individual to live a life of his own and limit the authority of the State to the maintenance of such conditions of peace and order in which he can develop his personality and achieve his own interests as best as he can. The State is not all-important and therefore cannot be all-powerful to regulate the whole life of man. Man does not live by State alone. He is a unique being himself, which cannot express itself if regulated or interfered with or regimented by the State.
But, like their opponents, the advocates of this view also do not agree as to what is the end of an individual. There are two difficulties here., As regards the end, some believe that it is individual’s happiness, and wellbeing, while others believe that it is social welfare. As regards the means, they differ greatly. The anarchists believe that the State should be scraped altogether as it is an evil thing. The individualists also dislike the State but regard it as a necessary evil—a necessary bad means to do some good, though the less of it the better. The present-day Pluralists seek to deprive it of its sovereignty as the only safeguard against the abuse of unlimited authority and power. The advocates of welfare State try to utilize the State as an instrument of social service.
Conclusion
There is some truth in both views. But both are one-sided. Those who assert that the State is an end in itself neglect the rights of the individual. They believe that the will of the State is real, while the individual will is unreal, for he does not know his real interests, which the State knows. It may not be so. The State may be inspired by evil motives and its will may prove harmful to the individuals. Really there is no will of the State except what results from the conflict of the wills of the individuals, which contend with each other for the mastery of social control. On the other hand, State is not merely an instrument to preserve peace and order, but has a continuity which extends beyond the interests and lives of the individuals.
It creates conditions in which alone the individual can attain the higher ends of life. The State may be compelled to impose restrictions on the individuals and even call upon them to make sacrifices either for its own preservation or in the interest of the future generations or for the common good. We should judge the value and importance of the State only by its results. A sound view of the end of the State is that it is a “partnership in every virtue and in all perfection.”