To what extent do liberals believe in natural rights?

Liberalism has adopted various core ideas in relation to the  human nature. omnipresent in all it. The concept of natural rights is evidently omnipresent in all of its strands. The right to freedom for instance remains an important aspect, even in Modern Liberalism. However, the emphasis of the rights themselves have diverged over time. While Locke and his classical ideals  stressed the idea of negative freedom, free from coercion of the state, John Rawls instead argues for more intervention of the state in order to satisfy his definition of freedom. 

1. They agree on the existence of human rights

Generally, in Liberalism, every human being is born with a set of inalienable, god-given natural rights. Both Classical and Modern Liberalism believe in the existence of natural rights. 

• Locke believed in the natural rights, inalienable rights which all individuals possess.

• Mary Wollstonecraft, early founder of feminism also advocated for the extension of Locke’s initial ideas to women. She believed that women also have those natural rights as men, women are also human beings and should therefore be equal too.

• This idea is also shared by John Rawls who asserted that there exist certain “primary social goods” that “a rational man wants”. From this statement, it’s very clear that that modern liberalism still holds to the idea of natural rights.

• Betty Frieden, a modern liberal even continued Wollstonecraft’s initial struggle for universal natural rights. This proves how engrained the concept of natural rights is in liberalism.

On the same grounds, it can also be said that liberalism (mainly the concept of natural rights) has provided fertile ground for the growth of feminism. We must remember that feminism was an idea held by both strands of liberalism - In classical liberalism Mary Wollstonecraft developed the grounds for feminism from the natural rights and in modern liberalism Betty Frieden continued her struggle with the on the same grounds. Even if both strands have different guidelines on how those rights should be interpreted and defined, they both still use the natural rights as a foundation of their ideologies.

2. They disagree on what aspect of those natural rights should be emphasised, especially freedom

Although both strands of liberalism believe in the existence of natural rights, they do differ in what rights to emphasise, such as freedom and property. Both strands have their own definitions of true freedom and even to what extent property should be considered a right.

1. Classical Liberalism

• Classical Liberals subscribe to a version of freedom called “negative freedom”, they define freedom as the absence of external constraints - individuals should be given as much freedom as possible

• John Stuart Mill explained in his “Harm Principle” developed from Bentham’s concept of utilitarianism, which holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals.

• Locke explained his main ideas of natural rights as “life, liberty and estate” while Jefferson changed “estate” to “pursuit of happiness” as he believed that it wasn’t a god-given right but rather a man-made one.

• Friedrich Hayek, a Neo-liberal who advocated for the rebirth of classical liberalism even stated that the right to property shouldn’t be absolute. He instead argued for more equality of opportunity to property.

1. Modern Liberalism

• Modern Liberals on the other hand subscribe to what’s known as positive freedom where individuals must realise their freedom and achieve autonomy. 

• However they didn’t emphasise the freedom itself but instead they believed that equality of opportunity should be even more emphasised (far more than what classical liberals first intended).

• In his “Theory of Justice”, John Rawls explains that “The Harm Principle” isn’t enough when it comes to regulating freedom and he says that freedom should instead be tempered with the freedom of all (consistent with the whole of the population)

• “Freedom only works when the largest set of people have access to freedom which is consistent across that set”.

It is clear that both strands have different interpretations of the natural rights. They also disagree on what aspect of those natural rights should be the main point of focus. 

3. They disagree on the state’s roles in relation to the natural rights

Both strands have differing views on how the state should act in relation to those rights, especially on how it should behave to protect and regulate them.

1) Classical Liberalism

1. Locke’s explanation through the social contract theory holds that individuals consent to give up some of their rights in return for protection as long as the state doesn’t behave in an authoritarian manner. He believed that the state’s legitimacy was formed by the natural rights and the the social contract theory formed by the governed and the government. He also despised the idea of an all-meddling state, he also voiced the same opinion on an authoritarian one.

   Classical Liberals adopt a libertarian view of the state where it should only be allowed to intervene in extreme situations. The state acts as a “necessary evil” and intervenes only to prevent the causation of harm. 

   This idea is explained again by John Stuart Mill in his “Harm Principle”. 

   2) Modern Liberalism

• Modern Liberalism generally calls for more state participation as it believes that in order for natural rights to truly be achieved there must be some sort of intervention. Only then can an individual achieve self-realisation. 

• This can be done through the implementation of the welfare state and other directed government programs such as skill and training programs.

• They subscribe to the concept of “positive freedom” where the government intervenes through skill training and welfare programs to make sure that people actualise their freedom consistently with the rest of the population

Classical liberalism adopts a more “laissez-faire” stance when it comes to the state while modern liberalism would prefer the state to be more present. In this aspect, both strands disagree to the point where it could even be argued that modern liberalism has taken the complete route of what classical liberalism first intended.

Nabil Winarso