The Limits of state action

• 0

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It is no coincidence that the author of this phrase, Lord Acton, came from the first Western country to put a brake on the unlimited authority of its monarchs - England. But unfortunately history continued to record several occasions in which the statement proved true: not so much by the hands of kings or emperors who believed themselves invested with a divine right to rule, but by tyrants who launched projects of complete power driven by an ideology. The totalitarianisms were just that: situations in which the public power sought to advance all spheres of people's lives, regulating, as much as possible, aspects of the political, economic and social order. The result of such experiences has always been tragic, as events attest. Thus, that the state must have limits becomes obvious. But finding the right measure for such limits is a huge challenge, though not impossible.

We can summarize in four levels the possibilities of limiting state power, from the least to the most restrictive. At the first level, there are only constraints characteristic of the rule of law, narrowly understood, not including freedoms and individual guarantees: supremacy of the constitution, separation of powers, control of the constitutionality of actions by the Judiciary, alternation of power... that is, the state could do almost everything, provided it did not touch on these points. At the next level added are the freedoms and individual guarantees, consecrated as a sanctuary that should be in place, safe from state coercion. Here, for example, the principle of subsidiarity comes into play, according to which the state does not act on what the lower instances of society, or individuals, can do. Among the proponents of this platform are the so-called "perfectionist liberals".

"That the state needs to have limits becomes obvious. But finding the right measure for such limits is a huge challenge".

At the third level of restraint, public power, in addition to being limited by the rule of law and individual freedoms, cannot act on anything that represents any kind of option for a particular conception of good, truth or beauty. This is, for example, the proposal of the "anti-realist liberals". And finally, on the fourth and last level, there is what is conventionally termed the night-guard state, the one that is completely absent from the life of a society, and is limited to guaranteeing peace, justice and security, so that the other actors do not have their freedom annulled because of violence or fraud. It is the libertarian ideal.

Some examples may clarify how these four conceptions translate into practical life. A libertarian, for example, will be against the existence of public schools or hospitals, while at the opposite end an interventionist may even defend the prohibition of private initiative in health and education, arguing that it is the state that must care for these areas. Can a regional economic vocation be stimulated by the state? An anti-perfectionist liberal would say no, because it is not the government's job to make such choices, giving priority to one branch of the economy rather than another. The libertarian would also disagree, for this kind of stimulus would be to extrapolate the functions of the state. A liberal perfectionist would argue that this choice is legitimate and even helps individuals and society realize their potential; and the interventionist will also defend this possibility, since it is an action that does not run counter to the limitations imposed by the rule of law.

Our choice is for a public power limited by the Rule of Law and by unconditional respect for the freedom of the citizen. The most "permissive" level, for example, is dangerous, not only because it extends the state power too far; it still leaves room for utilitarian proposals where it would be justifiable to violate an individual's basic rights in the name of the best outcome for the majority. The best choice is one that consecrates freedom, but leaves room for the subsidiary action of the state.