Evaluate the different interpretations of the role of the state Essay

There atomic number 18 m both different views about what the spot of the kingdom is and should be. All mainstream parties require concluded that in that location is some(a) choose for wellbeing sustenance in a modern day wanton democracy. However with historical variations to each ideology it is sometime difficult to conclave an ideology as one. Also many variations agree with other ideologic variations. The social occasion of the land is a controversial issue with many differing ideas. breaked-down conservatism stresses the importance of a strong state in roam to maintain and uphold society. Authority and tradition are embedded in the state and act as the state to hold it together. Although Burke is a strong advocator of this view it is clear that from such a role the state could become a totalitarian state, especially with Conservatives believing that universe born into society simply means you must follow its rule. A lit crit of this view would be found in kindica l barren ideology, with theorists such as Locke and Hobbs that would get by that by having a strong state individualistic tolerantdoms were being wear away away. Also by no having any wellbeing provisions they were upholding a strong state that was full on inequality and exploitation of the working class especially during industrialisation.A one-nation betterment because emerged that tried to solve some of the criticisms of traditional conservative ideology. Having a state as a welfare bearr was a name principle to this variation. It is much he same as modern liberalism in the idea of nurtureing the working classes. However where as modern liberals valued to liberate the working class from social evils to give them back their relievedom, one-nation conservatives were more concerned with a social uprising by the lower coiffes (Disraeli) and because called for a more paternalistic approach to the state in lay out to protect the very make up of society.Never the less this value of welfare can be criticised mainly by classical liberals who state that individual freedoms were being restricted once again because of the welfare provisions being placed on individuals. As a result the criticism of a nurse state caused the raw(a) Right conservatives to emerge. They bankd in drive the state as night watchmen, with free markets. However they have an incompatible set of ideals as on that point are also different strands of New Right conservatism. Neo-conservatives call for a strong but minimal state, ii things that contradict each other, where as neo-liberals call for minimal state and free markets. It is clear that this most recent form of conservative ideology is not coherent.Modern liberal ideology is one that has been subscribed to by both one-nation conservatives and social democrats, and is clearly a viable choice of role for the state. atomic number 19 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 doesnt provide any safe guard against social inequality, by providing a welfare state. It also avoids the possibility of unrest and revolution from the lower orders. Anarchists would argue that no state is required and put trust in the good temperament of humans in makening a society. I agree to some extent with Paine (classical liberal) that the state is a necessary evil but I see the state as more of a safety net, there to protect when needed.Modern liberals believe that a welfare state answers the misgiving of removing social inequalities, where as Marxists believe that removing the state initially is the answer. By compositionly redistributing wealth among society and eventually dissolving the state, it aims to negociate an unfair class system, as it sees itself. However in order to achieve this stateless state, a strong state is required in order to implement it other ideology that doesnt have a co nsistent set of ideas.I also believe that Marxism goes too 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 know what are actual needs are. We have our felt needs such as the vote and welfare provision, but we lack freedom for class oppression. This profligate of argument 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 course credit in that they are attempting to eat class oppression which I believe is a credible aim but on the other hand the ideology is incoherent and difficult to imagine people subscribing to.Less radical forms of socialism are influenced by Marx but take a more practical approach to implementing his ideas. Social democrats see the capitalist economy 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 change is required, and equality of opportunity is focused on which is contrasting 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 align the state to promote more equality for women. Clearly the aim to eradicate social inequality is plausible but the amount of state interpolation into the economy in order to achieve this aim is just too greater price to pay for total equality.In 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 i ts citizens whilst still allowing them individual freedoms. Although there is a clear argument that by imposing a welfare state individual freedoms are wear away but this is a small price to pay in order to protect against rebellion and unrest.But 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 modeling 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 doesnt seek to become a nanny state such as one-nation conservatism, but one that puts protection of individual freedoms at the forefront of its ideas would be a desirable way to run a state.