Individuals, not ideologies, determine the character of a society

The argument

Liberalism, or more accurately liberalism contains within it an inherent contraindication. It claims to care about human rights, equality, and democracy, yet gives power to a select few. Capitalism and democracy while at first seeming to be compatible, are in fact anything but. Capitalism is based in hierarchy while democracy is based in horizontalism. Capitalism is at the heart of liberalism. The private control of property allows for some to have far more interest over economic institutions then other members of the same society. While the myths liberalism circulates attributes such wealth as earned, social mobility in liberal democracies has continued to decline. Income inequality is a direct result of such undue influence as those at the top of liberal society become uncountable to those below them. As a result the owners of capital have no interest in spreading the wealth of society to those bellow them. This contraindication can also be seen within liberal governments. Representative democracies are forced to balance both popular policies and moneyed interests. An elected representative must balance the people who they are supposed to represent with the interests of those who have the power to keep them in office. Fundamentally the undue influence of elected officials relates to them not actually being the voices of a democratic assembly. Rather liberal governments teach their citizens to outsource the act of governing to specialists and become unable to organize themselves. Liberalism seems to be coming to an end. The contradictions within such societies becoming more and more explicit by the day. However this will not necessarily lead to a more egalitarian society, rather those with control over liberal society may continue to possess undue influence after its fall.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Defenders reply that the argument conflates liberalism with laissez-faire capitalism. Liberalism contains social-liberal and social-democratic traditions that have long constrained private economic power through regulation, welfare states, antitrust and labour law — which suggests the tension between capital and democracy is reformable rather than terminal. They add that declining social mobility and rising inequality are indictments of particular policy settings, not proof the ideology has "outlived its purpose." That elected representatives must balance voters against donors describes a corruptible feature of actual systems, addressable through campaign-finance rules and transparency, not an inherent doom of liberalism itself.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Liberalism is not reducible to laissez-faire capitalism; social-liberal traditions within it have long constrained private economic power through regulation and redistribution. [Rejecting P3] That representatives must balance voters and donors describes a corruptible feature of real systems, which liberal reforms address — not an inherent contradiction that dooms the ideology.