Political scientists have long debated the proper course to consider, resolve, and overcome conflict so to maintain order. In particular, the conflicts of the individual vs. society – the rights of the individual vs. the rights he or she must relinquish in order to be a part of society – have generated much controversy. Man has proved to be an insatiable creature, perpetually hungry for that which he does not have. As man's desires grow, so does his want for money and power. The quest for such, which represent societal status, consumes his life. Indeed, man is inherently selfish. He holds an innate disposition against sharing wealth and power with others. However, this conflict must be resolved in order for man to live in society. Through the ages, many have tried to propose an incisive solution to this problem. To fit the political and socioeconomic conditions of the time, those solutions have employed and manipulated the ideas of past thinkers. Two starkly contrasting ideologies emerged: liberalism and antiliberalism. In this paper, I will reference several prominent thinkers of both ideologies. I will highlight their ideas within the historical context they formulated them. This analysis will serve to contrast the differences between liberalism and antiliberalism.
             Liberalism is based on the philosophy of freedom and equal rights. From its rise as an anti-Roman Catholic reaction, it is a repudiation of absolute rule. Liberalism called for the liberation of those oppressed under absolute rule; it is the belief that all human beings possess rights. Moreover, it asserts that humans are endowed with the ability to realize their rights. As rational and equal human beings, individuals have the ability to recognize problems and solve them. This enables a natural progressive improvement in society.
             John Locke is considered as the founder of liberalist political thought. In fact, Lockian political tho...