The main idea I will be discussing is the rather anti-hobbesian removal of power from government in order to claim freedom for the people. In the days under discussion, the rulers of Europe held a lot more power that they do today, and this is largely due to Liberalism. People like Wilkes and Wollstonecraft and Mill all ran their own campaigns and made progress in their Liberal objective.
I do like the position which Liberalism has placed us in today. I definitely believe that learning about struggles for things such as freedom of the press and women’s rights are worth learning about, as they are often taken for granted today. Most people would agree that they enjoy the freedom they have; if they didn’t have that freedom it wouldn’t matter how many people agreed on anything.
It is worth questioning exactly where the line should be drawn? I don’t believe that the removal of power from the rulers would be likely to work ad extremum. If all power was removed from government, the government would cease to be. Everyone wants freedom, but I doubt that many people would flourish and be happy in a lawless land (more of happiness shortly). Even Rousseau felt that an attempt to fully return to a state of nature would be unsuccessful. So would it be safe to say that we want quite a lot of freedom, but not too much?