Minimum State vs. Limited State

Most liberals, and all the classical liberals, recognise that the liberal state may have array of service functions, going beyond rights. Protection and the maintenance of justice, and for this reason are not advocates of the minimum state but rather of limited government. Many supporters of liberal state do not argue for the minimal state. The role of the state shifted in the eighties of the nineteenth century. In spite of this J. S. Mill is regarded as the principal advocate of liberal state because he was in favour of limiting the powers of state.

The role or the functions of the liberal state changed drastically. The changes were perceptible during the eighties and nineties of the nineteenth century.

There are several causes to these changes:

1. Due to the industrial revolution that occurred in the second half of the eighteenth century unparalleled growth took place in various sectors, some of which were setting up of new industries, amount of commodities produced, development in the transport sector, foreign trade etc. Manufacturers garnered profit which was unconceivable in earlier periods.

2. Workers migrated from village homes and to crowded cities for jobs and all of a sudden the supply market of the workers increased significantly.

3. The demand for the employees at the initial stages of industrial development was upward moving and there was no problem of joblessness. But later on the demand for labour declined causing the fall in wage rate.

4. Huge gap between demand and supply was fully exploited by the capitalists. They paid less wages to the employees and the latter were forced to accept the terms and conditions set by the capitalists. The scope of employment decreased enormously. The capitalists had already established their stronghold in various sectors of government.

The greater part of the population was effectively underprivileged of benefits and was subject to abject poverty, diseases etc. All the industrialised countries of Europe were the victims of industrial revolution. But the greatest victim perhaps was London. The industrial revolution in Europe seemed as a curse and this brought about a gloom in the minds of many people and particularly the idealist thinkers.

The Role of the State was reassessed during that time. Green and many theorists started to think over the issue seriously. They wanted to save the "underfed denizen of a London Yard" and to take measures against moral deprivation. They thought that stern steps would be taken to solve the issues of poverty, miseries, and diseases, and to check the downward movement of ethics. Without moral development, society cannot develop. Green believed that all these could be done through the bold leadership of the state.

Sabine stated that "Accordingly for Green, politics was essentially an agency for creating social conditions that make moral development possible". Green asserted that the state has a positive role to play in the development of society and the term development includes both moral and physical conditions. The state can never be a stranded onlooker of all incidents that were happening in its presence. If the state fails to do it, it will lose its reliability as a state. T. H. Green restructured the role of the state and also the concept of liberalism.

In the end of the nineteenth century, the liberal state was challenged with crisis of existence and crisis of trustworthiness. Different external and internal forces in Europe were about to challenge the very foundation of several liberal states of Europe. Predominantly, Marxism challenged the policies of liberal state.

The European states were involved among themselves in continuous wars or armed struggle which posed menace to the liberal state. Under such circumstances, the passionate protectors of liberal state were keen to effect a compromise between liberal and "anti-liberal" forces. Anti-liberal in the sense that there arose a strong urge to give more power to the state so that it can fight poverty, inequalities and diseases. But most of the liberal theorists where unwilling to make the state leviathan. This quandary between liberalism and the arguments against it demanded a compromise between the two. It was impossible for many to think of abandoning the liberal philosophy and the same persons thought that the state should do something. This finally resulted in a reformulation of liberal state.

Sabine has observed that the state should perform numerous functions concurrently. These are as follows:

1.      - It will have to do those functions which could help to maintain free society.

2.      - It must see that rights and liberties are properly protected.

3.      - It must encourage the moral development.

4.      - Basic requirements of the citizens are met.

5.      - The state should launch welfare schemes.

6.      - Coercion should be reduced to the minimum.

These functions emphasise that in order to prove its worthiness the state must do all these functions. These will protect the freedom of the individual which is the core concept of liberalism.

Mode of Function:

It is a very significant characteristic of liberal state which can be stated in the following way. There are two ways to do the works. One is democratic or constitutional means such as legal ways, reforms approved by those for whom the reforms are made, and to do everything according to the wishes of the people. Another method is called coercive method. In the case of any slightest reluctance the state, authority will proceed to apply coercive measures. Coercion forces the citizens to do work reluctantly. Coercion is the sine qua non of the government/state. In this respect, a liberal state can reasonably be distinguished from an authoritarian state.

The liberal state always makes sincere attempts to limit the application of forcible measures. Unavoidable circumstances generally include when the state is aggressed upon by an external power or when the political stability is threatened by terrorist forces. In all political systems, there are many classes and liberal state is not an exception. But the authority of a liberal state has taken the existence of classes and the relations among them as the normal manifestation.

Conflict and cooperation among the classes are the usual traits of any class society. A liberal state does not view the class relation in an antagonistic way. Obviously, a liberal state does not think of class struggle or revolution as a means of eliminating the class structure.

A liberal state always emboldens people's participation in the affairs of the state. Only through participation, people can think of transforming their political dreams into a viable reality. In such a state, participation is never limited. For participation the existence of parties, groups and organisations is essential and a liberal state has been found to take care of it. In a real liberal state, there are multiple parties, groups and organisations and the government guarantee their free movement. The institutions, organisations and parties of a liberal state are not isolated islands. All are interdependent and strictly connected with each other. "The political and economic, instead of being distinct areas, are interlaced institutions which are certainly not independent of one another and which ought ideally both to contribute to the ethical purposes of liberal society". It is understandable that a liberal state is not a non-functioning state or an over enthusiastic state in all affairs of the individual. While accomplishing its responsibilities, the liberal state must understand that the spontaneity of the individuals gets reinforcement, morality is improved, rights and liberties are protected, and freedom of the society remains untouched. Conversely, welfare is fully realised, progress is not badly affected. It is the duty of the state to finance compulsory education, health care programmes. The liberal state must indorse law for the better management and greater common good of society.

To summarize, Liberalism highlights that the strong bonds among states have both made it difficult to define national interest and decreased the usefulness of military power. Studies have demonstrated that liberalism developed in the 1970s as some researchers began arguing that realism was obsolete. Liberal state rest on the construction of human beings that exalts their autonomy and aspirations coupled to the assumption that a polity confabulated from such atoms can maximize their economic welfare and secure their freedom (Leonard V. Kaplan, 2010). The heart of liberal theorizing concerns the definition of individual rights and state's role in protecting those rights, analysing such issues depends not only on how one views the source of individual rights but also on how one conceives the state itself.