>>2786052Liberalism (e.g. freedom-ism) we may initially regard as an economic movement to allow for free trade. I discuss this here:
>>2785881Political Liberalism if often traced back to English common law; in particular, the Magna Carta (1215), but this legal document was only actionable to members of the competing ruling class, not the common folk. The text is re-interpreted in the revolutionary period of 1628 - 1658 as pertaining to the freeborn rights of Englishmen in general, most especially Habeas Corpus (the right to not be falsely imprisoned). The true legal revolution occured in 1689 however, by the establishment of the Bill of Rights (1689) after the glorious revolution overthrew the restored monarchy. The revolution was also expressly protestant (which is the whig legacy). Revolutionary movements existed in the 17th century, such as the Levellers (1641-49) and the Diggers (1649-53) who were more radical in their approach. The levellers are regarded as proto-liberal and the diggers are regarded as proto-communist. Religious movements also arose, such as with George Fox, who founded the "Quakers", with a new doctrine of individual spiritual revelation (the Quakers in history have been ultra-liberals in every respect). The revolutionary protestants were the Puritans, such as John Milton, who wrote pamphlets defending freeborn rights and tyrannicide (regicide). He also attempted to make divorce easier. After 1689, the whigs then had political supremacy; famous whigs include Daniel Defoe and political Jonathan Swift. These were at the cutting-edge of culture in their day. A tract by the whigs named "Vox Populi, Vox Dei" (1709) circulated and it was a thoroughly democratic document seeing how all rights of kings derive from the will of the people (this idea is called "the consent of the governed" and is written about in Locke, to the Declaration of Independence. Thus, popular dissatisfaction justifies revolution).
Theoretically, we see the idea of social contract espoused by Hobbes (1651), which influences Locke (1689) and later, Rousseau (1762). The social contract sees that the state of nature (what Hobbes and Locke refer to as War, but Rousseau declines to), is different from the state of society (e.g. civil society), the first order of which is the protection of rights by the protection of property. Now, Locke apparently sees it twofold; in nature, property may be claimed and thus rightfully acquired by labour, but it may not be socially recognised until many people cooperate to protect their own property. Locke writes that any attempt to subvert the rights of another places one in a state of war with them, and thus one may aggress against aggressors (e.g. defense). War here is regarded in a Shakespearean manner of all being fair, which differs from later ideas, such as in the Geneva convention, that War itself has laws. Rousseau may be credited with this since he views War as a political activity amongst states, not individuals, and so, War is legally contracted by declaration. We may regard the origin of civil society thus as the means to protect property, with one's property beginning in oneself (e.g. the body). Thus, the liberal view is that the individual is legally protected against aggression by its status as property (this is not a new theory exactly, since humans have always been treated as property, and so may be alienated as such). Liberalism then, we can basically say, is the logic of private property - which differs much from Marxism's goals (but of course, you are not obliged to be a Marxist either).
Now, political liberalism (e.g. democracy, republicanism) are not modern concepts, but are ancient; democracy is Greek, Republicanism is Roman. Rousseau speaks upon types of Republics, seeing that a government is rightfully constituted by a people based on their "general will", which is thus politically sovereign. Thus, if a people prefer it, a monarchy may serve them well. Kant later says that forms of government are graded upon a people's collective reason. A simple people for example, have monarchies, while an advanced people, prefer democracies. As yet, Kant places exception to the Sovereign, who he sees has exception to the law, so as to not be subject (thw idea that all people ought to be conditioned by the law is called "the rule of law" and is present as early as Coke's "Petition of Right", 1628). In elaborating on this, we must discuss Montisqueau (1748), who establishes the logic of a tripartite state (executive, legislative and judiciary), which he bases off the British model (e.g. crown, house of commons, house of lords). This of course is wildly influential, being the basis of the American "separation of powers" (I would claim that the US is a constitutional monarchy, not a republic, since although laws are passed by the house, they may be denied by the senate and if passed, they are to be signed by the executive. Even though the UK has a crown, it is still more directly democratic, since the Prime Minister is sovereign head of the legislative branch - what is equivalent to the Speaker of the House in the US).
The separation of powers features in Hegel's Philosophy of Right, as a final logic of government, by a constitutional monarchy. Effectively, where powers are separated, one branch gains supremacy over another. We see this with the Magna Carta (1215), which pressed for a "counsel" or parliament to mediate decision-making, which eventually became the parliament which we still see today. The push for parliaments to mediate sovereign power by a legislative branch is a universal tendency in liberal movements of history. So then, liberalism we may further write, is the supremacy of the legislative branch of government (which primarily concerns protection of property). I would further state that all revolutions are in effect, legal re-constitutions.
So, Liberalism is a political ideal of self-governed property owners (liberty, equality, fraternity). The reason people might disagree is because they disagree with the category of property as such - which I regard as contradictory (and thus communists always try to sneak the logic of property back into their supposed propertyless utopia). Property is the basis of civil society and is the foundation of justice.