Liberalism is united in placing individual freedom at the centre of its ideology, but classical and modern liberals differ in how freedom is understood and achieved. Classical liberals, such as Locke and Mill, prioritise negative liberty and limited government, whereas modern liberals like Rawls and Wollstonecraft argue that freedom requires state intervention to remove social and economic barriers. Although modern liberalism represents a shift in method and emphasis, it does not abandon the classical commitment to freedom, instead adapting it to address inequality. Therefore, while liberals share foundational principles, they disagree on how society should realise them in practice. Despite these differences, classical and modern liberals agree that freedom is a central principle of society. Both strands view humans as rational and self-interested, capable of pursuing their own goals, and believe society should allow individuals to develop their potential. They also share a commitment to limiting authoritarian control: Locke argued that government should exist by consent through a social contract, rather than by divine right, ensuring that the state rules in line with the governed and promoting individual freedom and opportunity. Liberals also generally support tolerance in society, emphasising that individuals should be able to pursue their interests so long as they do not harm others, as seen in Mill’s harm principle. This shows that, at a foundational level, liberalism is united in promoting individual freedom, rationality, and tolerance, providing a shared vision of what society should aim to achieve. However, this unity is primarily theoretical, as the means by which freedom and equality are realised differ between classical and modern liberals. Liberal unity is challenged in practice, particularly when considering how society should support individuals and address inequality. Modern liberals, such as Rawls, Wollstonecraft, and Friedan, argue that true freedom requires state intervention to remove social and economic barriers, promoting positive liberty and ensuring that all individuals, including women and disadvantaged groups, have genuine opportunity. In contrast, classical liberals like Locke and early Mill emphasise negative liberty, advocating minimal government intervention and formal equality, leaving certain groups, such as women and the poor, with limited access to freedom. For example, Wollstonecraft argued that women should receive the same education as men to realise their potential, whereas Locke accepted only limited education for women. Similarly, modern liberals support legal and economic protections for minority groups, whereas classical liberals primarily promoted tolerance without addressing systemic disadvantage. This illustrates that although liberals agree on the principle of freedom, they fundamentally disagree on how society should achieve it, with modern liberals favouring an enabling state and classical liberals emphasising individual self-help, showing that liberal unity is strongest in theory but weaker in practice. In conclusion, classical and modern liberals are united in valuing individual freedom, rationality, and tolerance within society, and in rejecting authoritarian control. However, they diverge significantly in practice over the role of the state and the need to address social and economic inequalities, particularly regarding women and minority groups. Overall, liberal unity exists at a theoretical level, but in the practical organisation of society, classical and modern liberals have fundamentally different visions of how freedom should be realised.