Liberal Political Theory - Essay Example

220938 Liberal Political Theory 3. The government can no more act...to advance human excellence, or the values of perfection...than it can to advance Catholicism or Protestantism, or any other religion (John Rawls). Why do so many liberals think the state must be neutral and what do they mean by it? Why do some liberals disagree? Outlined below is a discussion of how liberals believe whether or not the state must be neutral when it comes down to the advancing of advance human excellence, or the values of perfection. The ideas of liberals as will be evaluated are not all the same, which is why they have different opinions as to whether or not the state must be neutral. Liberalism has its roots in the Renaissance and the humanist movement, whilst liberal ideology was inadvertently developed further as a result of the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of capitalism. Prior to the emergence of liberalism it was generally accepted that governments had the power to dictate how their citizens actually behaved. The Protestant Reformation started in Germany but the factors that allowed it to survive effectively prevented the forming of a united German state or the complete success of the Protestant Reformation there. The Reformation though it was primarily about a concern to achieve religious reform had a profound influence upon the emergence of liberal thought and ideology (Chadwick, 1990, pp.63-64). The Reformation was in many respects the unwitting catalyst for both liberalism and capitalism. In the Protestant countries it broke the traditional partnership between the secular governments and the Roman Catholic Church. In the short-term the governments of the Protestant states usually gained increased powers to influence the beliefs as well as the behaviour of their populations. States were not at this point attempting to be neutral, as they wanted to control their people as much as they possibly could. The Medieval and the Early Modern view of the role of government was that the state had the full authority to make its citizens believe or behave in the ways that it wanted them to do (Royale, 2004 p. 5). All people within each country owed complete obedience to their government, which had the theoretical power (if not always the physical presence or military capability) to enforce its norms upon its entire population (Heywood, 2001 p. 29). In England, James I and Charles I found it impossible to maintain the traditionally sound relationships between the monarchy, Parliament, and the gentry class from which the majority of MPs, magistrates, and taxpayers came from (Vale, 2006 p. 40). Both kings did themselves no favours by clinging on the concept of the divine right of kings. James I had been able to prevent those relationships breaking down completely, whilst Charles I pursued policies that inadvertently did much to cause the subsequent civil wars (Royale, 2004 p. 80). After the religious and the political upheaval of the 17th century the English government intervened less and attempted to be economically and socially neutral in many respects (Schama, 2001 p. 230). John Locke assumed that if left to their device people would eventually achieve stability, peace, and perhaps prosperity (Comfort, 1993 p. 250). Locke was to all intents and purposes an optimist when it came down to what people could achieve prior to authorities or institutions were established. In fact Locke believed that people should still be able to influence or in extreme cases replace their governments. From Lockes perspective people tended towards stability rather than acting in ways that would lead to chaos or anarchy if left unchecked by civic authorities and their associated-armed force and policing powers. Taken as a whole people were more likely to co-operate with each other, at a basic level that co-operation was an essential element of their combined chances of surviving, developing, and eventually prospering as societies and nations. Locke wrote the Second Treatise on Government as a retrospective justification or apology for William of Orange gaining the throne via the Glorious Revolution of 1688. As a result of that revolution a constitutional monarchy emerged (Lacey, 2006 p. 20). Locke believed that governments had basic functions such as ensuring law and order, administering justice, and defending their countries. Apart from those functions governments had no need and no right to interfere in peoples lives (Heywood, 2003p. 10). Locke was only advocating rebellion in extreme circumstances and not as a matter of course. The state was the supreme adjudicator of civil and legal disputes Locke believed that the state should be neutral in order to allow people to act, believe, and work in the ways that they want to. Liberals believed that the government should only ever play a minimal role in society by passing laws that allow for stability and for people to generate wealth and jobs (Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p. 28). The early liberal economists such as Adam Smith were particularly keen that the s should only be neutral and should only do the bate minimum to ensure that governments function effectively. Adam Smith argued that the invisible hand of capitalism would increased the prosperity of everybody, generate prosperity and ensure that there would be society stability (Comfort, 1993 p. 550). Liberal thinkers especially Jeremy Bentham argued that the s should always remain neutral as governments would do far more harm than good. After ensuring law and order plus national defence states should not do anything else. The state did not have any reason to intervene in how people lived their lives and had to therefore be neutral (Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p. 32). The liberal thinkers like Bentham and Adam Smith did not see how the s could actually achieve anything beneficial by not being neutral. The neutrality of the state allows people the freedom to achieve much greater things, to go on and prosper as an individual as well as financially providing that they work hard enough or make sound decisions. The neutrality of the state means that in many instances the most capable people in society are usually the most successful ones as well. The capitalist system will provide for everybody, whilst the most deserving people get the highest rewards (Heywood, 2001 p. 42). Not all liberals believe that the s should always be neutral, though they do not always agree on how much government intervention is justified. Classical liberal thought was altered by some towards the end of the 19th century in order to reduce the economic and social inequalities increased by capitalism. New liberalism: was to become most influential in Britain in the early years of the 20th century and was linked with the introduction of a limited welfare state. The advocates of New liberalism regarded the leaving of capitalism to its own devices as being socially and politically unacceptable (Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p. 28). Some liberals are strongly opposed to the state intervening in their respective societies to achieve political as well economic objectives, its neutrality being more beneficial in the long run. Liberals oppose state intervention for different economic, social, philosophical, as well as political reasons. Their arguments are similar to the classical liberal views already mentioned above (Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p. 28). Liberals have argued against state intervention on the grounds that it decreases economic efficiency and means that some people end up working harder than others to gain a lower standard of living. State intervention in the economy is detrimental in terms of promoting self-reliance and ensuring that individuals take responsibility for their very own decisions and actions. Liberals such as Milton Friedman and Hayek contended that state intervention was a terrible thing for economic progress and performance. If the state remains neutral it should avoid detrimental affects upon the economy (Comfort, 1993 p. 200). The state should remain neutral with regard to social relationships and developments because these should have nothing to do with the government at all. State intervention in social matters will distort social relationships and also economic developments, whilst not even being able to achieve the objectives of the government anyway (Heywood, 2003 p. 42). Apart from ensuring that there is a basic level of law and order in society then governments are better off remaining neutral instead of telling people how to behave. Rawls was not the first and he will not be the last liberal to note that governments have proved generally ineffective in changing behaviour and attitudes (Eatwell, & Wright, 2003 p. 37). To conclude there are various strands of liberal opinion, which argue that the state should remain neutral. Liberals can trace such ideas back to the Reformation, the rise of capitalism, as well as the Enlightenment and also the French Revolution. Early forms of liberalism stressed that strict neutrality by the state was an essential requirement to allow for economic, political, and social developments. Liberals were mainly interested in making money and increasing personal liberty rather than improving their societies or the achieving of economic and also social equality. The state should remain neutral with regard to social relationships and developments because these should have nothing to do with the govt under any circumstances. State intervention in social matters will end up just distorting social relationships and economic developments, whilst not achieving the objectives of the government anyway. Aside from ensuring that there is a basic level of law and order inside their societies then governments are better off remaining neutral instead of attempting to alter peoples’ behaviour. Rawls was not the first and he will not be the last liberal to note that governments have proved incapable of changing behaviour and attitudes even when they have tried to do so. Chadwick, O (1990) Penguin History of the Church 3 The Reformation, Penguin Books, London Comfort N (1993) Brewers Politics, a phrase and fable dictionary, Cassell, London Crystal D, (1998) The Cambridge Biographical Encyclopedia 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York Eatwell R & Wright A, (2003) Contemporary Political Ideologies 2nd Edition, Continuum, London Heywood A, (2001) Key Concepts in Politics, MacMillan, Basingstoke Heywood A, (2003) Political Ideologies An Introduction, 3rd edition, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke Lacey R, (2006) Great Tales from English History, the Battle of the Boyne to DNA, Little Brown, London Lenman B P (2004) Chambers Dictionary of World History 2nd edition, Chambers, Edinburgh Royale T, (2004) Civil War The Wars of the Three Kingdoms 1638-1660, Abacus, London Schama S, (2001) A History of Britain - The British Wars 1603-1776, BBC Worldwide, London Vale B, (2006) A History of the Church of England 1529 1662, only available online from authorsonline.co.uk Read More