To Classical Liberals this new strain of liberalism called Modern Liberalism, seems to be of alien origin - something that is not a part of their tradition. Their rejection of Modern Liberalism goes so far as to call them socialists who have hijacked the term "liberalism". (It seems counter-intuitive to name-call people who are self-proclaimed socialists as socialists, but whatever) To a certain extent they are right. Modern Liberals appear as nothing but the same socialists who were opposed to classical liberalism during its inception. I usually don't have a dog in this fight except when critics of classical liberalism reject libertarianism as on same grounds as if they are the one and the same thing. Worse is when classical liberals proclaim…show more content… It is what differentiates us from most of the animals. Humans have the almost unique ability to talk their problems through and resolve a conflict between themselves. When they are unable to resolve a conflict amongst themselves, they enlist others to resolve a conflict, either prior or during or after the conflict arises. Such freedom of dispute resolution is very essential in almost every social circle whether it is a group of friends, or a club, or a community. If a social circle can't resolve disputes and allows one section to enjoy at the expense of another, the social circle is sure to split allowing the suppressed to move away. This is by far the most elemental need for human co-operation. It gives rise to property where commons would be a "tragedy", and it allows for markets to flourish. Without such mutual respect for each other and their property no social co-operation is possible. Perhaps it is this reason that liberals hold the rule of law in such high regard. From a liberal perspective, without rule of law the society would disintegrate into a war of all against all as people find it hard to resolve their conflict, and instead try to force the other party into subservience. In liberal view (and incidentally the anti-market anarchist view) markets cannot emerge without the state providing this vital…show more content… However the need for something does not justify the proposed solution. The development and effects of the justice system under the power principle would need to be analyzed in accordance with the incentive structure that exists under the power principle. A justice system under the power principle is one where the majority of the population has convinced itself that no matter what the dispute may be, there needs to be a body with the final authority to impose a resolution to a conflict. This body is popularly accepted to be the only body capable of not only overriding any previous dispute resolution but also the only body with the ability to impose itself onto a dispute resolution process where it has no business being involved. As a result this body gets involved in almost every decision that needs to be made in the land - even price of a commodity. If a seller is not selling you a commodity at a particular price then this body could be your final chance to impose a price on the seller. Had the body not existed, the buyer who cant afford a commodity would not have considered himself to be in conflict with the seller. But since people accept such a body to have a final say, no matter how unjust its interference, it is approached with such cases. In this case, the body with monopoly over final dispute resolution has created a conflict instead of