So, the first issue is narrowing down what we mean by "liberalism." There's social liberalism, cultural liberalism, and so on. A person may follow a school a liberal school of thought on social issues, but might be very conservative on political issues. There's also classical liberalism, neoliberalism, and so on. Asking if any of these are good or bad philosophies could end with endless debates rather than answers.

So I would suggest narrowing the question to a specific movement, perhaps from a specific philosopher/economist/political scientist.

Thanks, Daniel! I'm more interested in classical liberalism in political science and philosophy, as well as John Rawls' new trend in liberalism known as political liberalism. I have narrowed down the question to eliminate ambiguity.

Well, here's one thing that I can provide, if you want a touch of outside science in the matter. Article Darwin's invisible hand: Market competition, evolution and the firm

Essentially we can see the same kind of evolutionary dynamics playing out in markets and the rest of an anthroposystem (analogous to an ecosystem), as we see within nature, so Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" is essentially just Darwinian dynamics at play. Interestingly enough, his work came out long before Darwin's!

Liberalism is an economic, social and political system based on the idea of freedom in various fields.

Thanks, Dr. Houari!

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Nnodim & readers,

"Classical liberalism" is a doctrine or movement of political economy deriving from the work of Adam Smith (1776) The Wealth of Nations, through Ricardo, and J.S. Mill --with earlier and later adherents and proponents. It is also sometimes thought of as nineteenth-century liberalism, and it extends to other nineteenth-century thinkers e.g., in France and Germany.

Note the following passage from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Although the terms are similar, neoliberalism is distinct from modern liberalism. Both have their ideological roots in the classical liberalism of the 19th century, which championed economic laissez-faire and the freedom (or liberty) of individuals against the excessive power of government. That variant of liberalism is often associated with the economist Adam Smith, who argued in The Wealth of Nations (1776) that markets are governed by an “invisible hand” and thus should be subject to minimal government interference. But liberalism evolved over time into a number of different (and often competing) traditions. Modern liberalism developed from the social-liberal tradition, which focused on impediments to individual freedom—including poverty and inequality, disease, discrimination, and ignorance—that had been created or exacerbated by unfettered capitalism and could be ameliorated only through direct state intervention. Such measures began in the late 19th century with workers’ compensation schemes, the public funding of schools and hospitals, and regulations on working hours and conditions and eventually, by the mid-20th century, encompassed the broad range of social services and benefits characteristic of the so-called welfare state.

---End quotation

See:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism#ref1247535

Any version of liberalism is distinguished from socialism by making greater provisions for markets in the economy and private ownership of resources and means of production. It appears that contemporary versions of neo-liberalism have evolved in the direction of corporatism and often lost the liberal aversion to the large state and state intervention and regulation.

H.G. Callaway

Thanks, Dr. Callaway!

To the notion advanced by Dr. Houari that "Liberalism is an economic, social and political system based on the idea of freedom in various fields", I would comment that there are different and competing understandings of what constitutes freedom. See for example Quentin Skinner's Liberty before Liberalism, and in general the political language/tradition of civic republicanism.