This essay will argue that liberal strands disagree over the state to a large extent. The two strands, classical and modern, agree that the government should serve the people but disagree on how much intervention this should allow for and how this will impact their desired freedom.

All liberals believe that the state, albeit limited, is a necessary evil among society. Due to humans’ innate rationality, the state is an institution created under the mechanistic theory, it is by man for man and works under a consensual government. Locke highlights this by exposing the social contract, in which individuals agree to sacrifice a fraction of autonomy in return for rights protection, mainly of life, liberty and property. If the state does not exercise their share of the contract, society has the right to revolt. Therefore, it is clear that both modern and classical liberals share the same value for a minimal state, for where there is no law, there is no freedom.

However, classical liberals and modern liberals disagree greatly on the role of the state within society. Classical liberals believe in a very minimal, nights watchman state whereby the individual can use their own rationality to make reasoned decisions. John Stuart Mill highlights a ‘harm principle’ this concludes that the only regulation within society is if one’s autonomy is harming others; if not, there should be no involvement at all. By contrast, modern liberals believe that further state intervention will benefit the individual within society and help further expand one’s decision making to succeed in a meritocratic society. For example, Betty Friedan implores that without state funded childcare, women (who are equal to men in society) wouldn’t be able to explore their individual freedom and would further restrict a section of the population. Therefore, we can infer that although liberals may hold similar views on state regulation, classical liberals are much more sceptical of power and therefore prefer little to no interference.

Furthermore, the different factions of liberalism have juxtaposing views on how the state is involved within the economy. On one hand, classical liberals believe that any intervention within the economy is damaging to the pristine Laissez-faire system. Man must hold the ability to trade freely for mutual benefit, this is only achievable with no regulation or tariffs. The necessity for a welfare state, funded by taxation and redistribution of wealth, is simply daylight robbery. In our meritocratic society, the individual gains assets through hard work, so if the state are nannying the disadvantaged, they’re imply going to create a culture of dependency and laziness. Adam Smith highlights that the success of those in society will ‘trickle down’ and aid the lazy. However, modern liberals believe that in an age of growing wealth divide, meritocracy is no longer a natural part within society. Instead, the state must tax the wealthy and redistribute these earnings to ensure equality of opportunity. John Rawls suggests that behind our veil of ignorance, every individual wishes to see a society where the worst off are well off. By developing their living, these men will eventually become assets to society and aid the prosperity of capitalism. Therefore, we can conclude that modern liberals see the benefit in developmental individualism and believe this is only achieved through mutual responsibility and altruism.

In conclusion, it is clear that liberals disagree to a large extent on the state. While classical and modern liberals agree on a relatively limited state, there are differences amongst the strands on the scope of its role. Classical liberals understand the need for a state in diverting crime and deviance but feel as if it must be kept to a minimal, nightwatchman, state. Modern liberals however see the need for a state as an enabler, to provide opportunity for others and advance progress.

Nora