rouseausays, “But from the moment one man began to stand in need of the help ofanother; from the moment, it appeared advantageous to anyone man to have enoughprovisions for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced. (Sterba, p.232)”From the time the rich felt that they may have to compensate for thelesser-offs in society boundaries were established and classes wereestablished.