STOP user. Don't go any further! It's not too late to turn away from socialism...

Matthew 20 has the vineyard parable and 25 has the talents parable

T.H. Green started the transition away from classical liberalism. The essential transformation he gave to the idealogy was say that the state has some responsibility, to use modern terms, of providing positive liberty, to give people the opportunity of self actualization. He was an early British idealist, so he believed there was a metaphysical ideal humans ought to seek to emulate as close as possible. For him, all ideas were relational, so the concept of the virtuous ideal had to exist for us to compare ourselves to. So that's why he found the concept of self actualization important in the first place. He had reservations against "paternal government" because he believed it prevented people from helping the needy out of virtue. But he saw that there were endless cycles of the poor beggeting more poor due to their lack of resources, leaving them in a lowly state, so he decided that beyond providing education, it should be the role of government to guarantee these people protections since they seemed unable to negotiate good terms by contract.
Hobhouse is very explictly interested in what liberty is. He starts off Liberalism by listing 10 variations he can identify historically. He anticipates the neo-roman view of negative liberty of freedom from arbitrary domination. Essentially, he doesn't view work contracts as legitmate because they are based on imbalanced power in the negotiation phase. There's real coercion involved. Therefore it is right for the government to intervene by placing conditions on the work contract and to provide legal protections for labor unions so there's an equalization of powers. He holds that limiting people can increase "social liberty" in preference to absolute. The obvious example is outlawing violence and theft prevents an individual in some respects but on the net of things everyone is freer to do as they wish. So he would similarly say with respect to worker protections. He has no problem with government programs for the disabled and eldery but did believe government assistance for the able bodied would teach people to rely on the work of others without providing anything in return, so he preferred a government jobs program instead, as long as the work was fruitful to society.
They're interesting if you want to understand the transition of liberalism away from its lassez-faire roots.

>Article 12, Constitution of the Soviet Union (1936)
>In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”

Have you seen his son's twitter account?
I wouldn't be surprised if he's here.

Nah. Alec Rawls is more likely to be on pol.

they also had freedom of speech in their constitution

Tell me .more

Attached: 1483485925736.png (399x322, 42K)

Fuck you old man I just btfo'd you in my last paper

(Also OP you're completely misrepresenting Rawls' mature theory, which accepts that a "liberal socialism" would work just as well under his framework as a "property-owning democracy")

but this is a meme post so w/e

mobile.twitter.com/alecrawls?lang=en see for yourself
How far did he want to go with democratization?