liberalism

Views on the role of the State Liberalism

1)Agree economy

John locke

John Rawls

Both classical and modern liberals agree that capitalism and the free market are the best ways to distribute resources because they protect economic freedom — a core liberal value that allows individuals to pursue their own interests, encouraging innovation and progress. Classical liberal John Locke argued that protecting private property is essential to freedom, stating that governments must preserve “life, liberty and estate” (Two Treatises of Government, 1689). Similarly, modern liberal John Rawls recognised the value of markets but believed they should work to benefit everyone, especially the disadvantaged. He argued that “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged” (A Theory of Justice, 1971). This shows while both support a capitalist system based on individual freedom, they differ on how much state intervention is needed. Making them more different making it a weak agreement as with classical liberals favouring minimal interference and modern liberals supporting regulation to ensure fairness, this show they have completely different views on how the state should run the economy.

1) Agree in the role of the state

Promotes equality (opportunity vs outcome)

Both classical and modern liberals broadly agree that the state should promote equality, particularly through the belief that all individuals are of equal moral worth and that society should be organised around meritocracy — where individuals succeed based on ability and effort. This reflects the liberal principle of foundational equality, which holds that everyone deserves equal rights under the law. Classical liberal John Locke supported this idea, arguing that all individuals are “equal and independent” and that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Two Treatises of Government, 1689). Similarly, modern liberal Betty Friedan championed legal and social equality, particularly for women, stating in The Feminine Mystique (1963) that “a girl should not expect special privileges because of her sex but neither should she adjust to prejudice and discrimination.” Both strands therefore share a belief in equal legal status and meritocratic opportunity, though modern liberals go further by advocating state intervention to remove structural barriers to equality. In conclusion, while classical and modern liberals differ in how to achieve equality, they both value the principle that individuals should be judged by merit and enjoy equal rights and worth under the law.

2) Disagree more on the role of the state

how the state effect the economy

John Locke

John Rawls

Classical and modern liberals sharply disagree on the extent of state intervention in the economy. Classical liberals support a minimal ‘night-watchman’ state focused on protecting property, law, and order, fearing that too much power threatens individual liberty. John Locke argued, “whenever law ends, tyranny begins” (Two Treatises of Government, 1689), showing his belief that the state should not interfere beyond essential functions. In contrast, modern liberals argue that unregulated markets lead to inequality and instability. Influenced by Keynesian economics, they support intervention to promote fairness and correct market failures.

However, influenced by Keynesian economics, they support state intervention to correct market failures, promote full employment, and ensure a fairer distribution of wealth. John Rawls argued for redistributive policies to benefit the least advantaged, stating that “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are… to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged” (A Theory of Justice, 1971). In conclusion, while both strands value individual freedom, classical liberals see state intervention as a threat to liberty, whereas modern liberals see it as essential for creating the conditions in which freedom and equality can truly flourish — highlighting a fundamental and lasting divide within liberalism.

2) Disagree on role of the state

Classical and modern liberals differ sharply in their views on the role of the state in addressing economic inequality. Classical liberals believe the state should play a minimal role, arguing that economic inequality is a natural result of individual freedom, talent, and effort. They prioritise equality of opportunity, but any further intervention—such as redistribution—is seen as an unjust infringement on liberty. John Locke defended private property as a natural right, stating that “every man has a property in his own person” (Two Treatises of Government, 1689), suggesting the state should protect, not redistribute, wealth earned through individual labour. In contrast, modern liberals argue that the state must actively intervene to reduce economic inequality, as deprivation can restrict positive freedom and prevent genuine equality of opportunity. John Rawls’ Theory of Justice proposed the “difference principle,” which holds that inequalities are only justifiable if they benefit the least advantaged, justifying redistribution to ensure fair life chances. Similarly, Betty Friedan supported state-backed positive discrimination to help disadvantaged groups overcome structural barriers, believing this was necessary to “level the playing field” (The Feminine Mystique, 1963). In conclusion, classical liberals see the state as a threat to liberty when it intervenes in economic matters, while modern liberals view state intervention as essential to achieving real freedom and justice—highlighting a deep divide in their approach to inequality.

To what extent do liberal agree on the economy

1)Agree on a capitalist system and free market

classical and modern liberals agree on their support for capitalism, particularly the free-market economy, as the best system for protecting individual liberty and allowing people to benefit from their own efforts. This shared support is rooted in liberalism’s core values of individualism, rationality, and liberty. Classical liberal John Locke argued that individuals have natural rights, including the right to private property, stating that everyone is “entitled to the fruits of their own labour” (Two Treatises of Government, 1689). This principle justifies a capitalist system where individuals can freely acquire and use wealth without excessive state interference. Modern liberals, while more open to regulation, also support capitalism for its ability to promote equality of opportunity and individual advancement. Mary Wollstonecraft, for example, argued that women must be given equal access to education and opportunity within a free society, stating that “I do not wish women to have power over men, but over themselves” (A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, 1792). This reflects the modern liberal view that capitalism, when paired with equal opportunity, enables all individuals to flourish in a meritocratic society. In conclusion, despite their differences over state intervention, both classical and modern liberals accept capitalism as the most effective system for preserving individual liberty and encouraging personal development, showing a core ideological agreement on economic freedom.

2)Disagree

State interview

Classical and modern liberals sharply disagree on the role of the state in the economy. Classical liberals support a minimal ‘night-watchman’ state, believing that too much government threatens negative freedom. John Locke warned, “wherever law ends, tyranny begins” (Two Treatises of Government, 1689), reflecting fears that state power could undermine liberty. They favour laissez-faire capitalism, trusting that free markets lead to innovation and wealth creation. In contrast, modern liberals argue that unregulated markets cause inequality and instability. They support state intervention to promote fairness, correct market failures, and protect the vulnerable. John Rawls argued that inequalities are only just if they “benefit the least advantaged” (A Theory of Justice, 1971). In conclusion, classical liberals view state interference as a danger to freedom, while modern liberals see it as necessary to ensure real equality and economic justice.

2)Disagree

equality in the economy

Classical and modern liberals strongly disagree on how to address economic inequality. Classical liberals view it as a natural result of individual talent and effort, believing state interference undermines liberty. John Locke argued that “every man has a property in his own person” (Two Treatises of Government, 1689), supporting the idea that individuals should keep the rewards of their labour. In contrast, modern liberals believe inequality can limit opportunity and freedom. John Rawls’ Theory of Justice introduced the “difference principle,” arguing inequalities are only just if they benefit the least advantaged. Betty Friedan also supported greater opportunity for disadvantaged groups, especially women, to ensure equality of opportunity. In conclusion, classical liberals reject state redistribution, while modern liberals see it as necessary to achieve real fairness—revealing a clear divide in liberal thinking.

3) To what extent do liberals agree on human nature

1) Agree

Equality

Both classical and modern liberals agree that the state should be based on a social contract, where individuals consent to government in order to protect their liberty, provided they do not harm others. John Locke argued that people enter a social contract to protect their natural rights, stating, “men being by nature all free, equal and independent… [they] must be supposed to consent to make one body politic” (Two Treatises of Government, 1689). If the state fails to serve the people’s interests, liberals believe that consent can be withdrawn. Modern liberals like John Rawls build on this, suggesting that individuals behind a ‘veil of ignorance’—unaware of their social position—would choose a system that protects both liberty and the least advantaged. He argued that “justice is the first virtue of social institutions” (A Theory of Justice, 1971), supporting a state that balances freedom with fairness. Both strands also accept John Stuart Mill’s harm principle, which limits state interference to only preventing harm to others, preserving individual autonomy. In conclusion, despite differences in how they view the role of the state, both classical and modern liberals agree it should be built on consent, protect liberty, and be limited in power—highlighting a key area of ideological unity.

1) Agree on human nature

optimistic view capable of self improvement

Both classical and modern liberals share a broadly optimistic view of human nature, believing individuals are rational, capable of self-improvement, and should be free to make their own choices. Classical liberal John Locke believed that humans are guided by reason and can govern themselves, stating that people are “by nature all free, equal and independent” (Two Treatises of Government, 1689), capable of forming a civil society through consent. This rational view underpins liberal support for individual freedom and limited government. Modern liberals share this belief but recognise that some individuals may need support to fully realise their potential. John Rawls argued that a just society should account for social inequalities to give everyone a fair chance, suggesting that under a ‘veil of ignorance’, rational individuals would choose a society that supports the disadvantaged (A Theory of Justice, 1971). Both strands also reflect John Stuart Mill’s belief in individual growth and self-development, so long as others are not harmed. In conclusion, while modern liberals are more aware of barriers to individual development, both strands agree that humans are rational beings deserving of freedom and dignity.

2) Disagree

View on the state and how they address

Classical and modern liberals’ disagreement over economic inequality is closely linked to their differing views on human nature. Classical liberals have a more individualistic and optimistic view, believing that people are naturally rational and capable of succeeding through their own talents and efforts. This leads them to see inequality as a natural and justified outcome of freedom and competition, where individuals are responsible for their own success or failure. John Locke’s emphasis on property rights reflects this belief in personal responsibility and self-ownership (Two Treatises of Government, 1689). In contrast, modern liberals have a more nuanced view of human nature, recognising that not everyone starts from an equal position and that social or economic disadvantages can limit individual potential. Because of this, they support state intervention to help the less advantaged, enabling them to fully realise their capabilities. John Rawls’ “difference principle” embodies this view by prioritising fairness for the least advantaged (A Theory of Justice, 1971). Thus, the disagreement over economic inequality stems from classical liberals’ faith in individual autonomy versus modern liberals’ recognition of social constraints on human development, highlighting deeper differences in their understanding of human nature and freedom.

2)Disagree

human nature and the role of the state

Classical and modern liberals differ in their views on human nature, which shapes their ideas about the role of the state. Classical liberal John Locke saw humans as fully rational and self-reliant individuals capable of making decisions in their own best interest. This justifies a ‘night-watchman’ state limited to protecting law, order, and property, allowing individuals freedom to act without interference—reflecting a belief in negative liberty and egoistical individualism. Locke argued that “every man has a property in his own person” (Two Treatises of Government, 1689), emphasizing personal responsibility and minimal state control. Modern liberals, however, acknowledge that while humans are rational, many face structural barriers such as poverty or lack of education, which limit their ability to make truly free choices. John Rawls supported an enabling state that helps individuals develop their capacities, promoting positive liberty. He stated that society should ensure “fair equality of opportunity” (A Theory of Justice, 1971). This reflects developmental individualism, where the state plays a vital role in creating conditions for personal growth. In conclusion, the classical focus on individual self-reliance contrasts with modern liberals’ belief in a supportive state to overcome social obstacles and foster genuine freedom.