Liberalism, the state, and the legitimate boundaries of public eucation

One of the most contested issues in public discourse concerns the proper scope of state intervention in citizens’ education. Different schools of thought offer divergent perspectives. Some regard the provision of public education, including at advanced levels, as a core function of the state, justifying this position on the grounds of its contribution to the public good. In contrast, certain intellectuals reject any state involvement in education, assigning this responsibility entirely to families.

This article addresses a precise question: from a liberal perspective—particularly classical liberalism—what degree of state intervention in education is justifiable, in which domains, and up to what level? In what follows, I will provide a comprehensive answer to these questions, aiming to articulate a framework that remains robust over time and across different national contexts.

Natural rights and the state

Natural rights lie at the core of liberal thought, and the most compelling justification for the existence of the state is their protection. In other words, the state is justified in intervening only in matters where individuals’ lives, property, and liberty are under threat. Even in such cases, intervention is warranted solely when the private sector lacks the competence, incentives, or sufficient capacity to respond to the threat effectively. Under these conditions, the state is expected to undertake limited and targeted interventions aimed at safeguarding individuals’ natural rights.

On this view, the scope of the state becomes highly constrained, and its financial requirements are defined accordingly. As a result, there is no need for substantial reliance on public funding or the imposition of taxation beyond the essential minimum. Consequently, a greater share of wealth remains in the hands of citizens, enabling them to allocate it according to their own preferences. In this sense, taxation may be understood as a form of insurance premium paid by citizens, ensuring that in times of crisis—when their lives are at risk—they can rely on the protective functions of the state.

Public education and natural rights

The primary function of the state is to safeguard the lives of its citizens. These lives may be endangered for a variety of reasons, ranging from natural disasters to human-induced risks. Knowing how to take shelter during an earthquake, observing traffic signals when crossing the street, washing hands properly, and contacting emergency services—all constitute forms of knowledge directly tied to the preservation of life. The state must therefore ensure universal access to such instruction. Otherwise, its role as the guarantor of citizens’ natural rights would lose its justification.

Vital education, in this sense, encompasses basic general education as well as any instruction whose absence would directly and immediately increase the likelihood of violations of one’s own or others’ natural rights. At the same time, the provision of such education is not necessarily an exclusive function of the state. Unlike functions such as diplomatic representation or the provision of external security—which inherently require the exercise of sovereign authority and unified political representation—education belongs to the category of goods and services that can be produced, distributed, and supplied competitively within a market framework.

Accordingly, if in a given society the private sector fully provides all forms of vital education and all citizens possess the financial means to access them, state intervention would merely distort the market and reduce its efficiency. Within this framework, the default position is the non-intervention of the state in the sphere of education, and any form of intervention must be justified by demonstrating its necessity in terms of the protection of natural rights.

The poor and public education

Education is not free; whether provided by the private sector or delivered through the state, it necessarily requires the allocation of financial resources. If a segment of citizens lacks the financial means to cover the costs of vital education for themselves and their children, the state, in line with its primary mandate, must allocate the necessary budget to meet the needs of these groups, as such support is instrumental to ensuring the effective protection of their natural rights in practice, since living in the contemporary world without access to basic education is effectively impossible. Where the private sector has sufficient capacity and incentives to provide education on a national scale, the state has no legitimate grounds to intervene in the education market and should limit its role to financing a minimal level of education.

Only when the private sector is unable to ensure nationwide provision of vital education does the state assume responsibility for it. On this basis, the level of minimum public funding for education depends on each country’s level of economic development and citizens’ capacity to directly bear educational costs.

The criteria for determining the content of minimum educational curricula should likewise be entrusted to specialized commissions independent of the state and tailored to each context and time period. Such arrangements are compatible with liberal principles only insofar as the scope of minimum education remains confined to the protection of individuals’ natural rights and does not extend into broader domains of scientific or intellectual inquiry.

Accordingly, the teaching of fields of knowledge that are not directly tied to the preservation of life falls outside this minimal scope. Individuals who are interested in pursuing such fields are expected to bear the associated costs themselves.

Cultural education and public resources

One of the unresolved issues in multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies concerns the role of the state in providing cultural education. As a general rule, such knowledge is not directly tied to individual lives, and therefore state intervention in this domain constitutes an encroachment upon the free market. The state is expected only to establish clear boundaries regarding the teaching of doctrines that promote violence or entail violations of the rights of others.

At the same time, since an inability to understand the official language can directly impede an individual’s access to legal rights, public institutions, and protective mechanisms, instruction in the official language should be regarded as part of the minimal requirements for living in contemporary society. In light of the concept of spontaneous order (cosmos) and the evolutionary processes through which societies develop, the selection of a common language should be guided by the pre-existing conditions of each country.

Financing non-vital education through public resources such as taxation would conflict with individuals’ property rights and, by extension, their natural rights. Expenditures in these areas should therefore be borne directly by individuals themselves, since a reduction in the tax burden allows for greater allocation of resources toward their own preferences.

Conclusion

The analysis suggests that state involvement in education is justified only insofar as it is necessary to safeguard individuals’ effective access to their natural rights. Beyond the provision of vital education, educational activities should remain within the domain of individual choice and market mechanisms. This framework implies a limited role for the state, focused on enabling rather than directing educational outcomes, while preserving both individual liberty and social order.

Farzin Rahimi Zonouz is a liberal philosopher and political activist in Iran. He holds a PhD in Political Science and specializes in political economy and political sociology. He has theorized the Liberal-National discourse as the theoretical foundation of the  Iran Liberal Party (ILP), based on a synthesis of classical liberalism, cosmopolitanism, and national sovereignty for the future of Iran. He is also the founder of the “Liberals Community Project,” in which participants simulate and practice a private economic society with its own unique currency. Together with his wife, Mina Sharti, director of the growth center and an instructor of soft skills courses, They have established the Libertas School of Economics and Political Science in Iran, where they teach the history and fundamentals of liberalism. Also, The Café Intellectuel, a decentralized circle of Iranian liberals, operates as a subset of this school.