Questions from Liberalism Readings
Hobbes
On pp. 57-58, Hobbes outlines three principal reasons why he thinks conflict in the state of
nature is inevitable. These are "competition," "diffidence," and "glory." What does
Hobbes mean by these terms, and why does he think they will inevitably culminate in
"war," as he understands that term?
Hobbes defines the conflicts in the state of nature as completion, diffidence and glory.
Competition as defined by Hobbes is the conflict of gain. One will have a conflict with another
individual if they seek to gain the same thing. They may use violence to settle this conflict. The
second conflict of nature is diffidence, which is the desire to stay safe or to defend what one
already possesses. This may be ones family, crops or home. The third conflict glory is the desire
of one to maintain their reputation. These all come together one after another to lead to “war”.
Which Hobbes defines as every man against every man. Hobbes comes to this conclusion on the
basis that the three conflicts of nature inevitably lead men to go against one another if there is no
common power to keep them in “awe”. Because of the absence of this common power men will
be constantly be in fear and uncertainty of what will happen next. For instance the constant fear
of violent death will keep men occupied and bar them from social activities such as art, and even
forming a society.
Hobbes has often been accused of having too negative a view of human nature in the state
of nature and, consequently, of rushing too quickly to the notion that people would accept
an absolute ruler so long as it provided for their safety. On p. 58, he offers what he hopes
will be an empirical proof of his theory of human nature, by describing the behavior of
people who actually live in political society, which he imagines to be much safer than the
state of nature. What examples does he give to "prove" his theory? Do you find them
convincing? By way of updating this argument, we might think of the debate over security
versus individual rights in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Do you
think most people would opt for greater security, even if it meant a diminution of
individual rights? Should they?
Hobbes writes that without a government to protect the people there would be an ongoing war of people
against people to protect their lives and assets. With that war no progress can be made, in regards to
technology or industry because everyone is to busy with their own self-interest. I find his argument
convincing because without the threat of an early death people put more time and effort into bettering
their lives.
Locke
In A Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke gives a number of reasons why state power (or the
"civil magistrate"), should not be understood as having any say in what religion people
should follow. What reasons does he give for this? Similarly, Locke adduces a number of
arguments in favor of the notion that a church should best be understood as a voluntary
association. What are they? How far should they be understood as limiting any church's
power? What legitimate or justifiable powers does any church still maintain over its
members, according to Locke?
The reason Locke gives for the reason that state power should stay out of the religion of the
people is that the religion belief has nothing to do with the government in the first place. That
religious belief is a private matter and the government should only be involved if it directly
threatens the public order. That also if a person is an atheist then they shouldn't be trusted
because they deny the existence of god. He then goes into voluntary association which is
between the individual person and between god. The power that the church's should maintain
over the people is to always represent peace, friendship, and even temper with everyone.
What is the importance of the development of money for Locke's argument about the
extent of property accumulation in the state of nature? What are the consequences of his
argument from the standpoint of economic equality? Does Locke think this will be a
problem? Why or why not?
The development of money is important for Locke’s argument about property because it will
ultimately lead to the formation of government to protect an individual’s property. When money
becomes and acceptable good it allows men to get around the limit of property someone can
accumulate. This allows the more productive people to become wealthier by being able to
produce more goods, making it harder for other individuals to find useful land and natural
resources. Locke thinks there will be problems over property that may lead to violence. Which is
what leads men to form government in order to protect their property.
Paine
According to The Rights of Man, what is the rationale behind Paine's claim that only the
present generation has any claim on the politics of today? Do you find this argument
convincing? Why or why not?
Throughout the text, it is evident that Paine feels very strongly that current politics should only concern
the living; the dead should not have any effect (or authority) on a society’s politics, at all. Paine says that
when a man dies, his needs and power die along with him. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for a
society’s political system to accommodate him at all, because he is no more. Paine is basically advocating
for the needs of the living over the needs of the deceased.
Declaration of Independence 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? How might one read them from the perspective of republicanism?
Some of the grievances the colonists had were that the kind forbade governors to pass any laws
until he has seen them himself. However, when he did see it, he neglected to do anything. He
prevented other to be elected for Representative Houses, obstructed justice, and imposed taxes
on the people without their consent. From the perspective of liberalism, it will say that the
Declaration is saying that government should have limited control in the people’s lives. In the
perspective of republicanism, they would say that the government is corrupt, and that the people
must change it without being corrupt themselves.
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?
What does the Declaration suggest is the appropriate response to government if such rights
are continually violated over a long period of time?
According to the preamble of the Declaration, all men are created equal, which implies that all
men are granted their natural and equal rights, and that these are universal to all, regardless of
race or social status. There should be no group of people to be excluded from these natural
rights, as they are universal.
The preamble also states that the government’s purpose is to preserve and protect these
(universal/unalienable) natural rights. In the even that the government violates and fails to secure
the people these natural rights, it is the right of the people to collectively overthrow the current
government and establish a new government that could secure equal rights among all.
In the final, seldom-remembered list of complaints about the behavior of King George III,
the Declaration discusses Native Americans. What does it say about them, and what does
this say about the history of liberalism?
Some of the complaints include; imposing taxes on us without consent, refusal to his assent to
laws, forbid his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, transporting large
armies of foreign mercenaries to start a war, and deprived us from the benefit of Trial of jury.
The declaration clearly states that all men are naturally free & equal, the government rests on the
consent of the people. Liberals shared an aspiration for a more opened society, where the people
pursue their own ideas and interests. Liberalism promotes individual liberty by trying to
guarantee equality of opportunity within a society. Liberalism is however split into two areas,
neoclassical and welfare. Neoclassical protects the person and property of individuals against
force and fraud. While the people of the welfare, believe in the value of individual liberty. And
government should rescue people from poverty, ignorance and illness.
Declaration of the Rights of Man
Which article of the Declaration most clearly attacks the notion of ascribed status and
aristocratic privilege? Why?
The article in the Declaration that most clearly attacks the notion of ascribed status and
aristocratic privileges is article 6. It’s this article because it states that every man is equal to “all
honors, places, and employments” and continues on to clarify that man has those rights “without
any other distinction than that created by their virtues and talents.” Every man has those rights,
not according to status or privilege, but on the basis of individual capabilities.
Declaration of the Rights of Man
Which articles of the Declaration most clearly attack political absolutism? Why?
Article 3 attacks political absolutism the most because it holds all sovereignty in the nation. The
Declaration states that not one individual or any group of men can have authority that is not
derived from the nation.
Smith
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 argues that the desire to exchange goods and services can lead to economic
prosperity. When there is the demand for goods, it leads to higher demand in supply of goods
and services. With higher demand industries needs more efficient means of production. Mr.
Smith’s solution was division of labor, which is an emphasized form of specialization. Division
of labor makes it possible for companies to use labor workers more effectively, resulting in
greater number of units being produced. For example, an assembly line in a car manufacturing
assembly line. The 500 workers are not each building one unit (car), if they did it would take
much longer. So Mr. Smith argument was taking those 500 workers and splitting the work of
each car for them to have a specific task. In doing so it makes the work more effective and less
room for error. So in conclusion with division of labor, more of a good can be produced right
away. Resulting in more goods to be exchanged which leads to economic prosperity.
Smith
In a fascinating argument that is all too often overlooked, Smith maintains that, "The
difference of talents in different men is, in reality, much less than we are aware of." He
goes on to add that while it may offend the "vanity of the philosopher," the fact is that: "By
nature a philosopher is not in genius and disposition half so different from a street porter
as a mastiff is from a greyhound" (p. 90). On Smith's account, then what accounts for the
"very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions" (p. 90)?
Adam Smith (1723-1790) is responsible for providing a comprehensive explanation for the
division of labor. He acknowledged the potential that trading had for the diversification of skills
and businesses. Smith compared humans to animals when he stated that unlike animals (who
grow up to be independent), people grow up depending on other people to fulfill their needs. For
instance, most people don’t make their own shoes so they go to the shoe store. The person
making the shoes may want a new heart transplant, but he is an unqualified surgeon so he needs
a doctor. In this regard, businesses or exchanges provide opportunities for people who have a
talent, or is “genius” in a particular field, to excel in their skills by being motivated by riches.
Kant
Kant gives two broad sets of reasons why individuals have not heretofore thrown off their
immaturity. What are they?
Kant argues powerfully in mankind’s ideal of becoming a mature individual that is not dependent
on others to make rational choices for them, this is enlightenment. Kant believes that public
freedom should always be free because the use of a person’s reason will always be free. Private
freedom should be restricted to not distort the progress of the enlightenment for which the public
or the individual. Kant also argues that in the religious sectors there are many impediments that
prevent an individual’s progress towards enlightenment. This private freedom cannot be
eliminated but Kant does argue there are “indications that even this area is being opened to
critical scrutiny”.
Immanuel Kant’s argument for enlightenment and restrictions of private reason and freedom of
public reason is definitely one that lays the foundation for individual freedom. The difference
between public reasons establishes itself as a precursor for the first amendment. Freedom in my
perspective is the definition for what Kant has argued because so much of our world is dependent
of others for rational reason in private arenas. IF a person gets hurt he is not going to rely on a
family member to relieve his or her symptoms this person will rely on doctors, or even a person
that is an expert in the field. Our rational; from a societal point of view is always being imposed
upon with media, politicians, and to this day religious institutions.
To what extent does 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 each generation is wont be getting smarter and better then the next generation
because they are being held back from the older generation. They follow the same guidelines and
laws that are in place and don’t speak out against them. They are told what to do and they listen
with no questions asked. He believes that the ruler of the free states don't restrict their people to
discuss and criticize existing or proposed legislation. He thinks that eventually even these free
rulers will make the people fall in the trap of just telling people what to do and they will listen
generation after generation.
Mill
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? Do you find them convincing?
Why or why not?
1. If an opinion is forced to be silenced, you are denying the truth, and rejecting certainty.
2. Though a silenced opinion be an error, it may contain a portion of truth , and since the
general portrayal of opinions are hardly seen as the whole truth, it is only by
contradiction the remainder of the truth will never be revealed.
3. It will affect the principles of freedom of speech, and prevent any real growth.
Mill speaks about “our” opinions in the form of the right to freedom of speech. I believe he is
correct because if people are deprived of an opinion how will one's government grow. I also
agree that it is natural for opinions to have error but at the same time contain a portion of the
truth. As a result this truth will never be revealed, if and only because errors will take more
credibility.
On pp. 98-100, Mill insists on the fundamental importance of individual eccentricity for
democracy, especially among those whom he calls "geniuses." This argument seems
strange. Why are eccentrics so important in a democracy, according to Mill?
Eccentrics are important because they have truly original thoughts in a society where many
people just follow and accept what other people have set before them. A democracy gives power
to the masses but the masses are composed of the same types of people all following each other.
Eccentrics are important because they lead the people with original beliefs and innovative ideas.
Unlike many of his contemporaries, Mill was far more consistent in the application of his
liberal democratic principles. For example, he advocated extending the suffrage not only to
the working class, but also to women, and was a committed opponent of slavery. However,
it also must be noted that Mill was an employee of the British East India Company, the
central tool of British imperialism on the subcontinent, and consistently maintained that
neither liberty nor democracy were applicable in less "civilized" parts of the globe (like
Asia). In such places, he claimed: "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing
with barbarians, provided that the end be their improvement, and the means justified by
actually effecting that end" (p. 95). What reasons does he give for this position in the piece
we read?
John Stuart Mill believed that despotism is a suitable form of government for barbarians
because despotic government can change their level of intelligence and make them more
civilized.
Sumner
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 our duty in society is to maintain our own self-interest. To go beyond that in
caring for the interest of some, a line is passed in which indirect others’ interest may be in
jeopardy. Sumner believed in a natural order social status, interfering would disturb this natural
order.
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 Forgotten man is, according to Sumner, “ He is the simple, honest laborer, ready to earn his
living by productive work.” The forgotten man is basically the working class.
The Individual is the Business owner
The forgotten man is forgotten because according to Sumner, “They are always forgotten by
sentimentalists, philanthropists, reformers, enthusiasts, and every description of speculator in
sociology, political economy, or political science.
He believes the case of the forgotten man identifies the government’s problems, “Because it only
causes waste, plunder, and loss…”
Green
Green makes a radical break with many classical liberals, like Locke, who argued that the
right to property was a natural or pre-political right. That is, for Green property rights are
not sacrosanct emanations from natural or God-given law that government must never
infringe upon. How does Green go about defending this claim, and do you find it
convincing? Why or why not?
The idea for Greens theory was founded on the belief that a person has a right to property as long
as it is for the good of all the people. His argument is because its the only way to justify the
owning of property. I do not find the argument convincing just on the sole fact it reminds me of
communism which in my opinion does not work out so well.
Green argues that the ancient republics of Greece and Rome were ultimately inferior to
modern industrial societies, even with all the problems of the latter, because they were built
on slavery. They were states in which "the elevation of the few is founded on the
degradation of the many" (p. 106). Moreover, Green claims that this is not only true of
involuntary slavery, but voluntary slavery as well: "We condemn slavery no less no less
when it arises out of a voluntary agreement on the part of the enslaved person. A contract
by which anyone agreed for a certain consideration to become the slave of another we
should reckon a void contract" (p. 107). Now, at least one highly influential neoclassical
liberal, Robert Nozick, defended the justness of voluntary slave contracts in his celebrated
book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974). Why does the welfare liberal Green reject
voluntary slave contracts? Why might some neoclassical liberals or libertarians like Nozick
defend them? Should people have the right to voluntarily enslave themselves in a free
society? Why or why not?
Green rejects voluntary slavery because it impedes a person’s right to be “free” or what he deems
as free which is, everyone working under fair and livable conditions so that they may make an
acceptable life for themselves. He states that all contracts should be enforced that promote
freedom of people but not at the expense of another’s freedoms therefore no contract requiring
slavery, willing or unwilling, shall be a void one. He justifies this by saying “such contracts of
necessity defeat the end for which alone society enforces contracts at all.” Neoclassical liberals
are ok with voluntary slavery because they believe every person should have the right to do as
they please with very little state interference. In fact they believe the state should ONLY
interfere if property or safety is being threatened. Otherwise if a person acts willingly and does
not violate other’s rights they should be able to do what they want. An advocate of neoclassical
liberalism, Robert Nozick, defended this belief by saying, government should not forbid
capitalist acts between consenting adults.
Green
At the conclusion of this piece, Green maintains that "we shall probably all agree that a
society in which the public health was duly protected, and necessary education duly
provided for, by the spontaneous action of individuals, was in a higher condition than one
in which the compulsion of law was needed to secure those ends" (pp. 107-108).
Nevertheless, Green does not believe this will happen; therefore state intervention is
absolutely necessary to achieve these ends. What reasons does he give for this failure? Are
his reasons historically convincing? Why or why not?
Green argues even if the majority did not need the laws to provide for the common good, the
minority would still exploit those they could for cheap labor and become wealthy because of
it. Further Green claims even though most people would not abuse their spouses or children
regardless of laws in place, the minority would. Laws are not, Green argues, to oppress the
majority, but to punish the minority and protect those they infringe upon.
Green’s views are historically convincing because he cites time before Britain passed such
protection laws, describing times of child labor and spousal abuse. In the United States the
economic policy of laissez-faire proved devastating to the American population, particularly
children. Green concludes by stating there are always employers who attempt to do the best
for their employees, but there are many who would exploit them without concern for their fellow
humans.
Roosevelt
Roosevelt argues that, in various ways, the opponents of the New Deal have been
"deceitful." What examples does he give to justify this assertion?
Employers, politicians, and publishers are the opponents of the New Deal and to FDR, they have
been “deceitful” to the American people. These employers, politicians, and publishers that have
employees commit this “deceit” by the omission of rights that the Federal Government provides
to these workers. For example, when an employer reduces a worker’s wage, he tells the worker
that this reduction will help pay for some vague insurance. What the employer fails to tell the
worker is that every dollar of the premium paid using their reduced paycheck, the employer pays
out of his pocket. This to FDR, is a massive lie that the employer uses on workers to try to jip
them of their hard-earned wage. Another example of deceit committed by employers,
politicians, and publishers is that the Federal government insures all workers that for every dollar
paid by the worker, the employer puts down three dollars. This lie and omission of that fact is
treason to the American populace. What FDR wants is to make the working class citizens aware
that they are being cheated by the very institutions that they work for. This newfound education
and awareness will help to prevent another catastrophe to slip under our noses.
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"?
There are several programs that FDR singles out for the essential continuation of the New Deal
in his second term. These include programs that would seek better working conditions and higher
wages aimed at lowering starvation and poverty in the US. Programs that would lower
electricity prices which would yield cheaper transportation, lower interest rates. Programs that
would create jobs for the unemployed and help farmers through better land use, surplus control,
and crop insurance for stable food supply. He would also endorse programs that help conserve
water and promote reforestation. Programs that would make education accessible for all through
the public school system and provide benefits for the disabled. Programs that help the needy,
families, and the old generation. These would include such acts and programs as Works Progress
Administration, Agricultural Adjustment Act, Civil Works Administration, Civilian
Conservation Corps, Federal Emergency Relief Act, National Industrial Recovery Act Nationa,
Public Works Administration, Rural Electrification Administration, and the Social Security Act.
These programs illustrate the liberal conception in the sense that it is not an absence of
government or “negative” view of freedom, but rather one that supports the freedom of equal
opportunity and ability to do things through means of government. These programs give people
the freedom to do things they would otherwise not be able to.
Allen
Throughout this essay, Allen compares current debates about censoring and making illegal
certain types of speech and behavior to the Prohibition movement. On Allen's account,
what lessons should we learn from the failures of Prohibition that are applicable today?
People today know very little about our past or history and with that, we learn nothing and make
the same mistakes again. In Allen’s essay, he explains how paternalism resulted in the
Prohibition movement and how people act towards it. The Prohibitionists are concerned with the
people and the wrong choices they make, but if they ban something the people will never learn to
listen. In earlier years when alcohol was prohibited, people still found ways to get a hold of it
and buying it when they know it is illegal. Same goes for drugs today. Banning things creates a
mockery of what we have that’s free.
What is the fundamental difference between Allen's understanding of the importance of
individual liberty for democracy, and that set forth by J.S. Mill? Put differently, why isn't
Mill a modern libertarian like Allen? Or is he?
From what I understand, J.S. Mill’s idea of individual liberty is the most important part of any
government. The individual is to have complete control of their own actions and thoughts, as
long as those actions do not directly affect another individual. Allen’s idea was also along the
same lines, that a person’s individual freedom was the most important. Allen gives the example
that paternalism, or that the state thinking it knows better than the people, is the death of
democracy. The cure for paternalism is libertarianism, or the idea that the individual is
sovereign.
Rothbard
Despite the fact that libertarians take some positions generally associated with the political
left wing, and some positions associated with the political 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?
All positions a libertarian takes based on the contemporary ideological scale are ‘leftist’.
However there are contradictory stances. For a libertarian also takes a ‘rightist’ approach,
opposing invasion of the rights of private property through government controls, regulations,
subsidies and prohibitions. These extreme rightist outlooks concerning property and economics
are not considered inconsistencies in the grand scheme of a libertarians whole ideology.
Rothbard states that these are consistent variants of liberalism. It’s consistent on the behalf of
every individual. One can not oppose war and its subsequent drafting requirements, yet embrace
taxation and government involvement. There must be a balance somewhere and this is exactly
what the libertarian anarchist achieves, by believing that government should be eliminated all
together and that man should be free to do whatever he wishes as long as he doesn’t commit
aggression in the form of invasion.
Why, precisely, is the regulation or restriction of free speech, or the outlying of
pornography and drugs by the state, a form of "aggression" on individuals? Is preventing
people from doing something the same as attacking them? Why or why not?
According to Rothbard’s points on Liberalism, he believes that invasion has equal meaning of
aggression. Therefore, by preventing individuals of engaging “victimless crimes” such as
pornography or use of drugs, the state’s regulations are attacking the individual’s freedom. Since
Rothbard believes in the “absence of invasion”, he exemplifies how military is in reality slavery,
war is in reality mass murder and taxation is in reality robbery.
At the conclusion of his essay, Rothbard argues that land and animals should be
understood originally as unowned "resources" that can legitimately become the private
property of individuals. How does this process unfold, according to Rothbard? How does it
hearken back to Locke's arguments? Is his argument about what makes "resources" into
private property a convincing one? Why or why not?
Rothbard argues that every man should be able to do what he wishes if it does not commit
against anyone else’s belongings. And I agree. We should be able to do what we want if no one
else is getting hurt by our movement. If what we are doing is not breaking any laws or harming
anyone else, we should be able to do so. Rothbard says that we are all equal and we have the
right to our own private property and the properties we may own.
Ball
Why does Ball think "Marketopia" is unfair? Do you find his argument convincing? Why
or why not?
From reading Terrence Balls A Libertarian Utopia he immediately thrusts the reader into his
concoction of a thought experiment that only seeks to twist the libertarian idea of having free
markets. The way he does this is by introducing us to a fictionalized society that he deems as
Marketopia. Basically “all goes” in Marketopia. In that word basically everything is privatized.
And yes that also includes socialized services in our present society like, police, fire fighters,
hospitals, and etc. Everyday life revolves around market transactions; even the concept of justice
is warped going from delivering fair and equitable treatment to all, to simply allowing those with
resources to benefit from it. What Ball ultimately wants the reader to understand is that having
free markets is wielding a double edged sword, that’s wreaks in benefits at times, but also shows
its nefarious undoing’s. What Ball points out as the shortcomings of Marketopia is the lack of
the fundamental value of ideal fairness. An example of this shortcoming is the Marketopians
that can’t afford the common necessities that have all been privatized and may not share the
same amount of resources and another Marketopian who may have more available resources.
Basically excluding individuals who don’t carry purchasing power equal to another who buys
and can afford any necessity. Ball’ description of Marketopia being unfair is definitely agreeable
and comprehendible. I completely agree with Ball and his argument is definitely convincing
because in any society equal and fairness go hand in hand, and having free markets run rampant
would cause this dystopia described by Ball to truly come to life.
There does not seem to be anything inherently unfair about treating your professors as
"service providers," and seeing yourselves as "costumers" partaking of their services.
Nevertheless, Ball still seems to think there is something wrong with this model. Why? Do
you agree with his argument? Why or why not?
Ball goes into detail about how treating students as “customers” and professors as “service
providers” can greatly effect the quality of education received. Instead of the educational
institute providing quality challenging curriculum, they will provide what the “customers” will
enjoy most and is the easiest to “earn” a good grade. The departments with the most highest
paying customers will be deemed the best while the departments with the least customer
satisfaction and least students with interest in them will be looked down upon. Therefore, such a
system will result in major grade inflation and the “dumbing down” of the students themselves. I
completely agree with Ball because some private schools today are similar to the Marketopia
education by having expensive tuition, thus customers expect a better quality education when all
they receive is grade inflation to keep customers happy which in turn will continually provide the
institution with money.