Protective Democracy
Democracy being seen as a device by which citizens could protect themselves from an over-mighty government to bring about the widest realm of individual liberty. The consent of government is exercised through voting in regular and competitive elections. This is guaranteed by constitutionalism, pressure groups, impersonal and limited range of state power
TWO FORMS
Maddison – Man is acquisitive / vindictive. Mankind needs protection from itself. Elections will filter talent, wisdom and morality into government
Surely it would merely produce a microcosm of the macrocosm?
Mill – The protection of mans rights requires limited but representative government
Mill was partly a protective democrat but he starts from the premise that we are perfectabele and need elites initially
Developmental Democracy
Rousseau
Unanimous consent to the social contract
Laws are made directly by the sovereign people
The subordinate executive is best constrained by representation
Only sovereign people can dissolve state
Movement toward enlightened self interested
Moral Transformation of Man
Mill
PR system allows a chance to the best candidates
Intellectual development – compatible with a minimal state – through participation in political life. **Allowing the expansion of individual capacities
Constitutional checks to ensure promotion of individual rights
Separation of functions – elected and specialist
Citizen involvement in different branches of government.
Classical Democracy
Citizens should enjoy political equality in order that they be free to rule and be ruled
Direct participation in legislative and judicial functions
Assembly of citizens have sovereign power
No different privileges to differentiate ordinary citizens and public officials
Not practical in modern world
People’s Democracy
The free development of all can only be achieved with the free development of each. Complete economic and political equality; this ensures we can each give according to his ability to received what they need.
The public power will lose its political character
Public affairs governed collectively
Self-regulation of government and politics
Classless society – no markets, private property etc.
One party to advocate the REAL WILL of the people – monist.
Pluralism
Madison straddles the distinction between elitist and pluralist democracy. He believes the causes of faction (interest groups) are inherent in man and people of a certain ‘ilk’ be that religious, political etc will always come together.
The regulation of these interests is the principle task of modern government. These groups will be necessary in the ordinary operations of government.
In contrast to atomistic and monist concepts of society pluralism is taking a different approach
Selfish but rational individuals combine into groups to pursue a common goal. These may be PG or PP.
Democratic theory is about how ordinary people control leaders – regular elections between parties with overlapping pressure groups
POLYARCHY
Diverse minorities who will influence the outcome of elections. These groups are not elitist.
A COMPETITIVE EQUALIBRIUM is achieved
A pluralist society has to be arbitration by government between groups and many access points into the political system
Pluralism is designed to act as a force by which political liberty can be ensured and that the state is responsive.
There MUST be checks and balances in the system in order for this to occur – otherwise they could be ignored.
This model can be crticised about why pressure groups and such are bad for democracy from AS notes. It can also be criticised if you take an atomistic or monist view of society.
Elitism
Filtration
In relation to protective democracy. We choose people of more wisdom and experience within a huge constituency for an election – the most virtuous will be filtered out.
The filtration will be refined by successive filtrations
Inevitable
Michels proposal on the ‘iron law of oligarchy’
‘It is the organisation which gives birth to the domination of the elected over the electors….he who says organisations says oligarchy’
All organisations are inevitably elitist
Marxist elitism
Views it as undesirable but inevitable as it is a stage in history
Plato’s Guardians
The view that an elite core is best placed to serve the community and the well-being of everyone in it. Democracy would not produce this.
Competitive Elitism
The extension of the franchise has meant that parliament has been bypassed as the forum for rational decision making. The decisions are no longer take from the golden age of the backbencher
Modern parties mobilise votes by bribes – these are policies offered.
The career politician who are an elite core who can ‘manage’ the electorate
This model assumes that the electorate are not passive but emotional, which means they are easily swayed.
Example – NHS / Immigration scare tactics
The modern reality of the democratic method is that individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the peoples vote
Political Theory about how democrat ought to be is dead – all western democracies are merely a competitive struggle for votes.
Competitive democracy is a method of selecting skilled elite capable of making decisions
It requires parliamentary government with a strong executive
Rival elites and parties
Constitutional limits on political power
Can elitism be reconciled with any form of democracy? The elitist is able to justify the hierarchical order of things but how can the democrat who believes in the ‘equality of man’?
Does a competitive elitist democracy not merely lead to apathy and alienation as the public is only ever able to elect another elite after 4-5years, participation is low?
Can competitive elitism in terms of parties by reconciled with pluralistic society of interest groups who may be able to influence those parties – possibly this avoids the above criticism.
Corporatism
Triangle of association between Trade Unions, Business and The State
Super-pluralist groups which are vast federation of sectional interest groups.
The idea is to fix the economy, a social compact which was an annual agreement between the three strands
Insufficient variety of groups
State as dominant – can get TUC and CBI to discipline members
Bypassing democratic processes
Only economic aspects
Strangling serpents on the economy
This may be linked to developmental democracy…
New Right
Lassiez-Faire economics
Not concerned with groups in the slightest
ONLY COMPETITIVE INDIVIDUALS
The use of the state as an organ of economic policy
Linked to protective democracy
Marxist
Common will and monist view of society
Groups are instruments of capitalism
Corporatism is a ‘tactic’ to destroy the compact
Linked with people’s democracy
Read more...
Showing posts with label Political Ideas and Concepts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Ideas and Concepts. Show all posts
Democracy and Dictatorship
Is the distinction more subtle than accurate?
A
Democracy
Mixture of popular rule and liberal limitations on that rule. Essentially democracy has to be liberal democracy making democracy and liberty go hand in hand
Dictatorship
Autocratic rule and unlimited coercion. Dictatorships are above the law and beyond a constitution – form of rule strictly vested within one person.
B
Democracy
Democracy is merely a noun, there is no necessary requirement for it to have liberal elements. The only thing a democracy must have it majority rule. Liberal limitations are not intrinsic to the concept. Dictatorial democracy may exist. What is democracy but nothing than the tyranny of the majority?
Dictatorship
Dictatorships can be democratic. Communist uprisings within Russia (the general will be fulfilled). Blair’s seemingly unlimited powers as demonstrated when he pushes through legislation.
C
Traditional Dictatorships
Monopolize government power (MAY BE DEMOCRATIC)
Totalitarian
Extend political control to all areas of life (NOT USUALLY DEMOCRATIC UNLESS WE HAVE A SINGLE WILL IN SOCIETY)
In essence, there is not a clear cut distinction between democracy and dictatorship as it depends on your definition. Democracy can be liberal, dictatorial, protectionist, elitist, developmental and not all of these are dissimilar to a dictatorship. Dictatorships need not come around without democratic means, and if we have a single will then dictatorships would have legitimacy and democracy.
Read more...
A
Democracy
Mixture of popular rule and liberal limitations on that rule. Essentially democracy has to be liberal democracy making democracy and liberty go hand in hand
Dictatorship
Autocratic rule and unlimited coercion. Dictatorships are above the law and beyond a constitution – form of rule strictly vested within one person.
B
Democracy
Democracy is merely a noun, there is no necessary requirement for it to have liberal elements. The only thing a democracy must have it majority rule. Liberal limitations are not intrinsic to the concept. Dictatorial democracy may exist. What is democracy but nothing than the tyranny of the majority?
Dictatorship
Dictatorships can be democratic. Communist uprisings within Russia (the general will be fulfilled). Blair’s seemingly unlimited powers as demonstrated when he pushes through legislation.
C
Traditional Dictatorships
Monopolize government power (MAY BE DEMOCRATIC)
Totalitarian
Extend political control to all areas of life (NOT USUALLY DEMOCRATIC UNLESS WE HAVE A SINGLE WILL IN SOCIETY)
In essence, there is not a clear cut distinction between democracy and dictatorship as it depends on your definition. Democracy can be liberal, dictatorial, protectionist, elitist, developmental and not all of these are dissimilar to a dictatorship. Dictatorships need not come around without democratic means, and if we have a single will then dictatorships would have legitimacy and democracy.
Read more...
Ideology
There are certain ideologies which need to be discussion
Conservatism
Liberalism
Socialism
The End of Ideology
Conservatism
Traditional Conservatism
British Conservatism
New Right (ideological conservatism?)
Neo Liberalism
Neo Conservatism
Traditional Conservatism
Traditional conservatism is firmly opposed to rationalism within politics and favours a sceptical pragmatic approach
Tradition, History, Experience are all firm dispositions of the conservatives
It is inherent and natural and a disposition about society rather than an ideological belief
Intimations of experience is what guides conservative thought, as evidence by their commitment toward an organic constitution which does not render history void and bring in rationalist positive values.
Conservatism is entrenched not in positive values to promote (like traditional ideologies) but about negative terms – as evidenced in On Human Conduct
Traditional conservatives value equality, family, property etc.
Are these not merely ideological viewpoints rather than dispositions?
However, these are the values gained from the intimations of experience of the past ages.
This view of conservatism is generally opposed to change.
British Conservatism
Compassionate conservatism
Presupposes the gap between rich and poor
Duty to bring about some equality
Didn’t let the weakest go to the well
Progressive Conservatism
Moving forward with a big leap forward showing them not opposed to change
Reform Act for Vote
Devolution
Council Houses
Second Reform Act
New Right
This is definitely an ideological viewpoint
Minimal State
Individualism
Tends to be socially authoritarian (as in Thatcher era)
THESE ARE RATIONALIST POSITIONS
Is this really conservatism or merely a form of classical liberalism?
Neo Conservatism
This is partly rational
Neo-Liberal Economics (RATIONALIST)
Traditional values – family religion (in a similar way to traditional conservatism)
Liberal Imperialism (RATIONALIST)
Is conservatism an ideology – depends which strand of conservatism you mean. We may not ‘know where we have come from or where we are going’ but surely someone must look after the boat? Perhaps all forms are ideological?
Is conservatism merely opposition to change – again, this depends on which strand of conservatism you mean. Although, I would be tempted to say that even traditional conservative though accepts some change that fall in line with the intimations of history.
LIBERALISM
Might be considered a contested concept
KEY ELEMENTS AGREED BY ALL LIBERALS
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Not necessarily entrenched
Claimed from the state and society
EQUALITY OF RIGHTS
Society as an aggregation of individual rights
CONSTITUIONAL CHECKS
Limited government
Tends to lead to liberal democracy
RELGIOUS TOLERATION
The state may be secular
RATIONALIST
Either original position or outcome based
Added to those fundamentals come two distinct strands of liberalism;
Neo Classical
Minimal State
Lassiez faire economy (maximises individual freedom)
Individuality
Anti Imperalist
Social Liberalism
Freedom needs social improvements
May call for a more maximising state to ensure these
SOCIALISM
Scientific
Utopian
Social democracy
Third Way
Scientific (Communism / Marxism)
Scientific socialism is the viewpoint of a communist and the viewpoint established by Karl Marx. It’s fundamental aim is the classless society
Economic determinism
Economics determines the general character socially and politically
Historical Materialism
Economic Base (techniques and methods of production which form relations between individuals)
DETERMINES
Superstructure (Institutions and forms of consciousness)
The end of history will occur when economic determinism stops and we end with the classless society
The public power that will exist will lose its political character. Can you have public power with coercion?
The law of surplus value, and to stop the economic base from existing in conflict meant Marx advocated a planned economy
Neo-Marxism
HUMANISTIC ASPECT (man as a human being
ACTION – PRAXIS
Historical change cannot happen through a scientific process but through the collective action. Neo Marxism focuses on human action.
Capitalism dehumanised the individual and social praxis is required to bring about the revolution of the proletariat.
Utopian
This is essentially looking for a classless society but not through any scientific process but by promoting it on moral/subjective grounds that it was ethical. Often the only way these utopian socialist communities arose was when people went off specifically to form one. Empirical studies showed they generally failed.
Social Democracy
Revision was a fundamentalist viewpoint to work within the system to gain power by the ballot box and then to achieve the classless society.
However, as you enter the system your goals changed and thus it developed into what is commonly known as social democracy
Social democracy is using capitalism for the common good. It has a few key features;
MIXED ECONOMY
State ownership of certain industries (usually coal etc.)
WELFARE STATE
Large and usually generous
REDISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
Focus on bring about some equality of outcome.
What all these forms of socialism have in common is that they view society as one for the common good rather than any individualist conception. They focus much more on more ‘positive liberties’ and ‘equality of outcome’ and working towards a common goal. It is my personal opinion that it is a mistake to think there is any common good – merely an aggregation of numerous different interests to a deduce a common good is not to realise there is no single dominant will in society.
Third Way Social-ism – Blair
Socialism in the form of top-down intervention is dead. This ideology accepts capitalism and globalisation that breeds a knowledge economy of individual skill and flexibility
Government has an economic and social role
Economic – Promotion of international competitiveness etc
Social – contain pressure due to capitalism. A form of liberal communitarism
It is a forge between rights and entrepreneurialism and social/moral duty on the other. INTERDEPENDENT
Equality of opportunity / meritocracy – ‘hand up, not hand out’
Is it incoherent to accept the notion of economic liberalism and then warn against the social disintegration it causes?
Does communitarianism not just lead to ‘creeping authoritarianism?’
The End of ideology?
Daniel Bell
Ideology has become irrelevant within the modern world. Parties no longer face each other from differing ideological viewpoints but instead they promise higher living standards and economic growth – economics had triumphed over politics. This can be seen in the UK in the 1950-60’s with the broad consensus on Keynesian welfarism. This can also been seen in the UK with the consensus on economically liberal policies which both conservatives and labour offer.
Francis Fukayama
Liberal democracy has become the final resting ideology of the world. His book ‘the end of history’ was written in the time when Marxism was slowly disintegrating within Eastern Europe and Liberal Democracy was the dominant force in the world.
It is the end of history in the sense that history is no longer going to be driven by ideological changes as one has triumphed. Although we may have some remnants of other ideologies history has come to a stasis while Liberal Democracy triumphs.
It is the end of man’s ideological evolution.
No furthering development in principles / institutions
How do we know Liberal Democracy will not fail?
Similar utopian ideals have been left in the ashes of history – Marxism
Liberal imperialism is still taking place
Liberal Democracy is still an ideology – so ideology has not ended. Considering liberal democracies ensure the right to free speech, it is impossible to ever end the ideology debate within a Liberal Democracy.
[edit]Anthony Giddens
The conventional ideologies of left and right have become redundant within a society that is characterised by globalisation, decline of tradition and social reflexivity (autonomy mixed with interdependence).
Read more...
Conservatism
Liberalism
Socialism
The End of Ideology
Conservatism
Traditional Conservatism
British Conservatism
New Right (ideological conservatism?)
Neo Liberalism
Neo Conservatism
Traditional Conservatism
Traditional conservatism is firmly opposed to rationalism within politics and favours a sceptical pragmatic approach
Tradition, History, Experience are all firm dispositions of the conservatives
It is inherent and natural and a disposition about society rather than an ideological belief
Intimations of experience is what guides conservative thought, as evidence by their commitment toward an organic constitution which does not render history void and bring in rationalist positive values.
Conservatism is entrenched not in positive values to promote (like traditional ideologies) but about negative terms – as evidenced in On Human Conduct
Traditional conservatives value equality, family, property etc.
Are these not merely ideological viewpoints rather than dispositions?
However, these are the values gained from the intimations of experience of the past ages.
This view of conservatism is generally opposed to change.
British Conservatism
Compassionate conservatism
Presupposes the gap between rich and poor
Duty to bring about some equality
Didn’t let the weakest go to the well
Progressive Conservatism
Moving forward with a big leap forward showing them not opposed to change
Reform Act for Vote
Devolution
Council Houses
Second Reform Act
New Right
This is definitely an ideological viewpoint
Minimal State
Individualism
Tends to be socially authoritarian (as in Thatcher era)
THESE ARE RATIONALIST POSITIONS
Is this really conservatism or merely a form of classical liberalism?
Neo Conservatism
This is partly rational
Neo-Liberal Economics (RATIONALIST)
Traditional values – family religion (in a similar way to traditional conservatism)
Liberal Imperialism (RATIONALIST)
Is conservatism an ideology – depends which strand of conservatism you mean. We may not ‘know where we have come from or where we are going’ but surely someone must look after the boat? Perhaps all forms are ideological?
Is conservatism merely opposition to change – again, this depends on which strand of conservatism you mean. Although, I would be tempted to say that even traditional conservative though accepts some change that fall in line with the intimations of history.
LIBERALISM
Might be considered a contested concept
KEY ELEMENTS AGREED BY ALL LIBERALS
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Not necessarily entrenched
Claimed from the state and society
EQUALITY OF RIGHTS
Society as an aggregation of individual rights
CONSTITUIONAL CHECKS
Limited government
Tends to lead to liberal democracy
RELGIOUS TOLERATION
The state may be secular
RATIONALIST
Either original position or outcome based
Added to those fundamentals come two distinct strands of liberalism;
Neo Classical
Minimal State
Lassiez faire economy (maximises individual freedom)
Individuality
Anti Imperalist
Social Liberalism
Freedom needs social improvements
May call for a more maximising state to ensure these
SOCIALISM
Scientific
Utopian
Social democracy
Third Way
Scientific (Communism / Marxism)
Scientific socialism is the viewpoint of a communist and the viewpoint established by Karl Marx. It’s fundamental aim is the classless society
Economic determinism
Economics determines the general character socially and politically
Historical Materialism
Economic Base (techniques and methods of production which form relations between individuals)
DETERMINES
Superstructure (Institutions and forms of consciousness)
The end of history will occur when economic determinism stops and we end with the classless society
The public power that will exist will lose its political character. Can you have public power with coercion?
The law of surplus value, and to stop the economic base from existing in conflict meant Marx advocated a planned economy
Neo-Marxism
HUMANISTIC ASPECT (man as a human being
ACTION – PRAXIS
Historical change cannot happen through a scientific process but through the collective action. Neo Marxism focuses on human action.
Capitalism dehumanised the individual and social praxis is required to bring about the revolution of the proletariat.
Utopian
This is essentially looking for a classless society but not through any scientific process but by promoting it on moral/subjective grounds that it was ethical. Often the only way these utopian socialist communities arose was when people went off specifically to form one. Empirical studies showed they generally failed.
Social Democracy
Revision was a fundamentalist viewpoint to work within the system to gain power by the ballot box and then to achieve the classless society.
However, as you enter the system your goals changed and thus it developed into what is commonly known as social democracy
Social democracy is using capitalism for the common good. It has a few key features;
MIXED ECONOMY
State ownership of certain industries (usually coal etc.)
WELFARE STATE
Large and usually generous
REDISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
Focus on bring about some equality of outcome.
What all these forms of socialism have in common is that they view society as one for the common good rather than any individualist conception. They focus much more on more ‘positive liberties’ and ‘equality of outcome’ and working towards a common goal. It is my personal opinion that it is a mistake to think there is any common good – merely an aggregation of numerous different interests to a deduce a common good is not to realise there is no single dominant will in society.
Third Way Social-ism – Blair
Socialism in the form of top-down intervention is dead. This ideology accepts capitalism and globalisation that breeds a knowledge economy of individual skill and flexibility
Government has an economic and social role
Economic – Promotion of international competitiveness etc
Social – contain pressure due to capitalism. A form of liberal communitarism
It is a forge between rights and entrepreneurialism and social/moral duty on the other. INTERDEPENDENT
Equality of opportunity / meritocracy – ‘hand up, not hand out’
Is it incoherent to accept the notion of economic liberalism and then warn against the social disintegration it causes?
Does communitarianism not just lead to ‘creeping authoritarianism?’
The End of ideology?
Daniel Bell
Ideology has become irrelevant within the modern world. Parties no longer face each other from differing ideological viewpoints but instead they promise higher living standards and economic growth – economics had triumphed over politics. This can be seen in the UK in the 1950-60’s with the broad consensus on Keynesian welfarism. This can also been seen in the UK with the consensus on economically liberal policies which both conservatives and labour offer.
Francis Fukayama
Liberal democracy has become the final resting ideology of the world. His book ‘the end of history’ was written in the time when Marxism was slowly disintegrating within Eastern Europe and Liberal Democracy was the dominant force in the world.
It is the end of history in the sense that history is no longer going to be driven by ideological changes as one has triumphed. Although we may have some remnants of other ideologies history has come to a stasis while Liberal Democracy triumphs.
It is the end of man’s ideological evolution.
No furthering development in principles / institutions
How do we know Liberal Democracy will not fail?
Similar utopian ideals have been left in the ashes of history – Marxism
Liberal imperialism is still taking place
Liberal Democracy is still an ideology – so ideology has not ended. Considering liberal democracies ensure the right to free speech, it is impossible to ever end the ideology debate within a Liberal Democracy.
[edit]Anthony Giddens
The conventional ideologies of left and right have become redundant within a society that is characterised by globalisation, decline of tradition and social reflexivity (autonomy mixed with interdependence).
Read more...
The State
The nature of the state can be roughly divided into 5 differing catergories. The most important remains the idea of a social contract.
Contract
Organic
Force IS NATURE NEEDED?
SOCIAL CONTRACT
Plato – Socratic Dialogues
Hobbes – Leviathan
Locke – 2 Treaties of Government
Rousseau – The Social Contract
Rawls – A Theory of Justice
A social contract is the decision to form a society; it is the justification for moving from a state of nature to the state of society. Differing conceptions place differing rules on how the society must act and government are ran in order to make this movement legitimate.
Plato
When Socrates was unjust condemned by the state, Plato asserts that by residence within the state there is an implicit contract between the state and the citizen
Does an aggregation of implicit promises constitute a real association of citizens?
SEE KEATING TO EXPLAIN THIS
Hobbes
The state of nature is barbaric, the people leave this state and pass power to an arbitrary despot. This body only has a requirement to give security to its citizens.
The alienation of peoples’ individual sovereignty to an arbitrary government
Is this contract a reciprocal contract? Although the government must provide security many would argue that this is insufficient grounds for the contact to be valid.
Locke
Double Contract
Social
Political – this is conditional on constitutional government protecting natural rights
Is this sufficiently reciprocal?
This contract lacks democracy, because it turns out only a limited group of people have the power to ‘withdraw consent’
Rousseau
Rousseau has a single social contract which reflects an optimistic view of human nature. The realisation to have a society implies a development in man’s moral development. The contract is made by rational men.
Rousseau says man is born free and everywhere he is in chains – the question is how they can be made legitimate – which is through the social contract.
Does Rousseau have a hopeful vision of human nature that the bringing into society will suddenly bring moral development? Is a political contract not required also?
Kant
Kant extended the idea of the social contract, saying it was a hypothetical ought, rather than an event in history. He followed similar lines to Rousseau.
“It is merely an idea of reason which has practical reality for it obliges legislation not incompatible with the general will”
Rawls
Under a veil of ignorance in an original position people would decide on two principles to government society
Equal Liberty
Difference Principle (opportunities and redistributive justice)
Can we really consider society legitimate on a hypothetical ideal?
Is this what rational men would really decide upon? Is human nature not greedy?
In terms of game theory, Rawls assumes we would seek to maximise out minimum – however, would we not look at the strata of society and the possibility of where we would most likely end up and decide upon those grounds. That may mean we prefer an American style society (some very very poor, but a lot very well off) compared to a Scandinavian style government
Does Rawls suppress out ‘conception of good’ which is relevant grounds as to how we think society should be formed.
Utilitarian attacks on social contracts
We should not be focusing on original position, but instead we should be focuses on achieving the best outcome.
In common with social contract theorists they focus on rationalism within politics
If we agree with the premise of the original position then we necessarily agree with the outcome – unless that outcome is distorted, and therefore it is not the original position anyway!
Organicism
Organic theories of the state are anti-rationalism. They focus on the evolutionary development that happens within society.
Organic theorists also reject the notion that man could ever exist in any pre-social state and thus the need for any contract seems voided
Burke – The great primeval contract of Eternal society
Bound together by traditions, through generations of those past/present and future
Oakeshott – Society is on intimations of experience, we don’t know where we have come from and we don’t know where we have come from. There is no original position or outcomes merely the mutual cooperation of citizens.
Hegel – man and the state are effectively fused together, there is an organic unity between the state and the citizen.
Essentially, organic theories of the state say that social contract is a merely abstraction of differing ideas, that cannot be realised in reality. The state is not formed on these different abstracts but through citizens continuing unity of the state in which we are binded with our past, present and future citizens in the evolutionary development of it.
What is this evolutionary development leads to the destruction of basic freedoms? Should this be tolerated?
Why can’t citizens exist in a pre-social state? We are born free individuals, there is no necessary need to have our autonomy restricted – a state of nature is a possible form.
Force
David Hume argued that the social contract never happened, nor could of happened
All states are created purely by force
However, is political theory not concerned with ought rather that is? Hume accepts the social contract is the one just foundation of government.
Do written constitutions not mean we do have a social contract?
Role of the State
The state is an institution which claims a monopoly of legitimate power for a particular territory
Minimal
Developmental
Totalitarian
Minimal State – Provides widest possible liberty
Laissez-Faire economics
Defence (internal and external)
Ultimate Safety Net (Night Watchman)
Voluntarism (collective action to promote common good)
People are more effectively helped by voluntary deeds – not really a practical reality in today’s world.
Neo-Liberalism – Provides widest possible liberty
Anarchy, State and Utopia
State as a form of theft
It was very influential on Thatcher’s economic policies
Possessive Individualism and atomistic view of individuals
There is no such thing as society
However, it was combined with social authoritarianism during the Thatcher era – surely this is intellectual incoherent? However, social and economic are two very distinct strands within society they don’t have to cohere.
Developmental State – Social Justice
There is a mistaken view that developmental state is one that promotes capital inflows with big business – this is merely what happens in modern more under developed neo-liberal states. Developmental refers not to economics but to the development of the individual.
Commonly associated with a social democratic version of the state.
Closely linked with positive liberty and freeing people from restraints of effective exercise of freedom. This is paid for via progressive taxation
State management and intervention within industry – perhaps some public ownership
Keynesian demand side macroeconomic management
MIXED ECONOMY
Totalitarian State
It is a mistake to associate totalitarian with the way it is used in the media to indicate people who are dictators and abuse human rights
Single Interest in politics – MONOISM
Politics is Omnicompotent and influences all aspects of life and breadth
Single interest within society (general will)
OR
Monopoly of coercive violence, extensive use of police/armed forces, brainwashing propaganda, antipathy to pluralism – one party state.
Characteristics of the State
Sovereignty
Other associations don’t claim sovereignty usually. Although the church (mainly Catholic Church) claims due to the pope that it has sovereignty.
Sovereignty internally is still present, although an overly dominant executive is making sovereignty lie in a smaller and smaller grasp
Does external sovereignty still exist? Specifically due to the fact that even after the 45minute claim was rubbished it was still justified because he was an evil man.
Territoriality
The world is divided by borders showing where this sovereignty operates in geographical terms
Disputed borders
Universal Jurisdiction
All humans resident within the territorial borders potentially come under the jurisdiction of the state
Diplomatic Immunity? – This could still be taken away.
Compulsory
People must do it
Coercion
The state must have the ability to ensure its laws are passed, and those who break them punished. Thus, the state has a monopoly of legitimate power.
Public
It is recognisable public. Its decisions are binding and legitimate because they work towards the common or public good.
Read more....
Contract
Organic
Force IS NATURE NEEDED?
SOCIAL CONTRACT
Plato – Socratic Dialogues
Hobbes – Leviathan
Locke – 2 Treaties of Government
Rousseau – The Social Contract
Rawls – A Theory of Justice
A social contract is the decision to form a society; it is the justification for moving from a state of nature to the state of society. Differing conceptions place differing rules on how the society must act and government are ran in order to make this movement legitimate.
Plato
When Socrates was unjust condemned by the state, Plato asserts that by residence within the state there is an implicit contract between the state and the citizen
Does an aggregation of implicit promises constitute a real association of citizens?
SEE KEATING TO EXPLAIN THIS
Hobbes
The state of nature is barbaric, the people leave this state and pass power to an arbitrary despot. This body only has a requirement to give security to its citizens.
The alienation of peoples’ individual sovereignty to an arbitrary government
Is this contract a reciprocal contract? Although the government must provide security many would argue that this is insufficient grounds for the contact to be valid.
Locke
Double Contract
Social
Political – this is conditional on constitutional government protecting natural rights
Is this sufficiently reciprocal?
This contract lacks democracy, because it turns out only a limited group of people have the power to ‘withdraw consent’
Rousseau
Rousseau has a single social contract which reflects an optimistic view of human nature. The realisation to have a society implies a development in man’s moral development. The contract is made by rational men.
Rousseau says man is born free and everywhere he is in chains – the question is how they can be made legitimate – which is through the social contract.
Does Rousseau have a hopeful vision of human nature that the bringing into society will suddenly bring moral development? Is a political contract not required also?
Kant
Kant extended the idea of the social contract, saying it was a hypothetical ought, rather than an event in history. He followed similar lines to Rousseau.
“It is merely an idea of reason which has practical reality for it obliges legislation not incompatible with the general will”
Rawls
Under a veil of ignorance in an original position people would decide on two principles to government society
Equal Liberty
Difference Principle (opportunities and redistributive justice)
Can we really consider society legitimate on a hypothetical ideal?
Is this what rational men would really decide upon? Is human nature not greedy?
In terms of game theory, Rawls assumes we would seek to maximise out minimum – however, would we not look at the strata of society and the possibility of where we would most likely end up and decide upon those grounds. That may mean we prefer an American style society (some very very poor, but a lot very well off) compared to a Scandinavian style government
Does Rawls suppress out ‘conception of good’ which is relevant grounds as to how we think society should be formed.
Utilitarian attacks on social contracts
We should not be focusing on original position, but instead we should be focuses on achieving the best outcome.
In common with social contract theorists they focus on rationalism within politics
If we agree with the premise of the original position then we necessarily agree with the outcome – unless that outcome is distorted, and therefore it is not the original position anyway!
Organicism
Organic theories of the state are anti-rationalism. They focus on the evolutionary development that happens within society.
Organic theorists also reject the notion that man could ever exist in any pre-social state and thus the need for any contract seems voided
Burke – The great primeval contract of Eternal society
Bound together by traditions, through generations of those past/present and future
Oakeshott – Society is on intimations of experience, we don’t know where we have come from and we don’t know where we have come from. There is no original position or outcomes merely the mutual cooperation of citizens.
Hegel – man and the state are effectively fused together, there is an organic unity between the state and the citizen.
Essentially, organic theories of the state say that social contract is a merely abstraction of differing ideas, that cannot be realised in reality. The state is not formed on these different abstracts but through citizens continuing unity of the state in which we are binded with our past, present and future citizens in the evolutionary development of it.
What is this evolutionary development leads to the destruction of basic freedoms? Should this be tolerated?
Why can’t citizens exist in a pre-social state? We are born free individuals, there is no necessary need to have our autonomy restricted – a state of nature is a possible form.
Force
David Hume argued that the social contract never happened, nor could of happened
All states are created purely by force
However, is political theory not concerned with ought rather that is? Hume accepts the social contract is the one just foundation of government.
Do written constitutions not mean we do have a social contract?
Role of the State
The state is an institution which claims a monopoly of legitimate power for a particular territory
Minimal
Developmental
Totalitarian
Minimal State – Provides widest possible liberty
Laissez-Faire economics
Defence (internal and external)
Ultimate Safety Net (Night Watchman)
Voluntarism (collective action to promote common good)
People are more effectively helped by voluntary deeds – not really a practical reality in today’s world.
Neo-Liberalism – Provides widest possible liberty
Anarchy, State and Utopia
State as a form of theft
It was very influential on Thatcher’s economic policies
Possessive Individualism and atomistic view of individuals
There is no such thing as society
However, it was combined with social authoritarianism during the Thatcher era – surely this is intellectual incoherent? However, social and economic are two very distinct strands within society they don’t have to cohere.
Developmental State – Social Justice
There is a mistaken view that developmental state is one that promotes capital inflows with big business – this is merely what happens in modern more under developed neo-liberal states. Developmental refers not to economics but to the development of the individual.
Commonly associated with a social democratic version of the state.
Closely linked with positive liberty and freeing people from restraints of effective exercise of freedom. This is paid for via progressive taxation
State management and intervention within industry – perhaps some public ownership
Keynesian demand side macroeconomic management
MIXED ECONOMY
Totalitarian State
It is a mistake to associate totalitarian with the way it is used in the media to indicate people who are dictators and abuse human rights
Single Interest in politics – MONOISM
Politics is Omnicompotent and influences all aspects of life and breadth
Single interest within society (general will)
OR
Monopoly of coercive violence, extensive use of police/armed forces, brainwashing propaganda, antipathy to pluralism – one party state.
Characteristics of the State
Sovereignty
Other associations don’t claim sovereignty usually. Although the church (mainly Catholic Church) claims due to the pope that it has sovereignty.
Sovereignty internally is still present, although an overly dominant executive is making sovereignty lie in a smaller and smaller grasp
Does external sovereignty still exist? Specifically due to the fact that even after the 45minute claim was rubbished it was still justified because he was an evil man.
Territoriality
The world is divided by borders showing where this sovereignty operates in geographical terms
Disputed borders
Universal Jurisdiction
All humans resident within the territorial borders potentially come under the jurisdiction of the state
Diplomatic Immunity? – This could still be taken away.
Compulsory
People must do it
Coercion
The state must have the ability to ensure its laws are passed, and those who break them punished. Thus, the state has a monopoly of legitimate power.
Public
It is recognisable public. Its decisions are binding and legitimate because they work towards the common or public good.
Read more....
Political Obligation
Is political obligation absolute, conditional or non existent?
Absolute
Tacit consent – Plato
Tacit consent is not the same as consent. Reality may stop you leaving the state, commitments and such.
Does not take into account how the state is formed (may be unjust) and the laws its passes by be unjust
Social Contract
Hobbes – guarantees security and is better than state of nature
Hobbes’ Leviathan is able to do whatever it pleases as long as it guarantees security. It seems entirely possible to make things just as bad as a state of nature – removal of freedoms, arbitrary arrest etc and this would be justified.
Surely the state has more duties than just security?
Rousseau – general will (elections)
Tyranny of majority (does taking part in elections not mean we implicitly promise to accept the majority verdict?)
Do we have better?
Non Existent
Anarchist Thinking (Wolff)
Although we may obey the state out of prudence, the reality is that the state is unjust because our primary obligation is autonomy and the state infringes upon that. Thus, the actions of the state can never be viewed as legitimate
If our autonomy directs us towards a state, then surely it is legitimate?
What if a regime makes a just law – do we have a duty of disobedience against justice?
Thoreau
Conscience decides what is right and wrong, not majorities
This would allow terrorists who kill thousands to be considered ‘legitimate’
Empirically, the framework of society would break down if people acted how they pleased.
Conditional
Rawls
It is too hard to form a basis of disobedience on grounds of personal morality, because that is no sense objective. Therefore, we must look at grounds for justice – equal liberty and fair equality as our objective criteria, if the law contravenes these principles we must act
The law is to enact justice, and if it goes against the above principles we are in a paradoxical situation – thus we have a right to civil disobedience.
Read more...
Absolute
Tacit consent – Plato
Tacit consent is not the same as consent. Reality may stop you leaving the state, commitments and such.
Does not take into account how the state is formed (may be unjust) and the laws its passes by be unjust
Social Contract
Hobbes – guarantees security and is better than state of nature
Hobbes’ Leviathan is able to do whatever it pleases as long as it guarantees security. It seems entirely possible to make things just as bad as a state of nature – removal of freedoms, arbitrary arrest etc and this would be justified.
Surely the state has more duties than just security?
Rousseau – general will (elections)
Tyranny of majority (does taking part in elections not mean we implicitly promise to accept the majority verdict?)
Do we have better?
Non Existent
Anarchist Thinking (Wolff)
Although we may obey the state out of prudence, the reality is that the state is unjust because our primary obligation is autonomy and the state infringes upon that. Thus, the actions of the state can never be viewed as legitimate
If our autonomy directs us towards a state, then surely it is legitimate?
What if a regime makes a just law – do we have a duty of disobedience against justice?
Thoreau
Conscience decides what is right and wrong, not majorities
This would allow terrorists who kill thousands to be considered ‘legitimate’
Empirically, the framework of society would break down if people acted how they pleased.
Conditional
Rawls
It is too hard to form a basis of disobedience on grounds of personal morality, because that is no sense objective. Therefore, we must look at grounds for justice – equal liberty and fair equality as our objective criteria, if the law contravenes these principles we must act
The law is to enact justice, and if it goes against the above principles we are in a paradoxical situation – thus we have a right to civil disobedience.
Read more...
Political Obligation
Political obligation is not about why we obey the law but why we should obey the law.
Intrinsic
Associated with deontology, in which the consequences are irrelevant
Traditionalism – divine right, powers that be
Aristocracy – wisdom / breeding / heroism / money
Can we really count ‘tradition’ as a reason for authority remaining, especially if that is to trample of people’s rights etc?
Extrinsic
Associated with teleological accounts – leading to best outcome.
Social Contract
Hobbes – to keep security
Locke – protection of natural rights
Rousseau – common good, providing moral freedom
RATIONAL ORIGINAL POSITIONS
Tacit Consent
Being within a state you tacitly accept all its laws, no matter how unjust and must accept the punishment
Utilitarianism
Judging laws by consequences
Judged on criteria such as happiness, progress and truth
OUTCOME
Organic (REAL WILL THEORY)
Uniting both intrinsic (state) and extrinsic (citizen) theories
The obligation to obey the state is grounded it its ability in the role of development of MORAL FREEDOM
The state and citizen are intrinsically linked, the state allows your ‘real will’ to be realised by obeying its self prescribed laws – Similar to positive liberty.
Read more...
Intrinsic
Associated with deontology, in which the consequences are irrelevant
Traditionalism – divine right, powers that be
Aristocracy – wisdom / breeding / heroism / money
Can we really count ‘tradition’ as a reason for authority remaining, especially if that is to trample of people’s rights etc?
Extrinsic
Associated with teleological accounts – leading to best outcome.
Social Contract
Hobbes – to keep security
Locke – protection of natural rights
Rousseau – common good, providing moral freedom
RATIONAL ORIGINAL POSITIONS
Tacit Consent
Being within a state you tacitly accept all its laws, no matter how unjust and must accept the punishment
Utilitarianism
Judging laws by consequences
Judged on criteria such as happiness, progress and truth
OUTCOME
Organic (REAL WILL THEORY)
Uniting both intrinsic (state) and extrinsic (citizen) theories
The obligation to obey the state is grounded it its ability in the role of development of MORAL FREEDOM
The state and citizen are intrinsically linked, the state allows your ‘real will’ to be realised by obeying its self prescribed laws – Similar to positive liberty.
Read more...
Liberty and Equality
Rawls
Under the veil of ignorance, rational men would decide upon two principles
Equal and maximal Liberty
Arrangement of inequalities to benefit the worst off
Therefore, the social contract and rationality clearly shows that equality should be about outcomes at least in part. However, the extent to which we can consider this the outcome of rational men (greed?) and the amount we can trust a hypothetical contract is doubtful.
Dworkin
'If I have two children with the same disease, but one is dying while the other is merely uncomfortable. I do not flip a coin to decide who gets the last dose of medicine.’ -
Circumstance must play a key consideration within equality. Are these children really in an equal position anyway? Surely this is relevant and justified grounds for discrimination that does not really infringe on equality of treatment.
[edit]Are liberty and equality incompatible?
It is often assumed that these two concepts are in direct competition with one another, a view espoused by people such as Lord Acton – the passion for equality made vain the hope of freedom
Different definition of the concepts
Negative Liberty and Equal Treatment (freedom from external constraints, equality of treatment allows individuals to follow their own course and have the possibility of achieving scare social positions)
Positive Liberty (welfare) and Equality of Outcome (freedom from poverty and such can only be achieved by seeking some measure of equality of outcome etc.)
Problems of compatibility
Negative liberty and Equal Outcomes
Equal outcomes are associated with the ability to dine at the Ritz, while negative liberty only cares about the right to do so.
Taxes, in purely libertarian terms (cf. Nozik) are an infringement on liberty yet are required to achieve equality of outcome. Also positive discrimination.
Positive Liberty and Equal Treatment
Equal treatment means we ensure the procedures within society mean people are not discriminated against.
Positive liberty actually seeks action in order to help people be free – redistributive taxation etc
Personal Opinion
Negative liberty
Positive liberty confuses itself with notions of equality and fairness – even if we accept these to be desirable concepts they are not liberty and thus the viewpoint of positive liberty is ultimately confused and not about liberty at all
Equal Treatment
Positive Discrimination, large taxes are not desirable are warranted – especially the former as it is a direct contradiction of equality
Equality is not about making people equal, but allowing them the chance to be
There are some limited grounds (such as economic poverty traps) that mean simply cannot have the possible chance to be equal – then there may be a case for redistribution in taxation. These grounds remain limited.
In conclusion, it is possible to make liberty and equality compatible if you take certain definitions of it. However, as discussed the idea of positive liberty is simply confused, the only small incompatibly rests on very limited grounds mentioned above between negative liberty and equality of outcome - but for the vast majority the two concepts do cohere together – equal treatment and negative liberty work in tandem to ensure a society free from discrimination allowing maximal possibilities for individuals to succeed.
Read more...
Under the veil of ignorance, rational men would decide upon two principles
Equal and maximal Liberty
Arrangement of inequalities to benefit the worst off
Therefore, the social contract and rationality clearly shows that equality should be about outcomes at least in part. However, the extent to which we can consider this the outcome of rational men (greed?) and the amount we can trust a hypothetical contract is doubtful.
Dworkin
'If I have two children with the same disease, but one is dying while the other is merely uncomfortable. I do not flip a coin to decide who gets the last dose of medicine.’ -
Circumstance must play a key consideration within equality. Are these children really in an equal position anyway? Surely this is relevant and justified grounds for discrimination that does not really infringe on equality of treatment.
[edit]Are liberty and equality incompatible?
It is often assumed that these two concepts are in direct competition with one another, a view espoused by people such as Lord Acton – the passion for equality made vain the hope of freedom
Different definition of the concepts
Negative Liberty and Equal Treatment (freedom from external constraints, equality of treatment allows individuals to follow their own course and have the possibility of achieving scare social positions)
Positive Liberty (welfare) and Equality of Outcome (freedom from poverty and such can only be achieved by seeking some measure of equality of outcome etc.)
Problems of compatibility
Negative liberty and Equal Outcomes
Equal outcomes are associated with the ability to dine at the Ritz, while negative liberty only cares about the right to do so.
Taxes, in purely libertarian terms (cf. Nozik) are an infringement on liberty yet are required to achieve equality of outcome. Also positive discrimination.
Positive Liberty and Equal Treatment
Equal treatment means we ensure the procedures within society mean people are not discriminated against.
Positive liberty actually seeks action in order to help people be free – redistributive taxation etc
Personal Opinion
Negative liberty
Positive liberty confuses itself with notions of equality and fairness – even if we accept these to be desirable concepts they are not liberty and thus the viewpoint of positive liberty is ultimately confused and not about liberty at all
Equal Treatment
Positive Discrimination, large taxes are not desirable are warranted – especially the former as it is a direct contradiction of equality
Equality is not about making people equal, but allowing them the chance to be
There are some limited grounds (such as economic poverty traps) that mean simply cannot have the possible chance to be equal – then there may be a case for redistribution in taxation. These grounds remain limited.
In conclusion, it is possible to make liberty and equality compatible if you take certain definitions of it. However, as discussed the idea of positive liberty is simply confused, the only small incompatibly rests on very limited grounds mentioned above between negative liberty and equality of outcome - but for the vast majority the two concepts do cohere together – equal treatment and negative liberty work in tandem to ensure a society free from discrimination allowing maximal possibilities for individuals to succeed.
Read more...
Equality
Equality also remains a contested concept, and once again is at the heart of political debate. The word equality carries differing interpretations about what counts as ‘equality’
Natural Inequality
Natural viewpoints such as those of Aristotle who claimed ‘it is unjust to threat unequal equally as equals unequally’. The old view focused on differences between men and women – which is obviously defunct today.
Natural inequality may be considered today to be intelligence as grounds for university admission.
Equality of treatment / opportunity / rights
The chance to develop individual powers or gifts without discrimination
Which allows people to achieve the scare social rewards – widening the competition for different positions
Citizens are treated equally unless good and relevant reasons are used to justify discrimination
Essentially, everyone is treated as an individual and the group they belong to (class, age, race, disability, gender, sexual orientation, religion) are not taken as grounds to discriminate – blind justice
Do inherent problems with different races culture not render some people unable to achieve certain outcomes?
Social mobility has narrowed since the adoption of this system – good or bad or indifferent?
Are some issues non-self inflicted (such as intelligence) that may call for a redistributive justice because these people have been dealt a ‘bad’ hand.
Can we maintain a society without civil unrest and resentment if we don’t have SOME measure of equal outcome?
Equal Outcomes
This type of equality is associated with outcome – ‘equal things’.
Power, Wealth, Redistributive justice, jobs, money etc.
This may involve positive discrimination, quota setting in order to ensure equal outcomes. **This is often seen in relation to ethnicity
In general, this view is associated with the idea that it brings about social justice
How can we seriously consider equality giving someone who is less able the chance to succeed over someone who is more able?
In economic terms, does equality of outcome not lead to fewer incentives to succeed – this is bad for growth.
Equal treatment allows social mobility without compromising the true meaning of equality
My personal opinion that that equality is primarily about equal treatment – it provides an incentive for people to succeed and provides true equality – no discrimination positive or negative. However, in terms of outcomes, as a society we must look at issues such as the poverty trap and realise that a partly redistributive tax system is required and a LIMITED measure of equality of outcome is desirable but it should never compromise the ideals of equality of treatment.
Read more...
Natural Inequality
Natural viewpoints such as those of Aristotle who claimed ‘it is unjust to threat unequal equally as equals unequally’. The old view focused on differences between men and women – which is obviously defunct today.
Natural inequality may be considered today to be intelligence as grounds for university admission.
Equality of treatment / opportunity / rights
The chance to develop individual powers or gifts without discrimination
Which allows people to achieve the scare social rewards – widening the competition for different positions
Citizens are treated equally unless good and relevant reasons are used to justify discrimination
Essentially, everyone is treated as an individual and the group they belong to (class, age, race, disability, gender, sexual orientation, religion) are not taken as grounds to discriminate – blind justice
Do inherent problems with different races culture not render some people unable to achieve certain outcomes?
Social mobility has narrowed since the adoption of this system – good or bad or indifferent?
Are some issues non-self inflicted (such as intelligence) that may call for a redistributive justice because these people have been dealt a ‘bad’ hand.
Can we maintain a society without civil unrest and resentment if we don’t have SOME measure of equal outcome?
Equal Outcomes
This type of equality is associated with outcome – ‘equal things’.
Power, Wealth, Redistributive justice, jobs, money etc.
This may involve positive discrimination, quota setting in order to ensure equal outcomes. **This is often seen in relation to ethnicity
In general, this view is associated with the idea that it brings about social justice
How can we seriously consider equality giving someone who is less able the chance to succeed over someone who is more able?
In economic terms, does equality of outcome not lead to fewer incentives to succeed – this is bad for growth.
Equal treatment allows social mobility without compromising the true meaning of equality
My personal opinion that that equality is primarily about equal treatment – it provides an incentive for people to succeed and provides true equality – no discrimination positive or negative. However, in terms of outcomes, as a society we must look at issues such as the poverty trap and realise that a partly redistributive tax system is required and a LIMITED measure of equality of outcome is desirable but it should never compromise the ideals of equality of treatment.
Read more...
Liberty
Liberty is a highly contested concept and remains at the heart of much of today’s political debate. It is such an important concept there are pressure groups (such as LIBERTY) that are focused purely on the promotion of its cause.
Liberty may be defined as the absence of restraint, interference of impediment – many people then contest exactly what does constitute a ‘restraint or impediment.
NEGATIVE LIBERTY
Individuals should be free from coercion by the state or others. The state should play a minimal role in legislating individual action
Based on Mill’s HARM PRINCIPLE
Over himself, the individual is sovereign
Should this commitment to negative liberty be based on the intrinsic worth of negative liberty or in seeking a utilitarian outcome?
Is any action entirely self regarding?
POSITIVE LIBERTY
Freedom from internal constraints of the irrational and immoral self
Internal liberation, moral freedom bringing about collective freedom
Obedience to the state is freedom
Forced to be free
Does this not create a paradox where coercion = freedom?
Is this just not the step toward a totalitarian state where everything is viewed as a collective?
SOCIAL / WELFARE LIBERTY (AMERICAN LIBERALISM)
Freedom from poverty, want, disease, squalor, ignorance
Collective state provision of these goods
The idea is that these ‘5 evils’ provide a restriction to freedom and thus must be combated by the state
Even if you think social liberty is good – is that liberty?
Rawls argued that they merely affect the worth of liberty.
This is not liberty but merely the conditions for its effective exercise
ANARCHY
Complete absence of rules and restraints
Every law is an infraction of liberty (Bentham)
Autonomy is an absolute right
Could this be the only true version of liberty?
The empirical outcome of anarchy is not a ‘good’ one – should it therefore be rejected?
LIBERTY OF ANCIENTS
Active and constant participation in collective power
Tyranny of majority
[edit]Is all liberty negative?
TRADTIONAL VIEW
The conception of positive freedom, for instance from Rousseau where we need to stop our immorality, irrationality and stupidity.
This is the freedom to do something by removing our inner constraints
Welfare liberty may also be viewed as freedom to do something because positive restricts the ability of someone to do something
Negative liberty is associated with freedom from
The individual is sovereign, and freedom is associated with the lack of coercion.
Mill wanted freedom from external constraints.
Is this distinction valid?
X = agent
Y = restraint
Z = possible action
X IS FREE FROM Y TO DO Z (McCallum)
Does this not indicate that any action can be deduced to a freedom from?
Critics have argued that maybe all freedom is positive, often citing mill’s commitment to a utilitarian outcome – but his utilitarian commitment is not intrinsic to the concept of liberty
The argument by Callum falls on the basis that he fails to take into account the different viewpoints entirely. The positive libertarian has the view point that it is the actuality of action (be that civic or whatever) that brings about freedom. However, the negative libertarian is only concerned with the possibility of action.
Someone staying in bed all day; a positive liberty approach is concerned with him doing something, while a negative liberty approach is concerned that is has the possibility to do something.
The issue concerning welfare liberty is that if they actually in count as a limit on liberty. Welfare liberals argue that things like poverty are a restriction on the ability to act freely. Are you actually free if your poverty stops you from buying a cup of coffee?
Again, I think this argument fails to really capture the heart of the issue. The ‘5 evils’ merely affect the range of possibilities that are actually open to you to enact your freedom. However, that is not what freedom is – it is merely having the possibility in the first place. There is a distinction to be made between intentional and impersonal restraints on actions.
[edit]Limitations on liberty
Any restrain can be placed on freedom – the question is what ought to be restricted on freedom.
External – competing concepts such as democracy and equality.
Internal – it depends on your definition. Anarchists think nothing, Classical on the harm principle etc
Read more...
Liberty may be defined as the absence of restraint, interference of impediment – many people then contest exactly what does constitute a ‘restraint or impediment.
NEGATIVE LIBERTY
Individuals should be free from coercion by the state or others. The state should play a minimal role in legislating individual action
Based on Mill’s HARM PRINCIPLE
Over himself, the individual is sovereign
Should this commitment to negative liberty be based on the intrinsic worth of negative liberty or in seeking a utilitarian outcome?
Is any action entirely self regarding?
POSITIVE LIBERTY
Freedom from internal constraints of the irrational and immoral self
Internal liberation, moral freedom bringing about collective freedom
Obedience to the state is freedom
Forced to be free
Does this not create a paradox where coercion = freedom?
Is this just not the step toward a totalitarian state where everything is viewed as a collective?
SOCIAL / WELFARE LIBERTY (AMERICAN LIBERALISM)
Freedom from poverty, want, disease, squalor, ignorance
Collective state provision of these goods
The idea is that these ‘5 evils’ provide a restriction to freedom and thus must be combated by the state
Even if you think social liberty is good – is that liberty?
Rawls argued that they merely affect the worth of liberty.
This is not liberty but merely the conditions for its effective exercise
ANARCHY
Complete absence of rules and restraints
Every law is an infraction of liberty (Bentham)
Autonomy is an absolute right
Could this be the only true version of liberty?
The empirical outcome of anarchy is not a ‘good’ one – should it therefore be rejected?
LIBERTY OF ANCIENTS
Active and constant participation in collective power
Tyranny of majority
[edit]Is all liberty negative?
TRADTIONAL VIEW
The conception of positive freedom, for instance from Rousseau where we need to stop our immorality, irrationality and stupidity.
This is the freedom to do something by removing our inner constraints
Welfare liberty may also be viewed as freedom to do something because positive restricts the ability of someone to do something
Negative liberty is associated with freedom from
The individual is sovereign, and freedom is associated with the lack of coercion.
Mill wanted freedom from external constraints.
Is this distinction valid?
X = agent
Y = restraint
Z = possible action
X IS FREE FROM Y TO DO Z (McCallum)
Does this not indicate that any action can be deduced to a freedom from?
Critics have argued that maybe all freedom is positive, often citing mill’s commitment to a utilitarian outcome – but his utilitarian commitment is not intrinsic to the concept of liberty
The argument by Callum falls on the basis that he fails to take into account the different viewpoints entirely. The positive libertarian has the view point that it is the actuality of action (be that civic or whatever) that brings about freedom. However, the negative libertarian is only concerned with the possibility of action.
Someone staying in bed all day; a positive liberty approach is concerned with him doing something, while a negative liberty approach is concerned that is has the possibility to do something.
The issue concerning welfare liberty is that if they actually in count as a limit on liberty. Welfare liberals argue that things like poverty are a restriction on the ability to act freely. Are you actually free if your poverty stops you from buying a cup of coffee?
Again, I think this argument fails to really capture the heart of the issue. The ‘5 evils’ merely affect the range of possibilities that are actually open to you to enact your freedom. However, that is not what freedom is – it is merely having the possibility in the first place. There is a distinction to be made between intentional and impersonal restraints on actions.
[edit]Limitations on liberty
Any restrain can be placed on freedom – the question is what ought to be restricted on freedom.
External – competing concepts such as democracy and equality.
Internal – it depends on your definition. Anarchists think nothing, Classical on the harm principle etc
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)