STUDY GUIDE FOR THE MIDTERM
POLITICAL THEORY
1. Hobbes provides a definition of "liberty" that would be enormously influential for
"classical" and "neoclassical" liberals. What does Hobbes say is the proper way to
understand liberty?
According to Hobbes the proper way to understand liberty is the lack of external
impediments: which impediments, may oft take part of a man’s power to do what he
would, but cannot delay him from using the power left him, according to as his
judgment and reason shall say to him.
2. What is the importance of the development of money for Locke's argument about the
extent of property accumulation in the state of nature?
The development of money as a worthy commodity benefits a society who values
goods, land or any form of attainable means translated by political philosopher
John Locke as “property”. According to Locke’s doctrine, an individual has the
right to transform any natural material considered boundless to a person in
particular into theirs and only their hands; rendering it their property by the labor
they took upon themselves to seize seemingly what nobody had taken the time to
take for themselves. Locke continues that ideally, government, by ascribing laws to
property accumulation, will protect this industry of property.
Many useful goods, however, have been known to perish quickly, thus requiring the
laborer—who has every right to work for what will become his or her property—to
accumulate more than necessary. In consequence, other possible laborers are
deprived of the would-be fruit of property. This can immediately make the industry
of goods, land and the like an unequal practice: where the excessive profit and the
other capable laborers, left out by the former’s greediness, are rendered barren
with nothing to hold for themselves.
3. According to Locke's argument in the Second Treatise, why is revolution against an
absolute monarch who denies the people their natural rights to life, liberty, and property
not only a right, but a moral duty?
Revolting against a government which denies the people their natural rights is a
moral duty simply because the government’s purpose is to protect the people of
their natural rights and not abuse them in any way shape or form. The people
under this government should feel secure and should enjoy their natural rights but
if opposite occurs then revolt must happen to change the government’s ways.
4. In “Common Sense” Paine contrasts "government" with "society." What does he see as
the difference between the two?
Paine sees the government as a “necessary evil” and he sees society as something we
should try to excel in. The government is formed as an outcome of society’s defects.
When society isn’t working in union then a form of government must step into
regulate.
5. What are the specific grievances listed by the colonists in The Declaration of
Independence? How might one read these grievances from the perspective of liberalism?
At the time, the king of Great Britain was seen as a tyrant by those who colonized
the United States. The king was stubborn, imposing violent power and taxes over
the new, free land; he has stopped all ships and charters. The colonists demanded
separation from the community under the government of Great Britain. Modern
liberals state that a tyrannical government should be deconstructed and
reconstructed by revolution. That is the opposite of what the colonists did; the
colonists ran away from their ill-desired governing. (85-87, reader)
6. If you were part of a group whose members had been systematically denied the rights that
Jefferson sets forth in the Declaration, how might you go about arguing for inclusion?
The Declaration of Independence mentions human rights, the rights of all humans,
unalienable rights, as the Declaration offered them. It states preservation of liberty,
property, security and resistance of oppression, no matter whom. With a country
where all are born free, no man has the right to trample my free exercise of rights.
The Declaration of Independence applies to a small group, and excludes all others in
contradiction. We all have a voice, we all deserve freedom; where is the sense of
community? (89-90, reader)
7. Smith argues that, in addition to the natural propensity to truck, barter, and exchange,
there is another feature of human life that separates us from animals. Do you think there
is sometimes a tension between these two elements of human existence? Why or why
not?
Adam Smith believes that people have a natural tendency to trade, but also, when
people become of age they garner a particular set of skills that set them apart from
other people. These different talents set people apart from animals but, these two
human traits can cause tensions. The idea that people can barter or exchange their
talents sounds promising but issues can arise when the amount of work put into a
talent does not equate to another. In Adam Smith’s time, the specialized talent of
blacksmithing or butcher may be necessary for a stable society, but today, all of
those “talents” are streamlined which renders many talents useless. This forces a
wide discrepancy in skill between people who work at a diner versus someone who
has studied for years to become a surgeon.
8. Kant gives two broad sets of reasons why individuals have not heretofore thrown off their
immaturity. What are they?
Immanuel Kant describes that people are immature because of two reasons:
“laziness” and “cowardice”. He describes immature people as being content with
their lives by allowing other to think for them. Laziness is one the culprits that allow
people to rely on other to go on about their daily lives by paying for services or
tasks. People can go their entire lives without the need to think for themselves,
instead, others will do the thinking for them. The other is cowardice, which is the
fear to think for themselves without someone to guide them. Kant assures people
that the danger of stepping outside your own comfort zone is almost nonexistent, but
the fear that is imbedded in people from a young age stalls them from progressing in
life. These are the two main reasons why men conform and don’t think for
themselves.
9. To what Kant believe any generation can legitimately limit the willingness of future
generations to dare to know? Which institution does Kant use as an example of one that
might well attempt to engage in such behavior, and what does he think of it?
Kant believes that future generations might become too complacent and reliant on
the thoughts and ideas of previous generations. He believes that because of this,
future generations will not develop the capability to think for themselves and
others. He mentions that people should be free to openly express their own thoughts
and reasons so better ideas can happen. Hence, he believes in open discourse
that He believes that people should be able to critique and expand upon the ideas
left behind by the previous generation. For example, he is harsh toward religious
institution, because religion doctrines remained fixed, unchanged, and
dogmatic. Moreover, religious doctrine remained resilient to critique.
10. Mill famously declares that: “if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only
one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing
that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind (p.
97). Mill gives three basic reasons for this claim. What are they?
First, any opinion can be true because we don’t know if it is not true. This is
because mankind is inherently fallible and not everyone is perfect in their opinions
and thoughts. Secondly, even if the minority’s opinions is false, it can be partially
true. There may be some partial validity to the minority’s opinions. Thirdly, Mill
believes every opinion should be thoroughly examined and he shuns dogmatic
beliefs. He believes that that every opinion, majority or minority should be judged
with the same intensity. That way, we can ensure we reached the conclusions based
on rational grounds.
11. At the beginning of this piece, Sumner argues that "every man and woman in society has
one big duty." What is that duty, according to Sumner, and why would it be a
fundamental mistake to try to go beyond it?
Sumner argues that every person’s duty in society is to put one’s self-interest before
everything else. He believes it would be a mistake to go beyond that because it would
interfere with others’ interests.
12. The key figure in Sumner's analysis is the one he calls "the Forgotten Man." Who is this
individual? How and why is he forgotten? Why does Sumner believe that the case of the
Forgotten Man illustrates the problem of enabling government to do more than protect
the persons and property of its citizens?
The individual Sumner describes as “the forgotten man” is essentially a business
owner of the middle class. To Sumner, these individuals are forgotten because many
scholars fail to appreciate or recognize them, which illustrates the problem of
enabling government to do more than protect the persons and property of its
citizens.
13. Why does the welfare liberal Green reject voluntary slave contracts? Why might some
neoclassical liberals or libertarians like Nozick defend them?
Green, as a welfare liberal, rejects voluntary slave contracts in a free society based
on the idea that a totally free society must enable all of its citizens to be able to work
freely, and enter into labor contracts, without giving up their rights to health and
life. He argues that in a free society, each worker must be able to contribute to
society in ways other than their labor. Thus, laws which require certain working
conditions, from minimum wages to labor hour limits, are in place to make sure that
workers are able to contribute to society and be healthy and able members. He
claims that a society should be able to deny voluntary slavery contracts because
even if it is voluntary, the slave is in a position that denies him his ability to work as
a healthy and contributing member of society.
In contrast, libertarians and neoclassical liberals like Nozick may defend a person’s
right to enter into a voluntary slave contract with another based on the complete
freedom of someone to do whatever they wish with themselves and their belongings.
They see labor in all of its forms as a business transaction, where a worker sells his
time, skills, education, and physical abilities to someone else for a certain wage.
Nozick would believe that just as you should be able to sell the entirety of any of
your other belongings, be it your house, your car, or you TV, you should be able to
sell the entirety of yourself if you so choose. Nozick would further believe that the
government denying you the right to do so would be an infringement on your
personal rights to property, and would be the government telling you what to do
and what to think. As Green states, people should not have the right to voluntarily
enslave others. It is the duty of a society to ensure that all of its members are able to
have the basic foundations for a good life, including access to health, education,
shelter, and work. If one must resort to selling themselves into slavery, then the
society has failed in providing that person the ability to provide for themselves. To
allow them to go into a voluntary slavery contract would mean that they are given
up on, instead of given the tools that they need, whether on a personal level
(education, training) or on the level of the society as a whole (welfare, workers’
unions). A society should have no supply of slaves because all of its citizens should
be able to live without putting themselves into bondage. Instead, as Green states,
things like education which allow someone to rise above the need to sell themselves
need to be provided by the society, and if they are not done by the free will of its
people, than it should be given by the government.
14. In his speech, Roosevelt declares that some forces in the United States had begun to see
the Government "as a mere appendage to their own affairs"; and he insists that
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob"
(p. 111). Which institutions, forces, and individuals does Roosevelt single out as
examples of this tendency? What does he claim is their philosophy of government?
Roosevelt argues that, in various ways, the opponents of the New Deal have been
“deceitful.” What examples does he give to justify this assertion?
In his Speech at Madison Square Garden, Roosevelt is arguing against all of those
executives, Wall Street heads, monopolies, and government leaders being paid
under the table that led to the Great Depression. He states that while these people
were still making huge amounts of money, the honest American was left in cold and
in deep economic stress, all the name of “capitalism being supreme law.” As he’s
promoting his New Deal, he mentions an aura of deceit present among the business
sect, trying anything to sway people from considering his proposal. He mentions
that employers have sent anti-Roosevelt letters included in worker pay check
envelopes. They have also been using fear and propaganda by threatening to close
down factories if they follow New Deal policies. They are twisting the words of the
New Deal, such as concealing the benefits of Social Security in the future and the
benefits of Workers Compensation. Opponents of the New Deal also state that the
money hard-working Americans put into Social Security insurance and other
savings will be taken away by the government and be used for something else
entirely. In regards to his story of the Good Samaritan taken from the Bible’s Luke
10:25-37, the greedy business leaders and stubborn capitalists would be the Pharisee
that just kept walking.
15. What sorts of programs does Roosevelt single out as essential ones for the continuation of
the New Deal in his second term? How are these programs illustrative of the welfare
liberal conception of "positive freedom"?
term was his idea of working to have cheaper electricity and cheaper transportation
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945) states several programs that he wants to single
out as essential ones for the continuation of the new deal in his second term within
his speech at Madison Square Garden on October 31, 1936. One program that he
wants to continue is the improvement of working conditions for Americans such as
reducing long hours and the labor of children. Another program is to work for
cheaper electricity and cheaper transportation. He wants subsidized electricity and
transportation which will only teach the Americans that they can be dependent on
the government to offset costs for example like Europe. The Americans will then
obtain the mindset that they do not have to work for what they want and they can
just let the government worry about their financial issues. With these assistant
programs Roosevelt is creating a welfare system as we know it today such as our
current section eight, food stamps and unemployment benefits. Americans need to
get up and work hard for their money and cannot depend on the government for
merit. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy positive freedom is
explained as “there are also individualist applications of the concept of positive
freedom. For example, it is sometimes said that a government should aim actively to
create the conditions necessary for individuals to be self-sufficient or to achieve selfrealization.” The programs within Roosevelt’s New Deal illustrate positive freedom
in several ways. In relation to the improvement of working conditions Roosevelt
allowed union workers to organize and this brought upon better working conditions
and better wages for the masses. Another program that he singled out to tie in to his
second by infusing more money into local cities to improve transportation and the
electrical grit.
16. Like Mill's invocation of the "harm principle," Allen's argument rests on a distinction
between what philosophers call "self-regarding" and "other-regarding" actions. However,
as a number of critics have pointed out, the line distinguishing these types of actions can
sometimes seem very fuzzy. For example, is recreational drug use in the privacy of one's
own home (which most libertarians, including Allen, wholeheartedly support), a purely
self-regarding action? It might seem that the easy answer is, "yes." However, what if the
drug user becomes addicted and the cost of his or her treatment falls to other taxpayers?
How might a libertarian, especially one sympathetic to the logic of Social Darwinism,
respond to this criticism in a logically consistent fashion?
The lessons we should learn from the failures of Prohibition that are applicable
today are that America is too open or has too much freedom, censorship and
making illegal certain types of speech and behavior does not work since people will
always find a way to go around those bans, and that the country is essentially
Democratic and will never know nearly nothing about the past. What we keep on
doing is repeat the same mistake over and over again, which means that we never
learn from them. We cannot afford to just say we should learn, and then leave that
to the people to deal with them, but to take more action and be more affirmative or
strict. This country is distinctively more open and less conservative in a worse way
than other countries because of the fact that the US is a powerful and rich nation.
The Prohibition could never stop consumers from drinking alcohol since we have
been brainwashed to think it is our “God-given” right to do whatever we want or
feel like. On Allen’s account, I think he means to say that we are unable to have
both liberty and restriction on the same level since that would be repelling each
other, and would never balance and work out. In today’s society, according to Allen
as he “argues that democracy can survive only when individuals are free from
government interference to control their own lives”, perhaps we can learn from the
failures of the Prohibition Era the lessons that are applicable today through
democracy in its real and truest form. He makes a point that censorship and
Prohibition only make a free market, or a democratic nation, more lucrative. What
we should learn from these lessons of the Prohibition is that “it has not worked, and
will not work” in Allen’s words. This is due to the fact that the idea of paternalism,
which duly created the Prohibition, makes laissez-faire impossible. That said, we
should consider what this land is to be: a democracy.
17. Despite libertarians taking some positions generally associated with political left wing
and right wing, Rothbard does not believe that they are confused. Indeed, he argues that
libertarianism is the only truly consistent variant of liberalism as an ideology. Why?
Because he sees libertarianism as the only ideology fully opposed to the existence of
a State. Libertarianism refuses to “give the state the moral sanction to commit
actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral. To their eyes, the state is
always partial to one group. The state also “habitually’ commits murders, wars,
and invasive procedures. Left wing support taxation but also social freedom. Right
wing support economic freedom but also supports laws that socially restricted
certain groups of people.
18. In the first section of the essay, Ball describes the ways in which a number of goods and
services that are now provided by state would be privatized in Marketopia. What
examples does he offer?
Terence Ball explains that in Marketopia everything is privatized, this includes
hospitals, to roads, the police force, and even fire protection. These services usually
provided by the government would be extremely detrimental to society if they were
all privatized. For instance a destination with only one point of entry could allow the
owner of the road to raise the prices a ridiculous amount taking advantage of
people. The police force will only protect people if they have money. If an issue
arises on the streets, which would the police protect: The assailant, the assaulted, or
the person that can offer the highest bid in that moment. If money is the driving
force of what is just or unjust then the person with the money can essentially pay his
way out of anything.
19. Why does Ball think "Marketopia" is unfair?
Terence Ball has been credited for creating the word “Marketopia,” which he
coined in his article in Dissent, back in 2001, titled “Imagining Marketopia”.
Marketopia is his vision of what a society might be like if the market were allowed
to be truly free.
In Marketopia nearly all aspects of life are ruled by the market,
or as economist such as Gary Becker would say, ruled by human nature. Everything
is for sale and everything has a price. The demand made by, and the price set by, the
market. Human organs, drugs, weapons, sex, police services, fire services, and even
your votes are for sale. Morality has no place in this world so long as there is a
demand. Community and altruism are words no longer in use. Ball believes that it is
the “systematic violation of a fundamental sense of fairness” that makes the concept
of a free market bad. While he believes that the market does serve a purpose by
“discerning and satisfying people’s preferences” and allocating goods and services.
It is his belief that our nature is to be selfish and those who are not fortunate enough
to be able to afford even the basic necessities of life would be left out in the cold,
while those who do possess means make decisions based solely on self-interest with
no consideration for society as a whole. I believe that by making a generalization
regarding human nature would be the equivalent of defining a term such as
“freedom” which Ball himself refers to as an “essentially contested concept.” There
is no way to be certain that if we are all allowed to participate in a free market that
the best of what makes us human will vanish in the face of a few “Rothbards.”
20. Given Burke's basic assumptions, why does he reject arguments based on absolute,
universal human rights?
Burke sees a government to fulfill the wants of the people, a government over civil
society, who exercise power and restraint over passion. The spoken-of government
has a scientific method to it, an order of importance to cater to society’s
convenience, too complex for one person to comprehend. Burke rejects universal
human rights because he sees humans in the light of “art is man’s nature”, and that
prudence in analysis of the individual man is dire. Every man is different, and each
one has his own mental limits. (154-159, reader)
21. How does Burke understand the idea of the "social contract"? How does his traditionalist
conservative idea of the social contract differ from a liberal one, like Locke's?
Burke describes the idea of a social contract as being a natural state and of there
being a natural aristocracy. As the term natural implies, a conservative holds that
society ought to be organic and static. Burke furthermore mentions members of
society as being parts of a larger whole. Rather than describing the social contract
to be the result of the collective interests of the population as the liberals like Locke
assume, Burke describes it more as being the result of the collective duties of the
population.
22. What does Burke think are the necessary prerequisites for becoming a member of the
"natural aristocracy"?
Burke rejects arguments based on universal human rights for fear that men are
naturally rebellious and must be controlled and brought to subjection. He puts forth
the claim that men are unsophisticated and terrible animal-like. Besides being in
awe to higher authority, all other thoughts of men tend to corrupt their minds and
leave them unfit for political liberty. He claims that men’s thought are small and
should rather look up to a larger nation of thought. Moreover, universal human
rights would mean each man is for himself, a true individual; however, Burke
argues that a man is entitled to a function within society, and that his rights are
entitled to what would benefit the community more than the individual himself.
23. De Maistre rejects the constitution of 1795, drawn up by the French Revolutionaries, as a
ridiculous and absurd document. What reason(s) does he give for this?
Joseph De Maistre believes that monarchy is the ideal form of government since it is
the type of government that best suits a man because it comes naturally to them. De
Maistre discusses that with a monarchy comes sovereignty which has its connection
to God. His argument is that men are naturally in search for power therefore you
need to give men what they want.
24. Who does De maistre think are the true founders of nations, and how is this related to his
concepts of a constitution (rightly underderstood) and the ‘national soul’?
25. What is Oakeshott’s conception of “human nature”? What are its characteristics? Why
does he think that ‘friendship ‘ is conservative?
26. Oakeshott argues that "moderation" is essential to conservative politics. What does he
mean by this, and why does he think that it is important?
What Oakeshott means by moderation in accordance to conservative politics is
that the rules and laws must change, and should only change, if the beliefs or
activities of the government’s subjects change as well. He believes this is important
because a system of government must always have some form of innovation because
the mentality and behavior of the general public constantly changes. Although he
does believe moderation is essential, too much change can damage the entire
infrastructure if not kept in check.
27. Why does Kirk believe that conservatism is not an ideology?
28. At the beginning of the essay, Bork relies on the work of thinkers who have developed
the concepts of "defining deviancy up" and "defining deviancy down." What do these
concepts mean, and why does Bork think they are so important?
The phrase “defining deviancy down” was said by Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan. This concept means that with an assault to our sensibilities we would
have to have an adaptive response to the environment that would be increasingly
polluted and apparently out of control. For example, if behavior worsens then the
community would have to adjust its standards so that the conduct once thought
reprehensive is no longer deemed so. The phrase “defining deviancy up” was said by
columnist Charles Krauthammer. This concept means that our cultural elites are
growing intensively moralistic and disapproving about what has always been
thought to be “normal” behavior. For example, underclass values become
increasingly acceptable to the middleclass and the middle class values become
increasingly contemptible to the cultural elites. Bork believes these concepts are
important because the community can destroy their civilization within themselves.
29. Why does Bork think that a commitment to "radical egalitarianism"---or much greater
equality in society---will culminate in "tyranny"? Indeed, what does he mean by tyranny?
30. What does Bork mean when he calls "hedonism" the true danger of radical
individualism? How does he think modern technology makes this danger worse?
Being able to do whatever you want would basically challenge religion, morality and
law. Modern affluence would lead to too much leisure time and energy for trouble,
the need to increase sensation.
31. What reasons does Kristol give for why neoconservatives are so keen to cut taxes, and so
unafraid of large budgetary deficits?
Because so the demand for government help will raise to a point where the
government doesn’t have the capacity to govern.
32. What examples does Kristol give to illustrate "the decline of our democratic culture"?
It creates an illusion that leads people to think that there are no limits, that you can
have it all here and now, and anything is possible, but the payback will be huge.
33. Kristol presents the reader with a number of "theses" that underpin the neoconservative
approach to foreign policy. What are they?
34. Antle notes that Frank Meyer made the case for conservative "fusionism." What did
Meyer see as the principles uniting neo-liberal libertarians and traditionalist
conservatives, beyond economics, according to Antle?
35. At the end of the essay, Antle notes that all hope might not be lost for "fusionism," and
that the "conservative crack-up" might be avoided. What does he think prevented an
earlier crack-up?
36. Explain what Marx argued regarding the proletariat.
Marx defines the proletariat as someone who can only sell their labor, and does not
have any power over production. The proletariat seeks to maximize salary rather
than profits (which the bourgeoisie does, by minimizing salary.) Hence, there is a
lack of opportunity to climb classes, and therefore a class struggle; eventually the
proletariat must start a revolution against Capitalism.
37. Explain the ideas of Thomas More.
In Utopia, he established the fact that scrutinizing a government/political system
based on principles and morals would lead to insight. Communal ownership, he
argued, was a better system rather than based on competition, as one man who loses
a little may lose much more in the long run. Therefore, he argued that private
property should be outlawed, as there is no real equal property distribution. Once
abolished, much of the vices/poverty becomes diminished, as seen in his book
Utopia.
38. Robert Owen defends which type of socialism. Why?
Owen believed in a decentralized version of socialism. He believed that human vices
were not natural, but products of a capitalist system. Cooperative systems for public
benefit according to him, are necessary for better educating the young. Worker
established cooperative groups and trade unions would better necessitate living, as a
network of small communities, rather than one large socialist government.
39. Describe the distinguishing features of Stalin’s version of Marxism-Leninism.
40. Explain the difference between Marx and Hegel. Marx did not agree with Hegel on the
“spirit” of history.
Hegel believed that the human spirit is the “set of potentials waiting to be actualized
or developed”. Meanwhile, Marx believed that history is the “human species
struggles in and against a hostile world”. Both saw history as the “story of human
labor and struggle” (pg. 136 8th edition, pg. 142 9th edition “Ch.5 - The Influence of
Hagel”)
41. Explain Marx’s revolutionary sequence. Pg. 152
Economic Crisis – A recession or depression hits the economy which Marx believed
due to the “anarchy of production” that characterizes capitalist society.”
Commiseration of the Proletariat – Due to the recession, the proletariat must resort
to beg, steal at great risk or die of starvation.
Revolutionary Class Consciousness – Workers begin to realize that the fault lies not
with them but with the capitalist system.
Seizure of State Power – The proletariat organizes and overthrows the ruling class.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat – The proletariat uses powers of the state to keep the
bourgeoisie from regaining power.
Withering away of the State – Transitional period from capitalism to communism.
Communism – the bourgeoisie will finally be free.
42. Explain what Marx means by the “dialectic of change”.
In Marx version, the bourgeoisie are now the capitalist and the proletariats are the
workers. He believes that the capitalist is dependent on the worker for profit.
Proletariats are the only class in modern society try to abolish itself. In order for
capitalism to exist, there must be workers so it is not in the interest of the capitalist
to allow too many workers to become capitalist. (pg. 150-151 9th edition “Ch. 5 - The
Dialect of Change”
43. Describe Marx’s critique of capitalism.
Marx claims that capitalism is an outmoded, self-subverting system that causes
alienation in the workplace. He believes capitalism has outlived its usefulness and
needs to improve to communism. It creates alienation by exploiting human labor
just as it did during feudalism and slavery. He claims the logic of capitalism
prevents itself and capitalists from fully expanding (141 – 143, 8th Edition, “Marx’s
Critique of Capitalism”).
44. What is Marx’s conception of history?
Unlike Hegel, Marx believed that human history was the story of human species
struggling in a hostile environment. Historically, he noticed that most of the
struggles came from the struggles of classes. This is where Marx comes up with
the materialist conception of history as well as the material forces of
production (137 – 139, 8thEdition, “Marx’s Theory of History”).
45. What did the Utopian Socialists argue?
Utopian Socialists, such as Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, argue that capitalism
makes the world a terrible place. It praises selfishness and deception and is
responsible for individual crimes, such as alcoholism and theft.
They believe that a utopia will bring harmony to a society that is willing to rid itself
of competition for a morally right way of living (133 – 134, 8th Edition, Fourier –
Owen).