The Liberal State

(Taken from Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies; An Introduction, p33)

Liberals do not believe that a balanced and tolerant society will develop naturally out of the free actions of individuals and voluntary associations. This is where liberals disagree with anarchists, who believe that both law and government are unnecessary. Liberals fear that free individuals may wish to exploit others, steal their property or even turn them into slaves if it is in their interests to do so. They may also break or ignore their contracts when it is to their advantage.

The liberty of one person is always therefore in danger of becoming a licence to abuse another; each person can be said to be both a threat to and under threat from every other member of society. Our liberty requires that they are restrained from encroaching upon our freedom, and in turn their liberty requires that they are safeguarded from us. Liberals have traditionally believed that such protection can only be provided by a sovereign state, capable of restraining all individuals and groups within society. Freedom can therefore only exist ‘under the law’; as John Locke put it, ‘where there is no law there is no freedom’.

This argument is the basis of the social contract theories, developed by seventeenth-century writers such as Thomas Hobbes (see p. 76) and John Locke, which, for liberals, explains the individual’s political obligations towards the state. Hobbes and Locke constructed a picture of what life had been like before government was formed, in a stateless society or what they calleda ‘state of nature’. As individuals are selfish, greedy and power-seeking, the state of nature would be characterized by an unending civil war of each against all, in which, in Hobbes’ words, human life would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. As a result, they argued, rational individuals would enter into an agreement, or ‘social contract’, to establish a sovereign government, without which orderly and stable life would be impossible. All individuals would recognize that it is in their interests to sacrifice a portion of their liberty in order to set up a system of law; otherwise their rights, and indeed their lives, would constantly be under threat.

Hobbes and Locke were aware that this ‘contract’ is a historical fiction. The purpose of the social contract argument, however, is to highlight the value of the sovereign state to the individual. In other words Hobbes and Locke wished individuals to behave as if the historical fiction were true, by respecting and obeying government and law, in gratitude for the safety and security that only a sovereign state can provide.

The social contract argument embodies several important liberal attitudes towards the state in particular and political authority in general. In the first place, it suggests that in a sense political authority comes ‘from below’. The state is created by individuals and for individuals; it exists in order to serve their needs and interests. Government arises out of the agreement, or consent, of the governed. This implies that citizens do not have an absolute obligation to obey all laws or accept any form of government. If government is based upon a contract, made by the governed, government itself may break the terms of this contract. When the legitimacy of government evaporates, the people have the right of rebellion. This principle was developed by Locke in Two Treatises of Government ([1690] 1962) and was used to justify the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which deposed James II and established a constitutional monarchy in Britain under William and Mary. It was also clearly expressed by Thomas Jefferson (see p. 49) in the American Declaration of Independence (1776), which declares that when government becomes an absolute despotism ‘it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it’.

Second, social contract theory portrays the state as an umpire or neutral referee in society. The state is not created by a privileged elite, wishing to exploit the masses, but out of an agreement amongst all the people. The state therefore embodies the interests of all its citizens and acts as a neutral arbiter when individuals or groups come into conflict with one another. For example if individuals break contracts made with others the state applies the ‘rules of the game’ and enforces the terms of the contract, provided, of course, each party had entered into the contract voluntarily and in full knowledge. The essential characteristic of any such umpire is that its actions are, and are seen to be, impartial. Liberals thus regard the state as a neutral arbiter amongst the competing individuals and groups within society.

STRETCH & CHALLENGE:

1. Summarise the social contract theory put forward by John Locke.
   

2. Below is Adam Smith’s view of what the three legitimate functions of the state are. What is not included here?
   • Maintaining a system of justice
   • Defence against foreign aggression
   • Maintaining public works
3. What are the implications for the social contract theory in practice?