Summary and Analysis of “The Legitimate Role of Government in a Free Society” by Dr. Walter E. Williams with Opposing Views from Rawls and Dewey

 

Summary and Analysis of “The Legitimate Role of Government in a Free Society” by Dr. Walter E. Williams with Opposing Views from Rawls and Dewey

Dr. Walter E. Williams, in his essay The Legitimate Role of Government in a Free Society, contends that government’s rightful function is narrowly limited to the protection of individual rights—specifically, life, liberty, and property. Drawing on classical liberalism and natural rights theory, Williams argues that government should act as a neutral referee, protecting citizens from coercion and fraud while leaving individuals otherwise free to pursue their own interests (Williams, 1999). Any use of government power beyond this—especially for redistribution or social engineering—is seen as illegitimate, tantamount to "legalized plunder."

Williams grounds his critique in both economic and moral reasoning. Economically, he views market exchanges as voluntary, mutually beneficial arrangements. Morally, he believes it is unjust to use government force to extract wealth from one citizen for the benefit of another. Citing the Founding Fathers, especially Madison and Jefferson, he supports a minimalist constitutional government and criticizes the expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause as deviations from founding principles (Williams, 1999).

Opposing View: John Rawls and the Theory of Justice

John Rawls, a central figure in modern political philosophy, offers a direct counterpoint to Williams. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls (1971) constructs a vision of justice rooted not in natural rights but in fairness and social cooperation. Rawls proposes that a just society is one that individuals would choose from behind a “veil of ignorance,” not knowing their own social or economic status. From this thought experiment, Rawls derives two principles: (1) equal basic liberties for all, and (2) social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the least advantaged (the “difference principle”).

Unlike Williams, who sees redistributive policies as morally illegitimate, Rawls argues that a just government must actively correct for the arbitrary disadvantages of birth and background. In this view, taxation and redistribution are not forms of theft but moral imperatives in a cooperative society to ensure fair equality of opportunity and outcomes that promote the common good.

Opposing View: John Dewey and the Role of Democracy

John Dewey, a pragmatic philosopher and advocate of democratic socialism, critiques the rigid individualism of classical liberalism. In Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey (1935) argues that liberty is not merely the absence of interference but the presence of conditions that enable individuals to develop their potential. Dewey asserts that modern industrial society requires an adaptive, evolving role for government—not simply as a protector of rights but as an instrument of democratic reform.

Dewey challenges the static notion of “natural rights,” emphasizing instead the historically contingent nature of liberty. He contends that government must be responsive to changing economic and social realities, providing education, public services, and labor protections as means to empower citizens. In contrast to Williams’s view of government as a referee, Dewey sees it as an agent of collective problem-solving in a dynamic society.

Comparative Analysis

Williams presents a morally and economically consistent case for minimal government, deeply rooted in libertarian tradition. His concerns about government overreach, coercion, and erosion of personal responsibility resonate with a strong strain of American constitutionalism and free-market thought. However, his theory assumes a level playing field and ignores structural disparities in power and opportunity.

Rawls and Dewey counter that justice and liberty require more than non-interference. Rawls offers a procedural framework to ensure fairness from a neutral starting point, while Dewey stresses the social and developmental conditions that make freedom meaningful. Both view positive government action as not only legitimate but essential for a democratic and just society.

While Williams sees taxation for welfare as theft, Rawls sees it as fairness, and Dewey sees it as democracy in action. The disagreement ultimately rests on divergent conceptions of liberty—negative (freedom from) versus positive (freedom to)—and whether justice demands protection of existing entitlements or redistribution to ensure equal dignity and opportunity.

---

References

Dewey, J. (1935). Liberalism and social action. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Williams, W. E. (1999). The legitimate role of government in a free society. Grove City College Center for Vision and Values. https://www.visionandvalues.org/docs/legitimate-role-of-government.pdf