Liberalism is defined by the desire to minimise the role of the state. (Political Ideologies 45 Marks)

The role of the state is a debate that heavily divides the strands of liberalism. Most simply, the attitude of classical liberals in regards to the role of the state is that it should be minimal and non-interfering. Contrastingly, modern liberals have a more positive view of the state, seeing it as an enabler and facilitator for individual improvement. Nevertheless, despite their differences in the form that the state should take, both classical and modern liberals see the fundamental need for one. This reflects the difference between liberals and anarchists, in that they support the total obliteration of the state.

In regards to society and welfare, classical liberals believed there was need for a minimal state. Following the revolutions in America, France and England during the 1700’s classical liberals were fearful of an over powerful, tyrannical ruling government and therefore were concerned with the form the state would take. Nonetheless, classical liberals held a negative view of human nature in that without a state there would be chaos, as supported by philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who described ‘life in a state of nature would be nasty, brutish and short’. Thus, classical liberals saw a need for a state in order to protect individuals from one another. Furthermore, classical liberals are commitment to individualism and liberty and thus the rights of the individual, as reflected in the movement on Natural Rights theory, with Locke describing the need for the rights of ‘life liberty and property’. Because of this, classical liberals subscribed to the need for the state in order to protect the rights of citizens also. This relationship between the state and citizens can perhaps be described by come classical liberals as the ‘social contract’, enforced through the principle of constitutionalism, as reflected in the creation of the US constitution in which the Founding Fathers of Jefferson and Madison wanted to protect the rights of ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.  Outside of this state that protects the rights of citizens and from one another, classical liberals believed there was no need for interference from the state – classical liberals saw individuals as ultimately concerned with making themselves happy, as utilitarian Jeremy Bentham described individuals as ‘utility maximisers’ and therefore, should have freedom from state intervention within their lives. In this way, the role of the state in terms of social welfare, can be categorized by classical liberals as a laissez faire style of governance.

Alongside their attitude of a non-interfering state within social policy, for classical liberals this also was the case for economics. Classical liberals widely supported economist, Adam Smith’s free market economic system which adopted an ‘invisible hand’ style – the market is able to regulate itself in encouraging competition and inevitably creating more jobs. For this reason, there is little need for state intervention and this perhaps, could cause a lack of economic success instead. This system of classical liberal, free market economics can be seen in the revival through neo-liberal economic management in Thatcher’s government of the 1970’s. This revival of classical liberal economics in the lack of need for an interfering state in economics is support by economists Friedman and Hayek, who regard state economic planning as inefficient due to the complexities of the market being out of the boundaries and too complex for ruling government – the market is the best regulator of itself. In this way, in terms of social policy and the economy, classical liberals view the state in a skeptical way, believing that it needs to be minimal and non-interfering.

Contrasting with the view of early liberals, modern liberals – as well as adopting the view that the state should protect the inalienable rights of the individual – take a more positive view of the state, seeing it as an enabler. Following the industrial revolution of the 1700’s in which the conditions for the poor got even worse and the conditions for the rich got even better, modern liberals began to see the view of the individual in a different way. Those such as TH Green began to discuss freedom in believing that there are more barriers on the individual than tyrannical government. In this way, they believed that an individual cannot be truly free if they do not have the tools to flourish as an individual and access their full potential – John Stuart Mill termed this as accessing ‘higher pleasures’. Thus, modern liberals began to view the state as a facilitator to enable individuals to achieve this, due to a social responsibility to do this. As opposed to adopting foundational equality in terms of rights as classical liberals had, modern liberals subscribed to the move towards equality of opportunity – every individual has the opportunities to reach their full potential away from social barriers. This positive attitude towards the state as an enabler, predominantly through educating, can be seen in the liberal policies of David Lloyd George and Asquith, as well as the publishing of the Beveridge Report, which recommended the introduction of the NHS and promoted education. In this way, modern liberals can be categorized as moving away from the desire to minimise the state and instead embrace the power of it.

In addition to the increase in the role of the state in regards to social policy, modern liberals supported this in terms of economics. Moving away from the free market economics supported by earlier liberals, later, an adoption of Keynesian economic management took place. Economist, Keynes proposed unlike the views of Hayek and Friedman, that governments could manage their economy by influence aggregate demand – increasing government spending on infrastructure projects to promote jobs and therefore increase the money going into the economy. In this way, government are able to manipulate their economies to improve the stability of the country. This modern liberal view of Keynesian economics can be seen in the interventionist policies following the Great Depression and Wall Street Crash, in Roosevelt’s New Deal in America. In this way, liberalism cannot wholly be defined by the desire to minimise the state, due to the modern liberal support of state intervention in economics.

Along with the view of modern liberals that the state is an enabler to promote equality of opportunity and therefore allow individuals to access their full potential, some later liberals took this even further, by believing the state could also help to improve equality of outcome. In the 1970’s Rawls began to argue that even with equality of opportunity, true meritocracy is a myth in that there is too much structural inequality for individuals to achieve what they deserve and have the skills for. In this way, he believed many individuals could not truly progress and due to the liberal commitment to individualism, believed in a need for greater equality – engineered by the state. He justified this through the theory of the ‘original position’ in that he argued that if given the choice, individuals would rather greater equality, than the risk of being at the lower end of a highly divisive society. This increase in equality, Rawls believed could be engineered by the state, through the use of policies such as progressive taxation. However, unlike socialists, liberals such as Rawls did not support total state intervention and believed in some forms of equality – in giving incentive and benefitting the poor. This perhaps reflect the vast movement of liberal view of the state, in that Rawls supported a much more interventionist state than classical liberals, and therefore liberalism cannot fully be defined by the need to minimise the state.

There is much support for the belief that liberalism is defined by the desire to minimise the state, most prominently due to the classical liberal adoption of a laissez faire style of social governance and free market economics. However, due to the movement of modern liberals towards a more enabling state both in economics and social policy, and even further in the views of later liberals such as Rawls, it would be inaccurate in to believe that the liberal philosophy can be truly defined by this, due to the increase in the role of the state.