 |
| Image credit. Continued from Attempts at Liberty (5) - Themes - Government and the State |
The below is a preliminary survey of John Gray's take on the state from the perspective of liberalism - this is not a draft of my own manuscript of the pertinent chapter in Attempts at Liberty". I treat the terms "government" and "the state" synonymously.
In chapter 9 of "Liberalism," John Gray discusses "The Liberal State."
First, Gray states unequivocally that a liberal state must be one of limited government, since in a liberal order individuals are invested with rights that need to be respected or indeed enforced by the state. The rights of the individual entail the possibility of invoking them against the government.
It is my task to work out the special aspect that freedom requires the state, and what that requirements implies in terms of limited government.
Second, Gray makes the point that limited government is not the same as minimal government. I suppose, this is to mean that, in principle, the state may assume a vast array of responsibilities so long as these tasks are suitably limited by constraints ensuring that the quintessentially liberal rights of the citizenry are taken account of and protected.
Gray suggests that authors like
As far as the logic of liberty goes, the replacement of minimalism by limitedness is compelling. Freedom is not helped by truncating the state but by limiting its competences.
It is an interesting thought which I ought to pursue further in my chapter on "The State" that freedom actually conditions a vast expansion of the state (with limited government). Incidentally here, we see the sense in differentiating between state (provider of goods and services) and government (ruler). There is no inherent reason to inhibit the extent to which the state provides as long as the government is limited to competences compatible with freedom.
Public Perception Fixed on Extremes
First, among influential liberal authors, such as Hayek and von Mises, we do find minarchism, sometimes tempered by concessions to a larger state, but overall embedded in an almost schizophrenic pattern, such that the same author presents himself soon as a minarchist and soon as tolerating a more extensive state.
Concessions allowing for a more extensive range of government responsibilities notwithstanding, there is a strong tendency among these authors to emphasise in public discussion the starker minarchist interpretations of liberalism and equate them with the substance of the liberal tradition - admittedly, an abuse encouraged by Janus-faced liberals like Hayek and von Mises, and countless of their adherents.
Last but not least, we observe abuse of the more complete and more balanced original liberal stance by many of their modern successors, both by minarchists and by left-leaning "liberals," in that the former effectively treat the state with inimical scepticism, while the latter often betray a lack of vigilance with respect to the state's destructive potential.
By the logic of feasible freedom, the state is part of the fabric of liberty. It requires grooming and cultivation, though, to do justice to its basal function in the order of freedom.
To be continued at Government, the State, and Freedom (2) - John Gray's Account
First, Gray states unequivocally that a liberal state must be one of limited government, since in a liberal order individuals are invested with rights that need to be respected or indeed enforced by the state. The rights of the individual entail the possibility of invoking them against the government.
It is my task to work out the special aspect that freedom requires the state, and what that requirements implies in terms of limited government.
Second, Gray makes the point that limited government is not the same as minimal government. I suppose, this is to mean that, in principle, the state may assume a vast array of responsibilities so long as these tasks are suitably limited by constraints ensuring that the quintessentially liberal rights of the citizenry are taken account of and protected.
Gray suggests that authors like
Humboldt, Spencer and Nozick, have argued, it is true, that the functions of the state must of necessity be restricted to the protection of rights and the upholding of justice, but this position has no clear warrant in liberal principles and is a minority view within the liberal tradition.Frankly, I am not well read enough to confirm or attack the suggestion that minimal state positions represent a minority view. While popular liberalism/libertarianism and even conservatism in the US suggest otherwise, Stephen Holmes clearly supports Gray's statement to the extent that weighty liberal thinkers are concerned.
Gray, J. (2010) Liberalism p. 70, emphases added
As far as the logic of liberty goes, the replacement of minimalism by limitedness is compelling. Freedom is not helped by truncating the state but by limiting its competences.
It is an interesting thought which I ought to pursue further in my chapter on "The State" that freedom actually conditions a vast expansion of the state (with limited government). Incidentally here, we see the sense in differentiating between state (provider of goods and services) and government (ruler). There is no inherent reason to inhibit the extent to which the state provides as long as the government is limited to competences compatible with freedom.
Most liberals, and all the great classical liberals, acknowledge that the liberal state may have a range of service functions, going beyond rights-protection and the upholding of justice, and for this reason are not advocates of the minimum state but rather of limited government.This is very important, because public perception does not reflect this.
Ibid. p. 70/71
Public Perception Fixed on Extremes
First, among influential liberal authors, such as Hayek and von Mises, we do find minarchism, sometimes tempered by concessions to a larger state, but overall embedded in an almost schizophrenic pattern, such that the same author presents himself soon as a minarchist and soon as tolerating a more extensive state.
Concessions allowing for a more extensive range of government responsibilities notwithstanding, there is a strong tendency among these authors to emphasise in public discussion the starker minarchist interpretations of liberalism and equate them with the substance of the liberal tradition - admittedly, an abuse encouraged by Janus-faced liberals like Hayek and von Mises, and countless of their adherents.
Last but not least, we observe abuse of the more complete and more balanced original liberal stance by many of their modern successors, both by minarchists and by left-leaning "liberals," in that the former effectively treat the state with inimical scepticism, while the latter often betray a lack of vigilance with respect to the state's destructive potential.
By the logic of feasible freedom, the state is part of the fabric of liberty. It requires grooming and cultivation, though, to do justice to its basal function in the order of freedom.
To be continued at Government, the State, and Freedom (2) - John Gray's Account
No comments:
Post a Comment