Across the world, governments intervene in many aspects of people’s lives, in a way in which individuals simply may not; they can collect taxes, draft people into the military and decide upon what is illegal and what is not. Governments intervene in society, the economy, in both domestic and international affairs. Yet the question remains: are such actions ever justified? In this essay I will argue yes, despite more libertarian arguments against government intervention, we can most certainly justify it.
Governments will exercise power over people in order to shape current society into a society that the government desires, usually a ‘better’ society, through paternalism – the idea that restrictions enforced by the government have their citizens’ best interests at heart. In liberal democracies such as the UK, Japan and the US, this moulding of society is justified through democratic processes. Governments that are voted into power hold a mandate; they claim legitimacy and authority to intervene as they have the consent of the public to do so.
Government intervention is often heavily criticised as restricting citizens’ freedom. The US political climate is a good example of this view. Many libertarians would share the view that the more of a role the state plays in society, the more an individual’s rights and freedoms are impinged upon. Indeed, even in societies where a larger degree of government intervention is accepted, the UK in comparison to the US for example, there are still boundaries on what would be considered acceptable intervention. The Human Rights Act (HRA) (UKGOV, 1988) of 1998 acts as a strong definition for what government intervention must dare not put into question, such as the right to life, right to education and freedom of expression. In the UK, the HRA was set into law in the year 2000, binding the government to these boundaries. However, there is an important distinction to be made between freedom from government intervention and freedom due to government intervention. The latter is a concept called ‘positive freedom’ (Berlin, 1969), developed and popularised by Isiah Berlin in 1969. Positive freedom is the idea that, though there have been external restraints placed upon you, it is these restraints that grant you the liberty to succeed in society. Take the welfare state or the NHS, though these are funded through taxes, a form of government intervention, they provide everyone with freedom from falling into poverty or from having to pay millions lest you fall ill. This positive freedom that individuals gain from regulations and restraints serves to justify government intervention – the argument that on the whole government intervention is bad for society on the grounds of freedom can easily be countered.
Societal intervention
Government intervention can be justified to protect humans from the state of nature. In Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (Hobbes, 1651), Hobbes defined his version of the state of nature, that is to say what society would be like without government. Life inside such a society would be, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes argued that humans are at heart selfish, driven by personal gain. Though the state of nature is a highly debated issue, good vs bad or altruistic vs egotistic, it is undeniable that human nature falls at least partly on the ‘bad’ or ‘egotistic’ side of the spectrum. If it didn’t, why do we lock our doors before we leave the house? Why are we so afraid to walk alone at night? Through this line of argument, government intervention in society, especially through legislation, can be justified. The government is permitted to determine the laws of the land through paternalism, pushing citizens away from such a dangerous, Hobbesian society and into a more coherent, safer one. We accept that the government is justified in enacting laws that protect the most vulnerable from this state of nature, laws that forbid and discourage hate crime, murder, domestic abuse and burglary to name a few. Individuals need guidance in their behaviour, and intervention when things go wrong. Though the nuance varies across countries, governments will intervene to protect society from falling into the harsh state of nature, they are justified in doing so to protect their citizens from harm.
Financial Intervention
As mentioned earlier, governments intervene not just in society through legislation but in the economy too. It is important to note however that the two are deeply intertwined; intervention in the economy affects all aspects of society, whilst intervention in other aspects of life inevitably affects the economy too. This economic intervention is justified as it is necessary that governments create a base safety net for the neediest in society and protect humans from harmful market forces. There exists two competing trains of thought regarding the economy, clashing over what an economy should achieve and how it should go about doing so. Adam Smith, who many consider the father of modern economics, presented a more free-market approach to the economy in The Wealth of Nations (Smith, 2002). The ‘free-market’ argument is that the economy will reach full capacity and maximum potential through minimal or no intervention – if taxes and regulations are lowered, the market will reach its most natural equilibrium. However, this hands-off approach creates problems. In purely capitalist, free-market societies the wealth gap rises, deepening inequality and lowering living conditions for the poorest. The other model, a more Keynesian mixed economy, that incorporates government intervention within a capitalist economy, is therefore most justifiable option.
Economic intervention protects humans from themselves. Take the example of cigarettes. Smoking causes around 78,000 deaths annually in the UK (NHS, 2018) and are addictive, so the government economically intervenes: cigarettes in the UK are highly taxed (GOVUK, 2021) and are therefore ten times more expensive to buy. Though changing the natural equilibrium in the market for cigarettes, this intervention is justified as it lowers deaths and serious illnesses in a country – ensuring citizens their positive freedom. Economic policies such as the implementation of a national minimum wage protects individuals from an entirely free market; through such measures the government can ensure citizens are not exploited by companies. The two examples above, taxation to protect citizens and intervention to negate exploitation, demonstrate that government intervention in the economy is largely justified. If the government has a mandate to shape society, then the economy must be utilised to achieve this aim. An interventionalist, mixed-economy is far more beneficial to individuals and society than the perils of a free-market.
International intervention
The power to intervene transcends borders: governments intervene in foreign affairs too. This, you could argue, is where attempts to justify government intervention are stretched. In the UK, government officials are elected, they have a mandate to change society as they represent it. However, they do not represent nor are elected by the people with whom the UK goes to war with. Iraqis did not vote for Blair in 2003 when he went to war with them and Egyptians did not vote for Eden in 1956 when Britain attempted to take the Suez Crisis. Excluding situations where self-defence may be deemed necessary, this kind of international intervention struggles to be justified with the same criteria used for other forms of domestic intervention outlined above.
Accepting that intervention in society in justified to protect humans, government intervention is justified as it is the only real body with the authority to intervene. Governments have what single individuals lack; legitimacy and accountability through being elected, experts, of varied opinion, non-profit led and importantly, having the capacity to take action in society. Practically, governments are the only institutions with the legitimacy to represent a country’s citizens in a global setting. Their authority and capacity to intervene provides a mechanism for meaningful international co-operation or condemnation. Extreme geo-political situations require such action, the challenges of climate change provide an example today. Of course, carbon emissions can be greatly reduced by individuals changing their behaviour; we can recycle more, fly less and reduce our meat consumption, but fundamentally, the most impactful change comes from governments. When 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global co2 emissions alone, it is governments that are justified in intervening. They can and do use their power to combat this huge problem, by singing treaties such as the Paris Peace Accord and introducing carbon taxes. This idea that through the government, intervention is justified, applies to many societal issues; though the corona virus for example could simply be stopped by individuals choosing to self-isolate, government intervention is necessary to enforce this and offer economic support.
Though intervention in international affairs is a grey area, in the vast majority of cases government intervention is overwhelmingly justified. Paternalistic intervention ensures humans are protected, granting them their positive freedom to succeed in society. It offers a safety net for the most vulnerable, whilst protecting humans from the dangerous state of nature.It is not individuals, but elected governments, who are justified in intervening in their citizens’ lives.
Bibliography
Berlin, I., 1969. Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
GOVUK, 2021. Tax on shopping and services. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-shopping/alcohol-tobacco
[Accessed 20 5 2021].
Hobbes, T., 1651. Leviathan. London: Oxford University Press.
NHS, 2018. What are the health risks of smoking?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/lifestyle/what-are-the-health-risks-of-smoking/
[Accessed 20 5 2021].
Smith, A., 2002. Wealth of Nations. Oxford: Bibliomania.com Ltd.
UKGOV, 1988. Human Rights Act 1988. [Online]
Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
[Accessed 20 5 2021].
