'Evaluate the different interpretations of the role of the state Essay\r'

'There argon me very polar views about what the situation of the kingdom is and should be. All mainstream parties grow concluded that in that location is most motif for well universeness provisions in a modern day unspecific democracy. However with historical variations to each political theory it is sometime difficult to group an ideology as one. Also many variations agree with other ideological variations. The role of the domain is a controversial go external with many differing ideas.\r\nTraditional conservatism stresses the importance of a strong dry land in redact to adjudge and uphold society. Authority and tradition are engraft in the take and act as the express to hold it together. Although Burke is a strong pleader of this view it is clear that from such a role the verbalize could become a totalitarian state, curiously with Conservatives believing that being born into society merely means you must follow its rule. A comment of this view would be fou nd in unsullied freehand ideology, with theorists such as Locke and Hobbs that would lay out that by having a strong state several(prenominal) freedoms were being eroded away. Also by no having any eudaimonia provisions they were upholding a strong state that was respectable on inequality and exploitation of the workings set especially during industrialisation.\r\nA one-nation set out whence emerged that tried to solve some of the criticisms of traditional cautious ideology. Having a state as a well-being provider was a key principle to this variation. It is untold he same as modern liberalism in the idea of protecting the working crystallizees. However where as modern liberals wanted to liberate the working class from cordial evils to give them back their freedom, one-nation conservatives were to a greater extent relate with a companionable uprising by the write down orders (Disraeli) and therefore called for a to a greater extent paternalistic approach to the sta te in order to protect the very make up of society.\r\nNever the less(prenominal) this progress of upbeat can be criticised mainly by classical liberals who state that individual freedoms were being circumscribe once again because of the welfare provisions being placed on individuals. As a get out the criticism of a ‘nanny’ state caused the fresh Right conservatives to emerge. They believed in micturate the state as night watchmen, with free markets. However they have an inconsistent set of ideals as there are besides different strands of New Right conservatism. Neo-conservatives call for a strong however minimal state, two things that vary each other, where as neo-liberals call for minimal state and free markets. It is clear that this most recent make water of conservative ideology is not coherent.\r\n advanced liberal ideology is one that has been subscribed to by both(prenominal) one-nation conservatives and social democrats, and is clearly a viable plectr on of role for the state. kelvin and Hohouse call for a need for a welfare state to free those who are exploited through industrialisation. It answers the criticism of Classical liberalism, that doesn’t provide any safe guard against social inequality, by providing a welfare state. It also avoids the hatchway of unrest and revolution from the lower orders. Anarchists would argue that no state is required and put trust in the good nature of humans in foot race a society. I agree to some effect with Paine (classical liberal) that the state is a ‘necessary evil’ only I see the state as more of a safety net, there to protect when need.\r\nModern liberals believe that a welfare state answers the perplexity of removing social inequalities, where as Marxists believe that removing the state initially is the answer. By basally redistri provideding wealth among society and ultimately dissolving the state, it aims to eradicate an unfair class system, as it sees its elf. However in order to procure this stateless state, a strong state is required in order to implement it! Another ideology that doesn’t have a consistent set of ideas.\r\nI also believe that Marxism goes overly far and encroaches too much on individual freedom. Never the less Gramsci would argue that because we are living in a liberal democracy we do not chouse what are demonstrable needs are. We have our matte up needs such as the vote and welfare provision, but we lack freedom for class oppression. This subscriber line of line of products is flawed however because there is in this case then no-one who has no been influenced by a liberal democracy to inform us of what our actual needs are. Marxist ideology does have some credit in that they are attempting to eradicate class oppression which I believe is a reasonable aim but on the other conk the ideology is incoherent and difficult to imagine mess subscribing to.\r\nLess radical forms of socialism are influenced by Marx but take a more practical approach to implementing his ideas. Social democrats see the capitalist economic system as a part of the state but wish to humanise it to eradicate exploitation. Much as modern liberals attempted to do by implementing a welfare system. However a gradual diverge is required, and equality of opportunity is counseled on; which is secern to democratic socialism who believes in a radical redistribution of wealth by taxation and nationalisation, with a focus on opportunity of outcome. Classical liberals would criticise this because by imposing such a large state, individual freedoms are being ignored. However feminists may argue that a radical change to the state may allow them to adapt the state to promote more equality for women. Clearly the aim to eradicate social inequality is plausible but the amount of state intervention into the economy in order to achieve this aim is just too greater worth to pay for total equality.\r\nIn conclusion there is a clear consensus that a welfare state has its merits in a liberal democracy. It is the modern liberal approach, that both one-nation conservatism and social democrats have been influenced by, that protects its citizens whilst compose allowing them individual freedoms. Although there is a clear argument that by imposing a welfare state individual freedoms are eroded but this is a small price to pay in order to protect against rebellion and unrest.\r\nBut as Hobhouse and Green would highlight, a welfare state s needed to protect the individual freedoms that are eroded away through free capitalist societies. Although social democrats have a strength to their argument for a full remake of the economy and the framework of society I believe this goes too far. To remove the class system, would be to remove tradition and that is not necessary in order to protect individual freedoms, it could even go some way to eroding them further. A welfare state that doesn’t seek to become a ‘nanny’ state such as one-nation conservatism, but one that puts protection of individual freedoms at the point of its ideas would be a desirable way to assort a state.\r\n'