Tom Godfrey

The emergence of liberal states have historically occurred alongside the proliferation of regulatory capture; immoral markets; and offshoring practises. Despite this, liberal theorists have hardly approached questions concerning regulation. Critics have claimed this is testament to the unworkability of the justifications they offer for values and norms pertaining to political authority, and the rights and freedoms of citizens. This thesis disputes this criticism by extending Perfectionist and Anti-Perfectionist liberal political justifications towards real world cases of these behaviours. This illustrates the viable liberal theoretical perspective towards regulation, and provides a means to adjudicate conflicts that emerge between perfectionist and anti-perfectionist liberal theorists. Once one extends these stances towards questions concerning regulation, far less separates the perspectives. The anti-perfectionist commitment to state neutrality and public reason, and the perfectionist commitment to forwarding specific conceptions of the good, and using the state to pre-empt action of the desired kind can recognise the need to regulate against these behaviours, and justify a theoretical process for formulating regulatory principles. Thus, when it comes to questions bearing on the implementation of liberal theoretical ideas, entrenched theoretical disputes between perfectionists and anti-perfectionists can be resolved. However, one remains better off adopting the recommendations of Perfectionist Liberalism when applying liberal political theory to questions concerning regulation. This is because only perfectionist liberal theorists license appropriate forms of paternalistic intervention necessary for counteracting the negative effects of regulatory capture; immoral markets; and offshoring practises.