Leena Ramlakhan Saturday 15 th June 2019
As Kelly and McNaughton highlight, Thomas Jefferson, one of the USA’s founding fathers,
was a proponent of the minimal state as he believed “The government that is best is that
which governs least… when government grows, our liberty withers.” Jefferson played a key
role in the creation of the US constitution, a constitution which clearly reflects the work of
the first liberal thinker, John Locke. Locke’s views on state intervention certainly had
international reach. He argued that before the state was established, we lived in a state of
nature with pre-existing natural rights due to humankind’s innate rationality, which we
should retain today in spite of the state. Therefore, the state should keep intervention
minimal to respect natural rights, such as the right to private property: the tangible
expression of individualism. Locke believed that it was the government’s duty to protect
natural rights and make citizens’ lives better than the natural society, and if they fail to do
so, they should be removed. This is the basis of Locke’s social contract theory which dictates
that we should have a government by consent; if the people vote for a party to govern they
should do their best to fulfil the wishes of the people or else the people have a right to
withdraw consent or change leadership in the next general election. This belief was key in
the American Revolution in which Jefferson took inspiration from Locke’s social contract
theory to overthrow King George and establish a democracy in the USA in which rights are
clearly protected against the government in their codified constitution. Whilst Mary
Wollstonecraft, another classical liberal, agreed with Locke’s fundamental liberal belief of
individualism, she added that women are infantilised by society and the state does not do
enough to stop this and allow women the right to exercise their individuality, rationality and
intellect. Overall, the line or argument that there should be minimal state intervention in a
liberal framework is weak, because at times state intervention is necessary for marginalised
groups in society to have liberty as Wollstonecraft argued for women, and later modern
liberal, Betty Freidan, argued in regards to women and African Americans during the Civil
Rights movement in the USA.
Modern liberal thinkers have moved away from the early ideas on state intervention to form
a more positive view of the state. Modern liberals question the notion that the state should
be completely hands off. As the extract suggests, modern liberals see that a larger state can
in fact “repel […] threats to freedom and individualism.” Challenging Mill’s notion of
negative freedom, Thomas Hill Green viewed the freedom to fulfil one’s own potential and
achieve self-realisation and self-perfection as positive freedom. Subsequently, state
intervention is required to an extent to reduce inherited privilege and provide equality of
opportunity through education. John Rawls similarly believed “the enabling state was
perfectly consistent with the liberal principle of government by consent.” Following Locke’s
social contract theory, the people voted the government in, therefore they should be
responsible for promoting equality in society by allowing the less fortunate to advance
through public spending and public services. However, Green and Rawls’ beliefs could be
seen as straying from liberalism and bordering on socialism which prioritises equality across
society above individuality. Nevertheless, this line of argument is strong, because state
intervention is necessary to minimise the vast gap between the rich and the poor in a
capitalist society, as even classical liberal Mills believed that a legitimate role for the state is
to put systems in place to prevent large, powerful companies from exploiting workers and
consumers.
As Kelly and McNaughton highlight, Thomas Jefferson, one of the USA’s founding fathers,
was a proponent of the minimal state as he believed “The government that is best is that
which governs least… when government grows, our liberty withers.” Jefferson played a key
role in the creation of the US constitution, a constitution which clearly reflects the work of
the first liberal thinker, John Locke. Locke’s views on state intervention certainly had
international reach. He argued that before the state was established, we lived in a state of
nature with pre-existing natural rights due to humankind’s innate rationality, which we
should retain today in spite of the state. Therefore, the state should keep intervention
minimal to respect natural rights, such as the right to private property: the tangible
expression of individualism. Locke believed that it was the government’s duty to protect
natural rights and make citizens’ lives better than the natural society, and if they fail to do
so, they should be removed. This is the basis of Locke’s social contract theory which dictates
that we should have a government by consent; if the people vote for a party to govern they
should do their best to fulfil the wishes of the people or else the people have a right to
withdraw consent or change leadership in the next general election. This belief was key in
the American Revolution in which Jefferson took inspiration from Locke’s social contract
theory to overthrow King George and establish a democracy in the USA in which rights are
clearly protected against the government in their codified constitution. Whilst Mary
Wollstonecraft, another classical liberal, agreed with Locke’s fundamental liberal belief of
individualism, she added that women are infantilised by society and the state does not do
enough to stop this and allow women the right to exercise their individuality, rationality and
intellect. Overall, the line or argument that there should be minimal state intervention in a
liberal framework is weak, because at times state intervention is necessary for marginalised
groups in society to have liberty as Wollstonecraft argued for women, and later modern
liberal, Betty Freidan, argued in regards to women and African Americans during the Civil
Rights movement in the USA.
Modern liberal thinkers have moved away from the early ideas on state intervention to form
a more positive view of the state. Modern liberals question the notion that the state should
be completely hands off. As the extract suggests, modern liberals see that a larger state can
in fact “repel […] threats to freedom and individualism.” Challenging Mill’s notion of
negative freedom, Thomas Hill Green viewed the freedom to fulfil one’s own potential and
achieve self-realisation and self-perfection as positive freedom. Subsequently, state
intervention is required to an extent to reduce inherited privilege and provide equality of
opportunity through education. John Rawls similarly believed “the enabling state was
perfectly consistent with the liberal principle of government by consent.” Following Locke’s
social contract theory, the people voted the government in, therefore they should be
responsible for promoting equality in society by allowing the less fortunate to advance
through public spending and public services. However, Green and Rawls’ beliefs could be
seen as straying from liberalism and bordering on socialism which prioritises equality across
society above individuality. Nevertheless, this line of argument is strong, because state
intervention is necessary to minimise the vast gap between the rich and the poor in a
capitalist society, as even classical liberal Mills believed that a legitimate role for the state is
to put systems in place to prevent large, powerful companies from exploiting workers and
consumers.
