According to Norberto Bobbio, we can understand “liberalism” as a specific conception of the State, in which it has limited powers and functions. Thus, it will be the opposite of that State in which the absolutist power reigned in much of the Middle Ages and the Modern Age. Likewise, it contrasts with what we now consider to be the social or welfare state that was seen in the USSR in the 20th century. In addition, Bobbio also points out that a liberal state is not necessarily democratic, but, on the contrary, it takes place historically in societies in which inequality prevails in government participation, which is quite restricted in general terms, limited to possessing classes (BOBBIO, 1995). Obviously, the liberal State would be the result of a liberal thought, a thought discussed by several intellectuals in the last five centuries, but which would have its bases in the theses by John Locke (1632-1704), considered the father of liberalism mainly because of his ideas in “Two Treatises of Civil Government”, a work published at the end of the century XVII. In the first treatise, he criticizes the type of state characterized by the absolutist power of the king, based on divine choice. In the second treatise, he writes about the origin, extent, and purpose of civil government.
There is a very important trinomial in his work constituted by the concepts of Natural State, Social Contract and Civil State. For Locke, man is prior to society and freedom and equality are part of his State of nature. However, they are not viewed negatively as in the ideas of Thomas Hobbes (who claims that the feelings of freedom and equality lead to constant war), but rather concern a situation of relative peace, harmony and harmony. In the words of Francisco Weffort (2006), in this peaceful state, men were already endowed with reason and enjoyed the property that, in a The first generic meaning used by Locke, it simultaneously designated life, liberty and goods as natural rights of being human. In man's natural state he would possess natural rights that would not depend on his will (a state of perfect freedom and equality). Locke claims that property is an institution prior to civil society (created together with the State) and therefore it would be a natural right for the individual, which the State could not withdraw. “Man was naturally free and the owner of his person and his work” (WEFFORT, 2006, pg. 85).
However, although John Locke believed in the positive side of freedom and equality in the state of nature, such a situation was not without its drawbacks such as the violation of property. To get around these inconveniences, it was necessary to create a social contract, which would unite men in order to move from the state of nature to civil society. It would be necessary to institute among men a social contract or a pact of consent, in which the State is constituted as the "owner" of power policy to preserve and further consolidate the individual rights of each man, rights they already had since the state of nature. Thus, “it is in the name of the natural rights of man that the social contract between individuals that creates the society is realized, and the government must therefore commit to the preservation of these rights" (MARCONDES, 2008, p. 204). According to Weffort, in the civil State the inalienable natural rights of the human being to life, liberty and assets are better protected under the protection of the law, the arbitrator and the common force of a political body unitary. This would be the meaning and need for the formation of the State as a guarantor of rights.
Do not stop now... There's more after the advertising ;)
It is for no other reason that John Locke is considered the father of liberal individualism. His work had a great influence on the conformation of liberal thought throughout the 18th century. The doctrine of natural rights underlies the United States Bills of Rights (1776) and the French Revolution (1789). The liberal State is the limited State, its function being the conservation of the natural rights of man.
Thus, if the defense of men's rights is the motto of liberal thought, the valorization of individualism is a obvious and direct consequence in the Liberal State or, in the words of Bobbio, “without individualism there is no liberalism” (BOBBIO, 1995, p. 16). Certainly, the development of these values and this vision of the State was fundamental for the development of capitalism as a mode of production, forming the legal bases of society capitalist. Thus, the questions raised are: to what extent can freedom and equality between men go together in the capitalist economic system? Although the liberal state guarantees the defense of liberty, could it guarantee equality (in its broadest sense) among men? The invitation to reflection remains.
Paulo Silvino Ribeiro
Brazil School Collaborator
Bachelor in Social Sciences from UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
Master in Sociology from UNESP - São Paulo State University "Júlio de Mesquita Filho"
Doctoral Student in Sociology at UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
