Questions on Liberalism
Hobbes
“On pp. 57-58, Hobbes outlines three principal reasons why he thinks conflict in the
state of nature in inevitable. These are “competition”, “diffidence”, and “glory”. What
does Hobbes mean by these terms, and why does he think they will inevitable
culminate in “war”, as he understands that term?”
In this passage, Hobbes is simply breaking down steps of war as he knows it into three major
groups. The first step, which he calls competition, happens out of greed and by means of
violence. Men arm themselves with weapons and strike out to conquer what others have,
including land, families, and possessions. The second step of war Hobbes called diffidence. After
the violence has subsided, the new owner and now has to protect what is his from other invaders.
Finally, after conquering, protecting, and assuming his dominance, men must be recognized for
their recent feats. This final step of war, Hobbes referred to as glory. Hobbes believed that all of
these factors will not only lead to war, but encompass the whole war itself. I believe, that as
Hobbes understands it, “war” refers to any period of time where peace is not completely and
unquestionably guaranteed. However, by those standards there would never truly be “peace”. At
any given time, at least one person is worried about someone taking what is theirs. There will
always be someone, especially in the government, worried about their neighboring nations taking
what's theirs- so how could peace ever be completely and unquestioningly guaranteed?
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?
Thomas Hobbes describes the three main causes of humans fighting is competition to gain
superiority, diffidence for safety, and glory for reputation. I find them to be convincing in
Hobbes’ theory of human nature as it gives provides perfect explanations for man’s acts of
violence. Updating this argument to a post-9/11 world, I do think that most people would opt for
greater security, even if it can reduce individual rights, because in order to maintain a more
civilized society, massive tragedies must be prevented, and there are times when extreme
measures need to be taken to ensure that prevention. Most people are always willing make safety
and the preservation of life the number one priority in a nation. I believe that they should opt for
greater security, because I myself believe that safety is the most important priority in this nation,
and I wish to never see another tragedy in this nation happen. However, I do believe that with the
reduction in individual rights, government and authority are capable of causing the harm onto the
citizens, and that would be everybody’s main concern with greater security.
Locke
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 also a moral duty?
Locke views government or any man who has sovereignty over others to have entered a contract
with those whom they are sovereign over. This contract allows the people certain protections.
These protections include, but are not limited to, security for their persons and for their property.
If the ruler takes unjustly one’s property then he is in breach of this social contract. And if he
harms those under him without warrant he is again transgressing the fellowship between ruler
and those under which he rules. When the rulers plans start to fall under his own design and
work towards his desires rather than for the benefit of the people then the contract is all but
destroyed. Locke means that it is the people’s moral responsibility to reinstate a new ruler or
government because the agreement to which they had entered previously is broken. When a ruler
breaks this agreement it is the people’s duty to rebuke the transgressor and make his power
forfeit. The people are then to hand sovereignty to those who would work towards their own
interests rather than their own less they suffer the same fate as those who came before them.
In A Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke gives a number of reasons why state power 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 organization. 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?
Locke believes that religion should be free of government control, and he gives several reasons.
First, he believes that God has never given any man the authority to impose his religion on
another. Second, he believes that government can only utilize their power through external
means, whereas religion is deeply internal by nature and that nothing internal can be compelled
by external forces. The final reason the civil magistrate may not determine which religion people
should follow, according to Locke, is because it would alienate their conscience if they were
forced to follow the rule of law, and without a clean conscience, it is more difficult to achieve
salvation. John Locke believed that churches were a voluntary organization. His reasoning was
that nobody is born into a specific church, and that no one by nature is tied to any association.
The idea of achieving salvation is what draws men to churches, and it is only possible if men are
able to choose the God in which their salvation is meaningful and possible. Locke maintains that
all Churches or similar associations be self-governing, that they establish a set of rules and
standards of which all members must comply. He also asserts that the church maintains the right
to excommunicate any member that disobeys the order of that particular society.
Paine
In Common Sense, Paine contrasts “government” with “society”. What does he see as the
difference between the two?
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense shows a very interesting perspective of what government is all
about and how society is much more constructive. According to Paine, government is nothing
but the result of man’s wickedness, whereas society exists to provide for the wants and needs of
the people with no immoral interests. Paine makes a stimulating argument when he compares
government to “dress”, meaning the loss of innocence. He says that if man was not so corrupt
and was able to be honest and trustworthy without any law saying to do so the entire necessity of
government and giving power to it would be redundant. Paine thinks government is nothing but a
negative and society is positive because it focuses purely on the people and what they want.
Paine describes society as a noble thing because it brings the people together, helping them work
towards a common goal of bettering their own lives and in contrast government divides the
people. However Paine does agree that government is necessary because as society grows it
becomes more difficult to control and organize, eventually leading to an inevitable construction
of authority or government. Paine seems to believe that in a perfect world government would not
be needed and society on its own could function and prosper. Although he thinks government is
“a necessary evil” he does believe that at some point it is necessary.
In "Common Sense", what does Paine argue should be the hallmarks of just political
representations and institutions, respectively? How might these features of representation
and political institutions be connected to his idea that the greatest thing to be feared from
form government is the vices of individual politicians?
Paine argues that political representations and institutions are made up for whatever the body of
people desire. He draws on the example of a new colony out in an unknown nation, secluded
with only themselves. As they only contain a relatively few amount of bodies, each individuals
opinions and desires are heard, but as they grow, representation and certain people are selected to
voice the opinions and thoughts of the whole body. This idea is connected with the fear of
individual politicians because it protects against immoral virtue that certain people will have. By
accumulating individual politicians, that particular individual will have ideas that create an
increasing hand upon the decisions and acts upon a society or government. It is necessary for the
power to be in the hands of the people through representation and to protect against immoral
virtue.
Declaration of Independence
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?
Infringement on the rights set forth by Jefferson, the Declaration suggests, is a rightful reason to
remove that oppressive force and to install a new government that will guarantee such rights.
This suggests that forcing exclusion (gaining independence) – not arguing for inclusion - is the
correct response to a government that systematically denies the entitled rights of the people
(minority). The Declaration, however, also suggests to heed caution in overthrowing such a
government, as it is often better for the people to leave an existing governing infrastructure in
place.
Declaration of Rights of Men
Which articles of the declaration most clearly attack political absolutism? Why?
There are three articles that directly and clearly attack political absolutism: The first one is
number three. In this article it’s declared that no one individual or group thereof can be the
sovereignty only the nation as a whole constitutes any source of sovereignty thus making it
impossible for any monarch or dictator to take control as Louis XIV did in France. The second is
number four, this article, not only like many others gives freedom to the individual which is in it
of itself making it less possible or likely for absolutism to take hold, but it’s opening up for the
creation of a judiciary system that it establishes that the law as the highest establishment for the
promotion of order. And lastly number sixteen, this article furthers the idea that there should be
separation of powers so that absolutism does not grow roots or even has the ability to sprout. It
even goes as far s to promote constitutions for all communities.
Which article of the Declaration most clearly attacks the notion of ascribed status and
aristocratic privilege? Why?
The first article of the Declaration of the Rights of Man attacked aristocratic privilege and
ascribed status. In France during the French revolution, aristocratic privilege gave rights to those
in higher status, allowing them to be exempt from paying taxes. This presented problems in the
government as the middle class and those in poverty struggled to contribute for government
funds. The people who considered themselves with aristocratic privilege were sought to be born
with an advantage in society. This was then referred to as ascribed status, where social ranking
was based on what family you were born in. Being born in a wealthy family you would then
have that rank or status of being part of the upper class all your life. There was no possible way
for people to move up the stratification ladder; wherever you were born that was your social
standing. The first article then does not support this, because it states that men are born free and
equal, and that no tie of rank should be given based on wealth or poverty.
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?
In the excerpt from the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, Smith delves into why people truck,
barter and exchange. Smith explains that it arises from individual talent and advantages. Each
individual has its own forte and since he can do that trade or service well, he can exchanges that
for the trades and services of another person. As Smith explains very few of our actions are taken
out of true benevolence. Even our friendships are some sort of trade. We help another to be
helped by them. At our core, we are self-loving. Based on that assumption, yes, there can be
tension within our tendency to trade, and our own talents. Some talents may be more
advantageous than others. This allows for some people to rise above others and get the upper
hand within a trade. But although there is an unfair quality to this process, it also creates
positive tension such as competition. And this competition brings about the best from
each individual, which leads to progress.
For Smith, how does the desire to truck, barter and exchange lead to the division of labor
which he argues is the engine that drives economic productivity and prosperity?
Self-interest drives barter in order to obtain more goods. Division of labor makes more goods.
Therefore, because of self-interest people divide into labor. The desire to “truck, barter, and
exchange” ultimately stems from the self-interested motive to maximize one’s own economic
position. Greater cumulative productivity and prosperity, universal opulence, means greater
economic potential for each individual within the economic system. Therefore the desire to
maximize one’s personal economy motivates one to favor division of labor over individual
manufacture. People truck, barter, and trade because of self interest in order to maximize their
own economic position. it maximizes their ability to preserve their own life. Workers can
collectively produce more than they can individually because division of labor enables
specialization which increases efficiency of production. There are three reasons as to why this is.
First it increases dexterity; it allows individuals to master their particular craft. Second, it saves
time because workers don't have to learn new, unfamiliar tasks. Third, it benefits the system as a
whole because if laborers are focused on a singular task, they are more likely to invent a better
way of doing it. Greater collective productivity, universal opulence means greater economic
potential for each individual within the economic system. This maximizes the potential for an
individual to increase their own economic position, and therefore the desire to maximize one's
own economic position leads them to favor the division of labor over individual production.
Kant
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?
Future generations are limited by their immaturity and inability to think for themselves, as stated
by Kant. They become immature because they have other people thinking for them and telling
them what to do. As oppose, to individuals being able to think for themselves, state their
opinions, and question any system or idea. Kant gives an example, that if you have money you
can pay someone to do everything for you such as a “book to think for you, a priest who serves
as your conscience and a doctor who tells the individual what to eat and how to exercise to be
healthy”. Having someone do and think for you limits future generations from becoming mature
to think for themselves. An institution he gives an example of and stresses is religion. He states
that in religion, “immaturity is the most unfortunate in this area”. Kant makes this statement
because he believes that in religion there is no room for maturity or enlightenment because the
Bible is written as it is and no one should question it because what is written it is all true.
Therefore, this does not allow for individuals to grow and state their own opinions about the
Bible or religion because they are expected to just “believe and not argue”. The inability to not
be able to think or have opinions in religion does not allow individuals to grow out of immaturity
out of this area.
Kant distinguishes between two types of reason, “public” and “private,” and maintains
that the range of freedom that is appropriate to these two spheres is very different. In
which sphere does Kant think individual freedom should be at its maximal level, and why?
Conversely, in which sphere does Kant believe that freedom can be legitimately
circumscribed or eliminated? Do you think his explanation for this distinction is
convincing? Why or why not?
Kant argues that individuals should have their freedom at its maximal level in public spheres,
fulfilling roles as scholars in order to critically analyze the current system that may need
enlightenment. They must be able to practice absolute freedom to speak up and have their voices
heard. He believes that freedom can be legitimately eliminated when it comes to preventing the
development of the later generation by establishing policies that cannot change and improve in
the future. I disagree with this explanation for this distinction because I think that the public and
private use of reason needs to be switched vice versa. Unlike what Kant said, I believe that
scholars practice private use of reason when critically analyzing the system with their own
opinions and viewpoints while the people in office practice public use of reason as they listen to
the voices of the people and represent them.
Kant gives two broad sets of reasons why individuals have not heretofore thrown off their
immaturity.
1. Well the first one can be that the individual is used to being told either by men of charge or to
some degree a person of a helping hand of sorts. What this means is that people depend on other
people in order to sustain their lives, without the need to depend upon themselves.
2. The second I the constraint of the individual of his own environment, which can be his
position of his work, or the demands of the environment itself. examples being from the
equipment of a worker, what to use and what not to use, while others like military service is a
position of agreeing rather than question Thus Immanuel Kant reinforces that if they barriers are
still a factor in the individuals life, then man cannot be responsible of a human being.
Mill
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 must also 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 parts 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 affecting the end” (p.95). What reasons does he give for this
position in the piece we read?
Mill doesn’t ever brings up imperialism in a very explicit and clear way, but there is no question
that his philosophies are catered to ensure that imperialist practices go unquestioned. Mill states
that power can only be used correctly over others when it is to prevent harm to others. This ties
in with the fact that imperialist rules justify their methods by saying that they are improving the
lives of the indigenous people in the countries they are taking over. Mill also says it is wrong to
not help people when you can, further justifying imperialist actions. Another reason Mill gives is
that people who aren’t intelligent don’t understand how to be unbiased free individuals.
Imperialist conquerors seek to bring people to a state where their mind can deicide things
properly. Mill also states that the collective thoughts of the masses cause tyranny by the many
and that can be alleviated through power. For all of these reasons, rule through overbearing
power is justified as it helps those who don’t know how to help themselves.
Mill famously declares that: "if all mankind minus one, where of one opinion, and only one
person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more just in silencing that one
person, than he, if 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?
First, the opinion may be true, regardless of what one may think. To deny this it to make an
error. Second, the silenced opinion may not be true but it may have some truth. The only way to
get truth is to have two opinions collide. Third, if the opinion not only be true it could not be
proven unless contested or have another opinion to contradict this opinion. By being silenced the
opinion could have been lost. I find the argument Mill made was very convincing. In fact in
since that is the way a theory is proven, and then through contradicting it becomes a law. Rather
than be single minded and have one opinion, it is better to have multiple opinions to have truth.
Sumner
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 the persons
and property of its citizens?
Sumner explains that "the forgotten man" is a person or group in society who is easily
overlooked because in various aspects of society. Sumner goes on to define the forgotten man as
someone "found to be worthy, industrious, independent, self-supporting... not "poor" or "weak";
he minds his own business and makes no complaint." Essentially the forgotten man is identified
within a society as the person or group of people who do what they are told, when they are told
without hesitation subsequently becoming the source of obscurity within a populous. The
forgotten man becomes a source of neglect because without being at the top of the social
hierarchy or the at the very bottom, many fail to provide him with attention because if you're not
making millions or begging on the streets, then there really is no need to pay attention to a
member of society who obeys the laws as those at the top have dictated. Ultimately, the
governments simple act of overlooking the essence of a society provides room for negligence in
its people and within itself for if a productive member in society becomes the aforementioned
"forgotten man", the government has failed to protect its citizens subsequently forming a sense
of loss and betrayal directed at the civilians it was meant to protect and serve all along.
Following Sumner's logic, why would it be unwise to help people living in poverty, or
suffering from addiction, even if this is not carried out by the government, and is wholly a
matter of private charity?
He believes that capital given to an unproductive group of society is wasted. Money given to this
class of person will not do anything that stimulates and creates capital reproductively. It is
herefore best kept to those who will invest it in an 'appropriate' manner; a manner that helps
stimulate the labor-class, or as he calls them: the "forgotten man." From Sumner's point of view,
it is far better for a person with an extra dollar in his pocket to give it to the laborer who will
reproduce the dollar, then the beggar on the street who will use it as an excuse to continue to be
'good-for-nothing.'
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?
The duty is to take care of themselves; to make the best of yourself individually is to make your
place in society. If people make the mistake of helping others, they may leave their own business
unfinished or they might mess up when they've interfered with the business of someone else.
Rothbard
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
harken back to Lock’s arguments? Is his argument about what makes “resources” into
private property a convincing one? Why or Why not?
Rothbard argues that animals are “economic land” and nature-given resources to be given to any
man who finds it and domesticates it and applies this theory to homesteaders as well. He argues
that man is entitled to the fruits of is labor if he produced it. There is some symmetry in Rothbard
and John Locke particularly when John Locke claims that that labor of a man’s work and body
are properly his. And that God gave man reason to make use of it to the best of his advantage and
convenience.
The argument that man is entitled to the fruits of this labor has some symmetry in present time.
Although homesteading is not a common practice and we live in the era of globalization, I
believe success can be achieved if you are willing to work hard for it. Locke and Rothbard both
argue that citizens are entitled to succeed if they are willing to put in the work, so the same
argument should applicable to any modern day entrepreneur or citizen. 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? Are you troubled by
them or not? Terence Ball describes in Marketopia a world in which the purchase of human
organs could be sold to the highest bidder (Ebay type scenario?) and that grief could be offset by
the prospect of profiting from the death of their loved one. Organ brokers would act as
intermediaries for any sale to the highest bidders (and I assume would pocket a commission for
their services). I find this theory very disturbing theory and unethical. I understand that humans
are flawed, but what Ball fails to demonstrate is: how will donating an organ for profit make
loved one grief any less for their loss? What Ball fails to see if that a man’s true self lies within
his values, principles, morals and ethics and that this moral compass is what distinguishes us
from other species on this planet.