a note on humboldt

Liberalism abounds in arguments against state intervention in social life. A popular Lockean line among liberals, for instance, is that too meddlesome a state might threaten the life, liberty, and property of individuals. Another concern is that the intruding hand of the state can twist the invisible hand of the market by obstructing the interplay of economic agents. Yet another fear is that the hand of the state is not only intrusive but also awkward (i.e. inefficient, complicated, burdensome, and the like). Wilhelm von Humboldt too opposes freewheeling state interference, and he even decries in a similar liberal key the state’s inefficient, intruding and (at least in potency) despotic character. But his main contention with regards to the state has a romantic flavor: he draws his attention to the obnoxious consequences for the inner self of the individual (that is, human nature) of state outgrowth. The crux of his argument is that when the state does more than providing to individuals security from the encroachment of others (what Humboldt calls “negative liberty”) and engages in any activities alien to individual security (“positive welfare”, again in Humboldtian terms), it hinders the development of human potentialities. A state that oversteps those boundaries, even if its aim is to bring about ease, comfort, and tranquility to society, deprives the individual from her energies and stunts her originality; isolates her from the rest of her fellow societaires; turns her away from public affairs; flattens her intellect and character; thwarts her spontaneity; plunges the society as a whole into uniformity; and so continues this romantic manifesto. Humboldt is not simply a romantic under a liberal cloak, but his political thought certainly harmonizes liberal and romantic commitments to portrait what he believes is the appropriate sphere of state action.