“In order to protect the liberty of individuals, the role of the state should be minimal” Discuss this view.
“In order to protect the liberty of individuals, the role of the state should be minimal” Discuss this view.
The view that the state should be minimal is primarily that of a libertarian and minarchist point of view, where the individual should be, to the largest extent possible, be free from state interference and that state power should extend only to the point of preserving its citizens negative liberty or freedom from interference. The minarchist view takes this even further and says that the state should confine its operations to being a “neutral umpire” that helps resolve disputes between citizens and protect them from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud. The view effectively reduces to the states power to solely preventing the encroachment of others upon others individual liberty.
One view that could be adopted is that of Hobbes, that is to say, that in a state of nature negative liberties would be minimal because of the “war of all against all”. It is therefore a necessary evil to implement laws which protect the liberty of individual citizens. Without such a law, anarchy would give free rein to individuals in order to exploit each other, which directly contradicts Mill's harm principle. The state is therefore necessary for the realisation of individual liberty, especially negative liberty. A “leviathan” neutral umpire would therefore be required to ensure that citizens are protected from others encroaching upon their individual liberty, in cases such as fraud, theft and aggression. However, it is argued by MIll that the state must remain minimal, since further laws such as curfews etc which are intended to protect the liberty of individuals, would hamper negative liberty, which is not in the best interests of a state's citizens.
In further development of the argument that the role of the state should be minimal, if one takes the stance of Kant in saying that “Human beings are ends in themselves”; it would therefore be logical to
The view that the state should be minimal is primarily that of a libertarian and minarchist point of view, where the individual should be, to the largest extent possible, be free from state interference and that state power should extend only to the point of preserving its citizens negative liberty or freedom from interference. The minarchist view takes this even further and says that the state should confine its operations to being a “neutral umpire” that helps resolve disputes between citizens and protect them from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud. The view effectively reduces to the states power to solely preventing the encroachment of others upon others individual liberty.
One view that could be adopted is that of Hobbes, that is to say, that in a state of nature negative liberties would be minimal because of the “war of all against all”. It is therefore a necessary evil to implement laws which protect the liberty of individual citizens. Without such a law, anarchy would give free rein to individuals in order to exploit each other, which directly contradicts Mill's harm principle. The state is therefore necessary for the realisation of individual liberty, especially negative liberty. A “leviathan” neutral umpire would therefore be required to ensure that citizens are protected from others encroaching upon their individual liberty, in cases such as fraud, theft and aggression. However, it is argued by MIll that the state must remain minimal, since further laws such as curfews etc which are intended to protect the liberty of individuals, would hamper negative liberty, which is not in the best interests of a state's citizens.
In further development of the argument that the role of the state should be minimal, if one takes the stance of Kant in saying that “Human beings are ends in themselves”; it would therefore be logical to