Describe the differences between Classical Liberalism, Reform Liberalism and Social Democracy with respect to their respective approaches to the proper relationship between government and the free market. Show how these differences might make a difference by discussing how advocates of each ideology might address the problem of environmental degradation issuing from Oil Sands development.

Please help! Thanks in advance!

The difference is they’re all just words to falter you from whats really going on. Don’t classify yourself, stand up for what YOU believe in.

Describe the differences between Classical Liberalism, Reform Liberalism and Social Democracy with respect to their respective approaches to the proper relationship between government and the free market. Show how these differences might make a difference by discussing how advocates of each ideology might address the problem of environmental degradation issuing from Oil Sands development.

Please help! Thanks in advance!

The difference is they’re all just words to falter you from whats really going on. Don’t classify yourself, stand up for what YOU believe in.

Classical Liberalism(Founding Fathers) – Restricted and minimal Government operated within the boundaries of the Constitution

Conservatism – Slightly restricted Government operated within the boundaries of the Constitution with the occasional violation.

Liberalism – Unrestricted Government operated within no boundaries. With the Constitution acting more as guidelines than actual rules.

Sounds right.

When I look it up, they have their differences in every single subject.

Human nature

Locke: Man is by nature a social animal.

Hobbes: Man is not by nature a social animal, society could not exist except by the power of the state.

The state of nature

Locke: In the state of nature men mostly kept their promises and honored their obligations, and, though insecure, it was mostly peaceful, good, and pleasant. He quotes the American frontier and Soldania as examples of people in the state of nature, where property rights and (for the most part) peace existed. Princes are in a state of nature with regard to each other. Rome and Venice were in a state of nature shortly before they were officially founded. In any place where it is socially acceptable to oneself punish wrongdoings done against you, for example on the American frontier, people are in a state of nature. Though such places and times are insecure, violent conflicts are often ended by the forcible imposition of a just peace on evil doers, and peace is normal.

Hobbes: “no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Knowledge of natural law

Locke: Humans know what is right and wrong, and are capable of knowing what is lawful and unlawful well enough to resolve conflicts. In particular, and most importantly, they are capable of telling the difference between what is theirs and what belongs to someone else. Regrettably they do not always act in accordance with this knowledge.

Hobbes: Our knowledge of objective, true answers on such questions is so feeble, so slight and imperfect as to be mostly worthless in resolving practical disputes. In a state of nature people cannot know what is theirs and what is someone else’s. Property exists solely by the will of the state, thus in a state of nature men are condemned to endless violent conflict. In practice morality is for the most part merely a command by some person or group or God, and law merely the momentary will of the ruler.

Epistemology

Locke: The gap between our ideas and words about the world, and the world itself, is large and difficult, but still, if one man calls something good, while another man calls it evil, the deed or man referred to still has real qualities of good or evil, the categories exist in the world regardless of our names for them, and if one man’s word does not correspond to another mans word, this a problem of communication, not fundamental arbitrariness in reality.

Hobbes: It is the naming, that makes it so. Sometimes Hobbes comes close to the Stalinist position that truth itself is merely the will of the ruler.

Conflict

Locke: Peace is the norm, and should be the norm. We can and should live together in peace by refraining from molesting each other’s property and persons, and for the most part we do.

Hobbes: Men cannot know good and evil, and in consequence can only live in peace together by subjection to the absolute power of a common master, and therefore there can be no peace between kings. Peace between states is merely war by other means.

Hell no, the classical liberalism was about freedom from overreaching government. It was more libertarian, if anything. The modern version is about government controlling every aspect of your life.

Just about opposite. The liberals on 1775 were fro freedom of speech, self determination, against taxes (without representation), against non responsive big government. Just about everything the classical liberals were for the contemporary liberals are against.

I have said this before and it is true.

Todays liberals are NOT the same liberals of the past..
I am not a democrat but would like to know when the democrats are going to reclaim their party.

Republicans & Democrats use to work things out for the benefit of our people & country. Since the progressives entered on the scene they have been working at dividing us to take us over.

I see everyone running around thinking progressive means progress.

Why do so many people think progress is associated with Progressives? Is it because the word progress is in progressive? If that is their basis. Is Marxism progress? Progressive would be more accurate if it was compared to a progressive cancer.

The progressives are their own party and hijacked the democratic party using the liberal label. The progressive party never could get anyone elected. That is why they hijacked and are running the democratic party.

Progressivism is not just an idea but the practice that the government knows best and has full control and ownership over everything including people. Progressivism does not believe in government as it is now. With that I mean progressivism does not believe that representation of the people is needed because the executive branch runs everything and knows what is best. People are the property of the government like animals are owned by people. There is no such thing as peoples rights such as freedom, privacy, individualism etc. If you have ever seen the Borg on Star Trek that would be similar.
Progressivism operates under the facade of appearing to be a government doing what is best for the people without their input and silencing all opposition.
Progressivism goal is Marxism.

I mean Classical Liberalism also seems humanitarian to me. What are the main points where they differ?

Progressivism

Classical Liberalism is now Libertarianism.

Modern Liberalism is Socialism.

How is modern conservatism any different than classical liberalism and modern liberalism than classical conservatism.

Why did the names flip everything that is apart of

classical liberalism is apart of modern conservatism like limited govt. private property and representative govt.

classical conservatism moderate govt. equality of opportunity
Seldon Surak WTF does that have to do with what I asked ?

There isn’t much of a difference just the time frame and the situation. Classical Liberalism bought about much positive change for western society. It is linked to modern liberalism because modern liberalism continues that tradition of challenging the status quo. Classical liberalism is akin to modern conservatism only if you consider it in the same time of reference. Modern conservatives today would be considered too radical in the era of classical liberalism because even they wouldn’t want child labor and unsafe working conditions. The differences and likeness lies in the historical context and they really should not be compared.