Answering the question of which term poses
the greatest challenge to liberalism I will support and defend socialism as a
superior ideology. The views of socialism are based on the thought that the
production and property should be the possessed and regulated by the community
as one.  While both views are in
agreeance on the passing of wealth they differ on more moral grounds pertaining
to the rich versus the poor. A liberal is not alarmed by the fact that their
increased wealth is possibly exploiting the poor in their society as long as
they 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 use
liberal views to justify them exploiting the lesser-off. Mills says “that the
only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own
good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant (Sterba, p.337).” My
question to Mill is what would be considered harm to others? Does economically
exploiting the poor through labour fall under this principle since it is too
causing harm to lesser-off even in a supposed equal opportunity system? Given
already, that not everyone is on an equal playing field in liberalism, some
individuals have a better start in life. Individuals that come from poorer
families will automatically be behind in life versus someone who comes from a
rich upbringing. When looking into the citizens united court case in the U.S.
in which we see that they essentially labeled businesses and large corporations
as 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. Liberalism
lacks a voice for the lesser-off, why should the higher ups handle all decision
making when it comes to a country we all live and serve in?

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Property rights is viewed as a great
freedom in today society although it essentially cements class inequality and
create social classes. poverty is as far as anyone knows expected to goad
individuals to escape through the hard-working attitude and
entrepreneurialism.  Property rights sit
at the core of this view since they are an imperative apparatus for
characterizing and watching the limits of private riches, and for advocating
the unavoidably unequal results. The natural want in today society to place
property rules on everything to enforce social orders and to utilize law as an
apparatus to force a social request of business sectors and private property as
much as possible with the thought of collectivizing resources for personal
gains. People argue that the ideology of socialism strips humans of
individuality and that without the existence of poverty and property self-motivation
in humans deteriorates in reply to this view Marx says, “that from the moment
when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a
social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when
individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeoise property, into
capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes. (Sterba, p. 376)”
when labour can no longer be abused and exploited this would put a significant
dent in that of the “class culture” through property. Liberalism just like
capitalism does not intend for the poor the be rich but rather spreading wealth
throughout the already rich.  Rouseau
says, “But from the moment one man began to stand in need of the help of
another; from the moment, it appeared advantageous to anyone man to have enough
provisions for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced. (Sterba, p.232)”
From the time the rich felt that they may have to compensate for the
lesser-offs in society boundaries were established and classes were
established.