Arguments against a non – interfering state: 

The following are two arguments in opposition to non – interfering state: 

1. An individual is always a supreme judge of his own interests: 

Believers of non-interference think that an individual is the best judge of his interests and therefore, a state should not intervene into his activities and matters. But critics believe that every individual cannot understand what is best for him and he also does not have the capacity to understand what is right or what is wrong for him. Therefore, a state should interfere to ensure his welfare and well being.

2. State is a welfare institution: 

The thinkers of policy of non – interference consider the state as a necessary evil, whereas the state is infact a welfare institution. Development and progress in all the countries has been possible with the help of the state. A state undertakes many activities for the welfare of an individual. Thus, to call a state an evil is not right.