By the late nineteenth century, some liberals began to argue that freedom requires more than being left alone. Is a child who cannot read, or a worker crushed by poverty, really free to live as they choose? This line of thought produced egalitarian liberalism, also called social or modern liberalism.
The New Liberals
In Britain, the philosopher T.H. Green and, after him, the New Liberals such as L.T. Hobhouse argued that real freedom requires the actual ability to develop one's capacities, and that the state can help provide it through public education, social insurance and limits on exploitative work. The British Liberal government of the early 1900s introduced old-age pensions and national insurance along these lines.
Two kinds of liberty
The philosopher Isaiah Berlin, in a famous 1958 lecture, gave names to the two ideas at stake. Negative liberty is freedom from interference: no one stops you. Positive liberty is being in control of your own life, having the real means to act on your choices. Berlin himself warned that positive liberty can be twisted to justify forcing people to be “truly” free, but the distinction helps explain why liberals disagree so much about the role of the state.
John Rawls
The most influential modern statement of egalitarian liberalism is A Theory of Justice (1971) by the American philosopher John Rawls (1921 to 2002). Rawls revived the social contract in a new form. Instead of imagining a state of nature, he asked: what principles of justice would people choose if they had to agree without knowing how they would personally come out?
The veil of ignorance
Rawls called this choosing situation the original position. The people choosing stand behind a veil of ignorance: they do not know their class, their natural talents, their race or sex, or their religion and views about the good life. Because no one can tailor the rules to favor themselves, the principles they choose will be fair to everyone.
Two principles
Rawls argued that people in this position would choose two principles, here in paraphrase:
- Equal basic liberties. Each person should have an equal right to the most extensive set of basic liberties compatible with the same liberties for all: freedom of speech, conscience and association, the right to vote, protection of the person, and so on.
- Fair inequality. Social and economic inequalities are acceptable only if (a) they are attached to jobs and positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity, and (b) they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. Part (b) is called the difference principle.
The first principle takes priority: basic liberties cannot be traded away for economic gains. The difference principle does not demand equal incomes. A surgeon may earn more than a cleaner if that inequality makes the worst-off better off than a more equal arrangement would.
Why talents are not simply earned
Rawls argued that the distribution of natural talents, like the family one is born into, is morally arbitrary: no one deserves to be born gifted or into a wealthy home. So people are not simply entitled to whatever rewards their talents bring in the market. Society may arrange things so that good fortune works to everyone's benefit.
Nozick's challenge
Rawls's Harvard colleague Robert Nozick replied in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974). Nozick argued that justice depends on how holdings came about, not on whether the overall pattern looks right. If people acquired things fairly and transferred them freely, the result is just, however unequal, and redistributing it takes what people are entitled to. Nozick even compared taxing earnings to forced labor.
Worked example: designing a society blind
Try Rawls's thought experiment on a real choice. You are designing the rules for a new society, but you do not know who you will be in it. You might be born into wealth or poverty, with great talents or a disability, into the majority religion or a small minority.
Consider three options for organizing the economy:
- Society A: perfectly equal incomes, but little incentive to work hard or innovate, so everyone earns modest amounts.
- Society B: large inequalities. The richest live in luxury, but the poorest cannot afford healthcare or school.
- Society C: some inequality, because higher pay encourages skill and effort, but with taxes funding schools, healthcare and support so that the worst-off live better than they would in Society A.
Rawls argued that people behind the veil would choose something like Society C. They would not gamble on being rich in Society B, because the stakes, a whole life in deprivation, are too high. But they would accept inequality that makes even the worst-off better off. That is the difference principle at work.
Critics raise questions. Some economists say people might reasonably take more risk than Rawls assumed. Nozick asks whether the people who earned the higher incomes in Society C have a right to keep them, whatever a thought experiment says. Utilitarians ask why we should focus on the worst-off rather than total well-being. Your answer to these questions largely decides where you stand between classical and egalitarian liberalism.