More a fusion of individual rights and active government, it consists of two main parts. Firstly, the social-welfare component prescribes significant social and economic functions to alleviate the effects of capitalism. The philosophy's second major component, liberalism, reaffirms classical liberalism's central values. This work goes into greater detail about this political prose within the main body of the work. It also goes on to orchestrate how the variations in liberalist attitudes and perceptions have an impact on the type of social work and services that are offered and rendered to people in society. The conclusion of the work illustrates that in a democratic society, social-liberalism can, in a sense, add stability while sustaining individual liberty. Likewise, in the areas of individual rights, freedoms and economic equality, the social-liberals are vindicated in their quest for reinterpretation. Through welfare, some liberty will be sacrificed, but in this way, equality imposed in the right amount can strike a satisfying balance in social work and in the social life of all people.
There are quite a number of citizens in various parts of the UK who have no idea what the true implications of liberalism really are and how these types of political beliefs can affect others in life directly, such as with the profession of social work. First and foremost there are two main forms of liberalism and these are Classical, and Social or Conservative liberalism, both with varying traits and ideas, but following a seemingly congruent path in a political sense. The concept of social liberalism locates middle ground between uninhibited classical liberalism and more extreme ideologies (Bresser & Luiz 2004, pg. 103). More a fusion of individual rights and active government, it consists of two main parts.
Firstly, the social-welfare component prescribes significant social and economic functions to alleviate the effects of capitalism. The philosophy's second major component, liberalism, reaffirms classical liberalism's central values. Nevertheless, social liberalists argue that such values are not best interpreted through the tenets of laissez-faire, but rather are beneficial to the greater part of society if translated in a different tongue: that of positive liberty (Armstrong 2001, pg. 17). In many respects one could argue that the nature of classical liberalism or "negative" liberty is less effective than its "positive" counterpart: social-liberalism, and hence the latter is justified in amending certain elements of the classical-liberal tradition, specifically high restriction on state intervention in matters of economic and individual subsistence.
It is first very important to understand the fundamental distinction between the two different kinds of liberty and consequently the origins of such. In 1690 John Locke wrote the essay, Two Treatises of Government, where he redefined the relationship between government and the people, proclaiming that the state was founded and erected in order to "preserve the natural rights of it's citizens," and that if it failed to do so, the people had the responsibility to rebel in order to improve their conditions (Ashcraft 1987, pg. 14). In the