Liberalism Essay Plans
Three ‘D’s in the introduction: definition (AO1), discussion (AO2) and direction (AO3)
To what extent are there tensions within liberalism on the role of the state?
The state is the sovereign governing body of a nation. A key difference between classical
and modern liberals is their contrasting views on the role of the state. While both distrust
authority and believe in individual sovereignty, classical liberals believe that ‘that government
is best which governs least’, whereas modern liberals think state intervention can have a net
positive impact on society.
Both classical and modern liberals believe that individual humans are rational, sovereign and
can make their own decisions, as argued by Enlightenment figures such as John Locke.
Classical liberals reason that this means the state should be limited because this leaves
people free to make their own choices. Classical liberals favour a ‘nightwatchman’ state
which makes laws, enforces contracts and protects property, but otherwise does not interfere
with people’s lives. On the other hand, modern liberals believe that the state should provide
basic welfare in order to aid people in achieving their potential. John Stuart Mills– often seen
as the link between classical and modern liberalism– focused on the ability of individuals to
grow and develop their ‘individuality’. Modern liberals, such as John Rawls, believe that this
can be best achieved when aided by the state. For example, such state-funded education
means that even the poorest are given the chance to learn and develop their skills.
Margaret Thatcher once claimed ‘there is no such thing as society’, a statement classical
liberals would agree with; they conceive of society as atomistic, meaning it is composed of
many separate, fragmented elements. In such a society, people’s social outcomes are
determined by their individual choices. As such, classical liberals believe that social
inequality is natural and acceptable, and therefore there is no need for the government to
intervene outside of protecting individuals’ rights. Modern liberals disagree with the atomistic
view of society, for example liberal feminist Betty Freidan argued that the cultural
conditioning imposed by society held women back. As modern liberals believe our choices
and freedoms can be unfairly impacted by society, they also believe that the state should
intervene to correct these inequalities. Freidan, for example, pushed for laws against gender
discrimination.
Classical and modern liberals also disagree on the role of the state in regards to the
economy. Classical liberals believe in a free market with little state intervention except to
protect private property and enforce contracts (as theorised by John Locke). This theory of
laissez-faire economics was supported by economist Adam Smith. Modern liberals, in
contrast, favour Keynesian economics, with some state intervention to promote stability and
protect workers’ rights. John Rawls believed that some redistribution of wealth was
acceptable as a method of achieving social justice. He argued for a market democracy that
would allow everyone to have the best outcome.
To conclude, classical liberals favour a ‘nightwatchman’ state to enforce laws and contracts,
but not intervene otherwise in individuals' affairs. In contrast, modern liberals take a more
positive approach, believing the state can be a tool to correct inequalities via intervention in
Three ‘D’s in the introduction: definition (AO1), discussion (AO2) and direction (AO3)
To what extent are there tensions within liberalism on the role of the state?
The state is the sovereign governing body of a nation. A key difference between classical
and modern liberals is their contrasting views on the role of the state. While both distrust
authority and believe in individual sovereignty, classical liberals believe that ‘that government
is best which governs least’, whereas modern liberals think state intervention can have a net
positive impact on society.
Both classical and modern liberals believe that individual humans are rational, sovereign and
can make their own decisions, as argued by Enlightenment figures such as John Locke.
Classical liberals reason that this means the state should be limited because this leaves
people free to make their own choices. Classical liberals favour a ‘nightwatchman’ state
which makes laws, enforces contracts and protects property, but otherwise does not interfere
with people’s lives. On the other hand, modern liberals believe that the state should provide
basic welfare in order to aid people in achieving their potential. John Stuart Mills– often seen
as the link between classical and modern liberalism– focused on the ability of individuals to
grow and develop their ‘individuality’. Modern liberals, such as John Rawls, believe that this
can be best achieved when aided by the state. For example, such state-funded education
means that even the poorest are given the chance to learn and develop their skills.
Margaret Thatcher once claimed ‘there is no such thing as society’, a statement classical
liberals would agree with; they conceive of society as atomistic, meaning it is composed of
many separate, fragmented elements. In such a society, people’s social outcomes are
determined by their individual choices. As such, classical liberals believe that social
inequality is natural and acceptable, and therefore there is no need for the government to
intervene outside of protecting individuals’ rights. Modern liberals disagree with the atomistic
view of society, for example liberal feminist Betty Freidan argued that the cultural
conditioning imposed by society held women back. As modern liberals believe our choices
and freedoms can be unfairly impacted by society, they also believe that the state should
intervene to correct these inequalities. Freidan, for example, pushed for laws against gender
discrimination.
Classical and modern liberals also disagree on the role of the state in regards to the
economy. Classical liberals believe in a free market with little state intervention except to
protect private property and enforce contracts (as theorised by John Locke). This theory of
laissez-faire economics was supported by economist Adam Smith. Modern liberals, in
contrast, favour Keynesian economics, with some state intervention to promote stability and
protect workers’ rights. John Rawls believed that some redistribution of wealth was
acceptable as a method of achieving social justice. He argued for a market democracy that
would allow everyone to have the best outcome.
To conclude, classical liberals favour a ‘nightwatchman’ state to enforce laws and contracts,
but not intervene otherwise in individuals' affairs. In contrast, modern liberals take a more
positive approach, believing the state can be a tool to correct inequalities via intervention in
