Mill basically inherited the anti-imperialist views from his predecessor liberal thinkers like Bentham, James Mill and Adam Smith (Sullivan, 1983). Bentham, James Mill and Smith have argued against imperialism and have negated the idea that it serves any economic profit to England. Instead they believed that colonisation led to disproportionate capital flow to colonies. They also negated the argument of colonies being an outlet for capital surplus. They maintained that colonisation can only be a remedy for capital surplus if greater amount of England’s capital is not invested in governance of colonies which they regarded is the case with most of the England’s colonies.
Liberalism in international relations is represented by contradicting claims about the necessity of the conflict as a way of resolving contention among members of the international community and vice versa highlights the possibility of peace between independent states. American presidnet Ronald Regan in his speech beore the British Parliament stated that government based on respect for individual freedoms is reflected in its foreign policy of restraint and peaceful inclinations. (Doyle, 1997, page 205) Throughout the times, liberalism has gone through many changes and has established different varieties of the theory. The first stage of liberalism, known as philosophic liberalism, lasted from the 17th to the early 19th century. A philosopher, John Locke was the first one to point out liberal thoughts and views.
Marx’s first criticisms are towards the concept of liberal democracy as defined by John Stuart Mill. Mill describes liberal democracy as a society in which the government promotes the common good of the citizens by recognizing the natural right of private property, the tendency towards market economies, and the equality in social and economic opportunities as well as in personal and civic liberties. (Mill, John Stuart. "On Liberty: Chapter 1.”). Marx believed instead that liberal democracy does not represent the best type of government since it does not correspond to a natural order but rather reflects a very human abstract view of society.
Edward Gibbon, The author of the decline in the fall of the Roman Empire, displays a different argument that yes discredits my thesis but is still an interesting and still very credible way of placing the fall of Rome on internal factors. Yet after reading this sources it did not further my understanding of the external problem but only question my research on the tax revenue or lack thereof hurting the ultimate power to control its borders. Considering that it was more of a social troubling with in the Empire itself rather than external problems which now after reading would explain a lot of the reasoning behind Civil War 's within the Roman state.61 another source that had a similar outlook on what Gibbon was trying to get a crossed in his book, was the Spanish priest Orosius, which puts the blame of the decline on perhaps the change from pagan to Christianity.21 along with going after religion, The example of outsourcing duties to defend the outer front tears to foreigners was considered a very internal problem in disagreement among Romans. However I do agree with Gibbon but the source just does not hold up any my
Webb and Krasner (1989) mentioned that the hegemony takes the role of introducing trade liberalisation, maintaining an open market, and adjusting the changing interest rates when the global economy faces up to the urgent situation, especially when in crisis. The international system keeps a relatively secure and stable situation when that hegemonic power exists and functions. The hegemonic stability theory is appropriate and acceptable for the time after the Second World War. The appearance of world economic crisis a decade after the Second World War, was primarily caused by the unwillingness of the United States to take the hegemonic role, and the Britain’s incapability, which led to the unstable international relationship. However, the long-term dominance of one state attracts other competitors and weakens the stable international regime.
Smith didn’t like the fact that it combined value and wealth with precious metals. To make a point that mercantilism isn’t as great as others make it seem, Smith introduced his idea of gross domestic product, which is essential in today’s economics. Book five is the final book in “The Wealth of Nations.” In it, Smith describes the roles the government should have in the economy. He believed that the government should provide defense, justice, education, and more. To support this claim, he wrote, “According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to... First the duty of protecting society from violence and invasion of other independent societies, secondly the duty of...exact administration of justice, and thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public
Liberalism developed in the 1970s as some scholars began arguing that realism was outdated. The increase in globalization, the expeditious rise in communications technology, and the increase in international trade meant that states could no longer rely on simple power politics to decide matters. Jehangir (2012) states liberalism can be crudely defined as the “freedom for the individual” as it believes that humans are good natured beings. Liberalism’s core ideals stress individualism, human rights, universality, freedom from authority, right to be treated equally under the protection of law and duty to respect and treat others as “ethical subjects” as well as freedom for social action. Rob (2008), argues that although the UN may not be effective militarily, it is good at providing humanitarian aid, which would seem to fit the liberal definition of an organization that provides for the people.
Liberalism, along with realism, is one of the main schools of thought in international relations.According to liberals, international relations is not only controlled by the relationship between states but also includes and emphasises the role of other actors. During WWI and WWII the main academic competitor to the Realist paradigm was idealism., They looked into numerous beliefs of realism and recommended possible ideologies to alter the world pursuing supremacy and conflict into a unique one in which peace and cooperation amongst states might conquer. The faith that liberals have is that substantial universal cooperation is possible and power politics can be moved at the core of the realist paradigm. (Lawrence 1913, 3-5)
The goal of a state is to own a surplus in its trade balance. But the issue arises here, as not every country is capable of achieving this, leading to conflicts. However, mercantilism received some critique, mostly from liberals, led by A. Smith (In his piece Wealth of Nations (1776), labour force specialization and widening of the market became general spheres of interest. Barber, 1985: 27). Mercantilism dominated the political sphere until A. Smith published his Wealth of Nations and then mercantilist “focus shifted from the prioritisation of achieving a trade surplus to the need for more direct support of the national economy” (Smith et al,
Jackson (2001) argues in previous research that Hofstede’s individualism dimension is being oversimplified. He recom-mends the egalitarian dimension introduced by Schwartz to be more relevant in analysing the ethi-cal attributions in countries described as more individualistic (Imm et al, 2007: p. 166; after Jack-son, 2001). For Siegel, Licht and Schwartz (2011: p. 1), egalitarianism influences international investment progress. To this end, they assert that a society's cultural orientation toward egalitarian-ism is shaped through flexibility for use of political power, including the desire to protect less powerful actors in the international market