Classical and Modern Liberals and the Role of the State - Essay Example

Introduction to Political Concepts and Ideologies A critical comparison and contrast of the arguments ical and modern liberals regarding the role of the state Ivan BA Politics Name University London, UK 17 March 2009 A critical comparison and contrast of the arguments of classical and modern liberals regarding the role of the state Introduction Liberalism as one of the major political ideologies covers a range of classical and modern liberal ideas as well as those of libertarians. It gives importance to civil and political rights of individuals, which requires a substantial degree of personal freedom. The highest values are to promote liberty and guarantee equality. The role of the state then has to fit in with this requirement and is necessarily limited. Except to protect others from harm, liberals believe the state should not intrude upon the “freedom of conscience, speech, association, occupation, and, more recently, sexuality” (Honderich, 1995: 483). Upholding individual rights and ensuring equality of opportunity are considered to be better than theocratic rules, absolutism and totalitarianism. This ideology arose in the Age of Enlightenment; out of dissatisfaction with the interference of the Church and “the comprehensive political control and regulation of economic affairs” (Balaam, 2007:7) that prevailed. A liberal state neither seeks to resolve the conflicts of people on various matters of faith and life, nor interfere in the market economy. Instead, it “provides a neutral framework within which citizens can pursue their diverse conceptions of the good life” (Honderich, 1995: 483) and live together. Classical liberals favour religious tolerance over a religious monopoly. All liberals seek “the best form of government which will permit the individual to pursue life as he or she sees fit” (IEP, 2006). Liberal ideas now dominate many parts of the world. The USA was founded on the very principles of liberty, freedom and equality. Liberalism and the role of the state Freedom is considered an ideal, which is only possible if people are allowed to be autonomous. The value of freedom “has its roots not only in Rousseau’s and Kant’s political theory, but also in John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty… [and is still] a dominant strain in liberalism” (SEP, 2007). Liberalism prefers a limited role of the state because the state is perceived to be abusive of individual liberties, which leads to tensions between the individual and the state. Liberals believe that the tasks performed by the government must be limited to “tasks that individuals cannot perform by themselves, such as establish a basic legal system, assure national defence, and coin money” (Balaam, 2007: 50). Adam Smith, concerned with state interference in the market system, was a proponent of this view when he stated that the government’s role should be restricted to only doing work that private interests or the profit motives could not do, and so promoted a laissez-faire government. The focus therefore is on the individual whereas the state is viewed as an opposing force. Specifically, the liberal is concerned with individual liberty and brings into question the justification for political authority because according to the Fundamental Liberal Principle, any “restrictions on liberty must be justified” (SEP, 2007). Hence, only a limited government can ensure the equal liberty of its citizens. And, differences between liberals centre on the concept of liberty itself as well as private property and markets, which by extension creates differing conceptions of the role of the state. To a liberal, the role of the state is not only limited but also it is of no greater significance than other social institutions. Outline of Classical and Modern Liberal Views Classical liberal views regard liberty and private property as intimately related. Freedom can only be expressed if people are free to obtain and do whatever they wish with their own property e.g. in saving their incomes, investing their capital, availing their labour, engaging in enterprises, and so on. In this way, private property is a way of protecting liberty. This allows very little role for the state. The main proponents of the classical liberal ideas are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both thinkers argued “that the power of the sovereign is ultimately justified by the consent of the governed, given in a hypothetical social contract rather than by divine right” (Encyclopedia Brittanica). The first part mentions the importance of consent, which endows individuals with the freedom to choose, and the second distinguishes the liberal state from earlier rules based on kingship. John Locke laid the foundations of classical liberal thinking on the role of the state in his Second Treatise on Government. He expressed basic principles on equality, property, the state of nature etc. With respect to the latter, according to Locke, each individual is effectively a sovereign and so if the state violates the ‘covenant’ between the two, this is regarded as the state’s rebellion thus justifying its overthrow. Herbert Spencer developed an even more extreme, almost anarchic strain of classical liberalism. Modern liberals are inclined towards a more interventionist role of the state. This perspective was a response to the social problems during the Industrial Revolution, especially inequalities of wealth. Limited state intervention was seen as necessary to regulate the market and establish a welfare state, especially for the state provision of health and education services. Thus new ‘freedoms’ have been specified viz. freedom from ill health, hunger and unemployment to justify the welfare role of the ‘limited’ state. The main proponents of the modern liberal ideas are J.S.Mill, John Rawls, and Ronald Dworkin. More recently however, whilst the provision of state welfare still prevails as in the UK since 1914, the role of the state has receded somewhat to allow free markets to prosper. The economic stagnation of the late 1970s revived some classical liberal ideas. Individual rights have since expanded but there is greater attention to addressing social problems through reducing economic inequalities. A Critical Comparison and Contrast of Classical and Modern Views The classical liberal support for autonomous individuals is nothing more than glorifying selfish pursuits to justify capitalism, which in the current climate of a looming recession, is having to come to terms with its fundamental weakness of the vice of greed and exploitation. Classical liberalism replaced the ideal of shared responsibility and mutual obligation with this strong individualism. In essence, it destroyed the true concept of the state by minimising its role so that it gives a free hand to individuals to engage in selfish pursuits to exploit the masses. This is no different to the earlier role of the Church in imposing a single set of beliefs. In fact, a shared conception of what is ‘good’, something that is sorely missing in liberal societies, helps to bind the state together. The liberal ‘dogma’ of freedom and equality is not a force for societal cohesion but separation. Citizenship rights are important for a civilised life, but collective duties are more important for social progress. Liberal ideals are effective in so far that they cater to a diverse society and allow certain freedoms, but limitless freedom is self-destructive. Also, it is questionable whether all individuals are capable of making rational and informed choices by themselves (a view not shared by liberals), of serving the needs of the community and not “engage in degrading and worthless life-styles” (Honderich, 1995: 483). Individuals are not born knowing what is right or wrong. They must be educated. It is the role of the state to assist the disadvantaged, provide for shared needs of communities, establish health and education programs and institutions, and prevent degradation of individuals and society. Otherwise, inequalities of wealth, exploitation, moral corruption etc. tend to take place if individuals are entirely left to themselves. Most modern liberals agree that ensuring equality requires regulation of the market and other interventions. One of the first to usher in this new wave of thinking was Leonard Hobhouse. Also, there is now greater emphasis on justice. And, their more egalitarian form of liberalism and support for the welfare role of the state is a welcome development. John Rawls for example, writing in A Theory of Justice compares the advancement of welfare by society to the principle for individuals to advance their own welfare; their “own system of desires” (Rawls, 2005: 23). And, he explains that “the advantage of the better situated improve the condition of the least favored” (Rawls, 2005: 87) when social institutions such as the modern state think of establishing social justice. Dworkin makes it clear that “to ensure a just and fair opportunity for all to compete and flourish in a civil society” (IEP, 2006) requires some active state intervention. Strangely, this hearkens back to Aristotle’s argument that a certain standard of living is a requisite to pursuing a good life. The state therefore has an important role in social welfare and implementing redistribution policies. The role of the state in ensuring equality may seem to be an ideal but as classical liberals point out people are not born equal. People have different qualities and talents and express differences. Nonetheless, the welfare state plays an important role in safeguarding the rights of ‘the least favoured’ and thereby providing equal opportunities for all citizens. This does not need to deter those who are more talented to progress individually. Collective progress benefits everyone by providing a more stable, tolerant and free environment. In a way, all liberals agree on the state’s role in being impartial towards treating its citizens. This neutrality guarantees equality. Although liberals favour the free market, there are some important differences between classical and modern liberals over the extent of state ownership of productive assets and the extent to which the state should restrict the private ownership rights. Whilst classical liberals do not entirely frown upon the concept of state ownership, modern liberals are receptive to privatization. The main differences actually lie in tax policies and this reflects “differing views about the ownership of income and wealth generated in the market” (Arnold, 2009: 38). And, classical liberals do not favour any restrictions on private property whereas modern liberals do with respect to certain categories. In short, modern liberals are in favour of some state regulation. Conclusion Both classical and modern liberals then can be distinguished in that they favour a limited and interventionist state respectively; in their support for a free market and support for a welfare state. But both do agree on the fundamental point of non-interference in people’s lives i.e. that the “government should enforce and respect fundamental personal and political rights” (Arnold, 2009: 16). Thus freedom is an overriding factor that all liberals value. On the issue of rights, Classical liberals see an important role of the state in addressing crime whereas modern liberals stress the right to an acceptable standard of living. So, it is just that modern liberals have added the ingredient of social justice to the state framework. Classical liberals would have regarded any state intervention as inadmissible. But, the ‘Great Switch’ therefore, to borrow Jacques Barzun’s words, from the highly individualistic classical liberalism to the more social modern liberalism based on justice was necessary, and which led to a rejection of the limited notion of the state to granting it a more interventionist role. However, the neutrality of the framework has already been challenged in this way, which is the very basis of liberalism. References Ackerman, Bruce. (1981) Social Justice in the Liberal State. Yale University Press. Arnold, N. Scott. (2009) Imposing Values: Liberalism and Regulation. Oxford University Press. Balaam, David et al. (2007) Introduction to International Political Economy. Prentice Hall. Qtd. In Akerman, Gregory. (2006) A Structuralist Critique of the Liberal Point of View. 17 Aug. 2006. EzineArticles.com. http://ezinearticles.com/?A-Structuralist-Critique-of-the-Liberal-Point-of-View&id=271157 [16 Mar 2009] Encyclopedia Brittanica. Available online at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339173/liberalism. [17 Mar 2009] IEP. (2006) Political Philosophy. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/polphil.htm#SH3a. Rawls, John. (2005) A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press. SEP. (2007) Liberalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/. Read More