To what extent is any state an instrument of oppression?

(50 marks)
The view that the state is an instrument of oppression is generally a view which is associated with anarchism,
although it can extend to both marxism and classical liberalism. What all three theories have in common is the
belief that the state infringes upon individual liberty, and question the degree in which the state can legitimately
exercise its power over the individual. Throughout this essay, I will evaluate both anarchism and classical
liberalism, which both argue (to varying extents) that the state can be or is an instrument of oppression, and I
will assess whether or not this is a legitimate position to hold.
The view that the state is a total instrument of oppression is that of anarchism. Political philosopher David
Miller provided several reasons as to why there is good reason to believe that the state is an instrument of
oppression. Firstly, the state is sovereign, it claims a complete authority to define the rights and obligations of
it its citizens. Secondly, the state it compulsory. Members are forced to recognise their obligations. The state
also claims a monopoly on force, and no other use of force is justified. Finally, the state is a distinct body. Its
role and functions are separated from other social roles and functions, I.e the people composing the state
(politicians, armed forces, police) tend to form their own distinct social class. However, the most fundamental
objection to the state is that it violates and undermines liberty. It exercises far more coercion than is required
for human beings to live together, and it enacts laws that benefit only itself. It is excessively punitive,
punishing people for breaking even the most unjustifiable laws. Moreover, it is destructive and fights wars
without consent of the people for its own protection. It is hard to disagree with the criticisms of the state which
Miller has proposed, and I find the most powerful critique of the state to be the fact that it is compulsory. If
there was a system in which one could 'opt-out' of choosing to live under the state, then perhaps there would
not be such a strong argument for supposing that it is oppressive. However, it is not possible to do this, and
often, those who wish to 'opt out' of the state (even to live peacefully in accordance with their own values) are
punished.
Furthermore, the state by its very nature can deemed authoritarian. To be governed by the state is to be
watched, inspected and spied upon often this is justified as being 'for our own good'. In this instance, the state
is denying the individual of negative liberty the freedom from interference. The state also denies the individual
positive liberty the freedom to do, since it claims a monopoly on violence to enforce its own laws. If the state
undermines and violates both positive AND negative liberty, than it can be deemed to be oppressive. Thus, the
fundamental notion of freedom is compromised. Although anarchists agree that the state can be useful, in
terms of providing protection of individuals from others, they argue that the state is not necessary for this
function. This is the basic principle of anarchism, and it has been broken down into several differing schools of
though. However, for the purpose of this argument, I will be assessing individualist anarchism. Individualist
anarchism rejects the idea that the state should hold authority over the individual, and that it is only the
individual that is sovereign over their own body and property. The only legitimate relations between individuals
are voluntary, I.e exchange, contract and gift. The liberty and sovereignty of the individual are violated by the
nature of the state. This form of anarchism assumes egoism, and that the removal of the state's oppression will
allow people to realise their own self-interest, and will thus remove many functions of the state with the
market, which (driven by egoism) will bring equality, stability and restrain destructiveness. However, I don't
see how this conception of society is any less oppressive than the current state. It rests entirely on the
assumption that humans are naturally peaceful and co-operative, when there is good reason to believe that is
may not be the case. Moreover, the replacement of the state with 'the market' is ambiguous, since there is no
good reason to assume that the replacement 'market' would have the ability to hold any less monopoly on force
than the current state. It seems that this particular branch of anarchism is merely replacing one oppressive
state with another. Whilst anarchism does put forward a good case for the state being oppressive, I find the
anarchists theory of human nature to be too optimistic. Whilst I do agree that the state in its current format is
oppressive, I don't agree that any state can be deemed an oppressor, rather it is a necessary evil.
Contrasting to the view that any state is an oppressor is the view of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is
a political ideology which is primarily based upon maximised freedom for the individual. It has its origins in
John Stuart Mill's 'harm principle', which states that 'the only purpose for which power can be rightfully
exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own
good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant'. This outlines that one should only intercept the
actions of another if their motive for doing so is to prevent harm to another person through exploitation,
inequality, or physical harm. For classical liberalists, the universal human rights of liberty, life and property
override any personal desires or legislation against their protection. This was first established by John Locke,
who argued that human beings are born naturally free, and have entered a social contract through choice the

primary motive of which is the desire to defend their innate rights. Therefore, for a state to begin to impose law
restricting any of the above (life, liberty and property), would result in a complete violation of these natural
rights, and would render the state oppressive and useless in providing its assigned benefits. For the classical
liberalist, if the state were to go beyond protecting these rights, it could not be justified as only maximising
liberty on the the individual level is the business of the state. Developing from this, classical liberalism argues
that the state ought to act a 'neutral umpire', acting solely to apply punishment to those who have violated
another's universal rights reinforcing Mill's harm principle, in that it should only defend, maintain law and
order, and protect the interests and rights of the individual rather than dictating a way of life for them.
Therefore, the classical liberalist would argue that the state has the capacity to be deemed oppressive,
however, if we organise society in a particular way, I.e through democracy, we make our own laws. We are not
losing anything, as we are self-governing. Locke argued that living under a state is beneficial towards us, since
it allows for a single common interpretation of the law which is administered fairly should we come into
conflict with one another. Thus, the state cannot be deemed oppressive provided we organise it in such a way.
I find classical liberalism to be a more convincing response to the claim posited by the question. This is
because it strikes a middle ground between acknowledging that the state certainly has the capacity to act as an
instrument of oppression, however, it is a necessarily evil in order to ensure we live harmoniously. By
protecting the life, liberty and property of individuals it in fact decreases the chances of oppression, since it is
not only the state that has the capacity of act oppressive; the members of society within the state are capable
of oppression as well. This is a clear strength over anarchism, since under and anarchist society there would be
no protection from having a certain 'group' force or impose their beliefs upon another. Again, this issue was
highlighted by Mill, who argued that 'society is the tyranny of the majority', and that society also poses a
threat to liberty with social norms and order. A clear strength in the classical liberalist conception of the state is
that it would protect the individual from the 'tyranny of the majority' by placing importance on the liberty of
the individual rather than society as whole. However, implementing the classical liberalist state in practice is
much more difficult, and certainly has the capacity of enabling oppression. For example, the classical liberalist
would be opposed to any kind social welfare, state mandated health care, or universal education. For many
people, these state functions are liberating and open up opportunities. If all institutions were provided by
private corporations, then there is good evidence to believe that many people would lack freedom, and thus,
become oppressed, with no real hope of self determination. I find this to be a particularly strong flaw in the
liberalist conception of the state, as it leads to a paradoxical situation. By limiting the functions of the state in
order to prevent oppression, they these functions into the hand of private institutions which end up oppressing
and limiting the liberty of individuals anyway.
Having assessed both the liberalist and anarchist arguments in regards to whether any state can be deemed
oppressive, I find the liberalist account to be the strongest. Despite the flaws, I think it allows scope in
accepting the benefits of having a state, whilst acknowledging that individual liberty must be respected in order
to prevent oppression. It is not a clear-cut issue, and whilst some aspects of the state can be deemed
oppressive, I.e aggressive policing, propaganda, surveillance, other aspects such as providing social security
and healthcare are not oppressive and serve no threat to the liberty of individuals. For these reasons, I would
conclude that the state can act as a instrument of oppression, but disagree with the anarchist position that any
state is an instrument of oppression.