The Individual & The State (week 11)

Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. People sympathetic to Marx are likely to argue that freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities, and that this perhaps requires some kind of active state intervention to make sure that we are free to make our own economic choices. What are your thoughts on this?
 

 

I think there's something to be said for both of these arguments, but I don't think either one of them is perfect. It's all very fine saying you don't want to be forced to do anything by the state, but I think it's a matter of finding the right balance. Laws do serve a purpose - we're all protected by laws against assault, theft, murder etc.  If classic liberals think their freedom is being threatened whenever the state requires something of them, then I think they're asking for too much freedom. For example, I think anyone who wants a gun ought to be background checked and licensed, and if that's something they consider to be too intrusive, then too bad. Obviously some level of control is in everyone's interest.

But then Marx goes to the other extreme. He makes a good case for state involvement at a very high level, but I think he goes too far, too. If the state controls too much of your life, including how much work you have to do, and how the product of your labor is divided, and if the benefits are shared equally among everyone, then there's no incentive for anyone to strive for anything.You may be protected from poverty, which is great, of course, and the idea of everyone pulling their weight, sharing their food, sharing their money etc, sounds very fair - but if it's not a choice, if it's something you are forced to do, and everyone else is forced to do the same thing, then even if the conditions are good, I think you'd start to feel like a prisoner with no options, and not very free at all.