Classical Liberal Equality

The various intellectual traditions have differing views regarding poverty and inequality, and how they explain these phenomena. Some of them believe that these things are negatives and should be changed, while others don’t agree and subscribe to the idea that they are nobodies faults but the victims themselves.

Classical liberals place a heavy emphasis on equality of opportunity and individual liberty. Their beliefs stem from the idea that each individual has the right to compete in the market in order to make their living. This idea is not one of true equality, in the idea that each person has the exact same opportunity and ability to compete, but rather one of legality, that each person has a legal ability to acquire wealth. Due to this,

Those that are poor and in poverty are able to see the successful people who have worked hard and it will motivate them to transform from their ways of living in the moment and become successful. As such, the inequality that stems from these choices is fair and just, as it is based solely on the individual’s own approach to how they live their life, making it just that people are inherently not equal (Clark 160). Efficiency is also heavily emphasised by classical liberals, and they use it to explain the state of poverty and inequality. They believe that inequality acts as an incentive to be productive, making inequality a good thing (Clark 161). Although they believed that a large portion of inequality and poverty was due to individual choices, some classical liberals adopt a more activist stance toward poverty (Clark 162). Due to this, they believed in ensuring people would all have liveable wages through wealthier more paying more taxes, and those who earn less receiving assistance. They do not believe welfare should be entirely eliminated, but wish to discourage applicants by making the requirements more strict which they believe would encourage people to work harder to obtain jobs and make a

Radicals believe that each person should not only have the same opportunity, but the same conditions that allow them to pursue wealth. This differs from the classical liberal idea because radicals believe that this requires some degree of wealth distribution; something that classical liberals strongly disagree with. Poverty and inequality is explained by radicals as inheritance, for both those who are not equal through their surplus of wealth, and those unequal because of a lack of wealth. They argue that both of these situations are brought about by someone inheriting their ancestors socioeconomic status which in turn has a huge effect on your life. As some succeed simply because of background and others fail because of it, radicals believe in wealth distribution to even the odds, giving back to the disadvantaged in the race to gain wealth. Radicals go on to say that contemporary distribution of wealth is rooted in historical acts of disposition and “claim that income derived from the ownership of property often represents exploitation and creates conflict within society” (Clark 163), and classical liberals simply look at people as a snapshot of now, and not back at history which plays a large role in who we are now and what our lives look