Liberalism:
TWE do liberals agree over the nature of the state
Intro
The two key strands of liberalism are classical and modern.
The state refers to the government, which enacts laws.
Classical liberalism is distinguishable from modern liberalism via its belief in negative
liberty and the minimal state.
Modern liberalism differs from classical through its stress on positive freedom and an
enabling state.
Tensions over the role of the state is therefore a key issue in the relationship between
classical and modern liberalism.
While there are key areas of agreement, such as the stress on tolerance, government
by consent and individualism, the two vary on how to achieve it and thus, disagree
greatly over the nature of the state.
P1 = classical = minimal state
One key distinction is classical liberalism's belief in the minimal state.
Locke presented the idea that individual liberty was a natural right which existed in a
natural state before there was a manmade one.
Therefore it is vital to self-determination and government by consent.
From here originated the idea of negative liberty, which is freedom as the absence of
restraint (freedom from).
This is the idea that people are naturally free until someone stops them. For example,
a man alone on an island has a high level of personal freedom.
Thus, since negative liberty is the absence of restraint, government should be limited
in how they act and what they can do.
It should serve primarily to resolve disputes between individuals more efficiently than
the state of nature would and would be legitimate only if it respected natural rights
and laws.
It should, thus, embody limited government through the dispersal of its powers.
P2 = modern = enabling state
Contrastingly, modern liberalism believes in an enabling state.
Modern liberals didn’t believe that individuals were innately autonomous but subject
to socio-economic forces beyond their control.
For example, poor healthcare, unemployment and lack of education. Consequently,
social and legal justice were required if individuals were to fulfil their potential.
Liberty therefore would now mean individuals enabling other individuals to allow
them to act in a way that wouldn’t be possible if they were left alone, i.e. positive
freedom.
Rawls justified this state enlargement (e.g. increased taxes, etc.) in the name of
individual liberty as only a big state could guarantee equality of opportunity.
He argued that although some would be taxed and lose out, they could still be
persuaded that it was a good thing, therefore consisting with government by consent.
P3 = areas of agreement = individualism
, However, some areas of agreement between classical and modern liberalism still
persist.
Although, classical and modern liberals disagree over the size of the state, they both
want to increase individualism.
Modern liberals argue for a large state in order to free individualism from socio-
economic issues, while classical liberals believe the state impeaches on individual
liberties and thus should be minimised.
Therefore, they have different approaches but the same goal.
Nevertheless, this argument is a weak one since classical and modern liberals differ
over how to achieve this goal and thus view the nature of the state very differently.
Moreover, both classical and modern liberals believe in government by consent.
The idea presented by Locke that before there was a manufactured state, there was a
natural one that was governed by natural rights and liberties, means that any
manufactured state on top of that, minimal or enabling, should be governed by
consent, i.e. a social contract between the state and the people.
Similarly, Rawls' starting point was that everyone has an equal entitlement to certain
basic rights and liberties. His ideas are intellectually linked to the social contract, as
developed by Locke.
This is because all liberals rejected the divine right of kings and the idea that power
should be concentrated in the hands of a few, thus meaning that for the state to be
legitimate, it needed to be approved by the governed.
This means that citizens themselves agree to give up some of their rights in exchange
for things from the state, e.g. protection, but that when a majority loses its belief in
the government, it should be dismissed.
This is a strong argument as it clearly sets out the expectations over how the state is to
govern.
P4 = areas of disagreement
On the other hand, there are still significant areas of disagreement.
While both classical and modern liberals focus on individualism, classical liberals focus
on egoistical individuals.
They believe humans are all self-interested and thus the state needs to exist in order
to solve disputes between individuals when their own self-interested goals interfere
with others.
E.g. without fishing regulations, all fishermen would overfish and eventually it would
lead to the extinction of all marine animals.
The state is thus used simply to act as a 'referee' during such conflicts.
Modern liberals, however, focus on developmental individualism.
E.g. Rawls believed that there was always room for improvement and that liberty was
the engine.
Therefore, the enabling state was used to provide services such as education in order
to increase humans' potential.
This argument is a strong one as it shows that despite classical and modern liberals
agreeing over individualism, they both focus on achieving two very different strands of
it.
Another key area of disagreement is how this individualism is then achieved.
, Modern liberals promote supranational bodies such as the European Union in order to
establish laws in favour of equality and human rights.
For example, they would support minimum wage legislation and the Human Rights
Acts.
Classical liberals would however be against such measures as they would view this as
the state being overbearing and lacking consent, often criticising modern liberals for
having abandoned the core values of liberalism.
E.g. the EU judges are unelected and minimum wage is achieved via taxation.
This argument further builds on the last one and is thus very strong in determining
that the nature of the states are very different in achieving their different strands of
individualism.
Conclusion
In conclusion, modern and classical liberalism have very different views of the nature
of the state.
Despite some areas of agreement such as individualism, this argument is weakened
when considering how these liberals go about achieving these goals.
The only strong agreement between the two is belief in the principle of government by
consent.
However, the argument of classical liberals supporting negative freedom and modern
liberals believing in positive freedom, leads to significant contrasts in the nature of the
state: minimised vs enlarged.
Consequently, the state in the eyes of the different liberals differs to a large extent.
, TWE do liberals agree about how the economy should run
Intro
The economy refers to the state of a country in terms of the production and
consumption of goods and services, and the supply of money.
The two main strands of liberalism are modern and classical.
Though both strands strongly advocate capitalism in the economy, their views of the
economy differ to a large extent due to their contrasting views of liberty (negative vs
positive).
Consequently, modern liberals endorse Keynesian capitalism as opposed to laissez-
faire capitalism.
Thus, despite the two agreeing over the core economic system, they are irreconcilable
due to classical liberals seeking a minimal state with no intervention as compared to
modern liberal's extensive state with economic intervention.
P1 = classical view = Adam Smith free-market
Classical liberals argued in favour of laissez-faire capitalism as championed by Adam
Smith.
Adam Smith argued in the Wealth of Nations in favour of capitalism by the invisible
hand, where if all obstacles were removed (intervention), markets would be guided for
positive outcomes and wealth would trickle down.
This is based off classical liberal's rational view of human nature, and negative view of
liberty, which is that freedom is the absence of restraint (freedom from).
The ideal and only role for classical liberals in light of negative freedom is therefore the
role of 'night-watchman'.
Anything beyond a minimal role for the state is considered by classical liberals to
threaten and constrain individual freedoms.
From this came the concept of the social contract of Locke, which is the idea that
society, state and government are based on a theoretical voluntary agreement where
people accept the authority of the government as long as it fulfils its part of the
contract; this means that government should protect property rights.
Locke wrote that the great and chief end of men uniting into commonwealths, and
putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.
This leads them to support an economy that puts private property in the centre of all
economic arrangements.
Furthermore, Adam Smith emphasised in the wealth of nations the part played by self
interest in driving economic growth as 'it is not from the benevolence of the butcher,
the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard for their own
self interest' which falls in line with classical liberalism's view that human actions are
motivated mainly by desire to pursue pleasure and avoid pain since humans are
rational, independent beings capable of reason (Wollstonecraft).
This type of free-market economy, supported by Wollstonecraft and Locke, is best
exemplified in the USA.
P2 = modern view = enabling state
Modern liberals advocate Keynesian capitalism.
