Liberty and Modern Society
Will Spence
Good governance is unthinkable without the power of a state. There is an ineluctable requirement for sound societal and economic management and an arbitrator with a legitimate monopoly of force 1 , usable if ever social push comes to political shove or political and diplomatic means of conflict resolution are exhausted. The contrary view - that there are a number of Âinvisible handsÊ (Adam Smith) that may do the necessary jobs without the state - is indubitably misguided; not least because experience shows that while state-like powers can be devolved or privatized, they nonetheless require democratic legitimacy and transparency to be seen as ÂfairÊ. So there are problems; problems of logic arising from internal contradictions and about what alternatives to strong state presence might imply. This essay addresses such issues in an effort to demonstrate that there are clear risks to freedom arising from unfettered state power. Mill contended that freedom Âconsists in doing what one desiresÊ, sothe mere existence of the state as a regulatory body is an undeniable limitation to personal freedom if a condition of individual freedom is the ultimate threat of state punishment. We cannot, however, dispense with the notion of the state because of this seeming contradiction, for without centralized coercive instruments, ready in the wings of the political and social theatre, ÂfreedomÊ and its associated rights are nothing more than non-enforceable ideals. Do such contradictions, however necessary, mean anarchy is the logical answer? Hardly. Some degree of retribution for heinous acts is necessary if adequate protection against infringements to citizensÊ rights is to be provided and the freedom of the individual
protected. Isaiah Berlin believed politics should be concerned solely with the maximization of freedom, not the implementation of conditions under which freedom can be exercised. The crucial point is whether the relationship between state power and individual freedom has become unbalanced in modern society, and, if so, whether there is conceivable ÂbetterÊ way to meet the challenge of guaranteeing controlled governance without undermining the principle of freedom itself. There are many ways the state can limit political freedom, and thus several caveats to be considered. First, in a democracy, a government (i.e. the state) must obtain a majority of the peopleÊs votes. This majority represents formal consent, supposedly embodying a morally acceptable position, where the constraint of allowing the monopoly of force to reside in the state is made legitimate by democracy. Thus, before assessing the legitimacy of a governmentÊs actions once elected, we must examine how governments in a liberal democracy achieve their legitimacy. We suppose a decision is taken freely and that individuals have choices i.e. a range of parties eligible for election. This ensures voters can decide ÂfreelyÊ. The problem is that at its most fundamental level this is an illusion. Although every voter has a choice between different regimes, the choice to withdraw from the system all-together is non-existent. When we are born we are registered with a birth certificate, and from that point we must obey government directives. That there is no freedom to withdraw from the state system raises questions over how much free will we truly have in giving consent. Of course, we can abstain (in the United Kingdom), but then we may find ourselves in a state ruled by tyranny of the majority. What does an anarchist do in a society where
1 For definition of state see Max WeberÊs ÂPolitics as a VocationÊ (1919)
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker