Political Philosophy 4th June - Ideologies and Liberty

Arguments for Conservatism:

1. As a result of being born into society, man has obligations not granted by a contract, e.g. a parent's duty to care for their children. We identify ourselves with the values and relationships with others in society- we are interdependent and have a sense of loyalty. 2. People are 'encumbered' with values that are a result of their upbringing. 3. People discover themselves as individuals through contrast with institutions. Their political sense arises out of personal experience and their social environment.

Adam Swift's Ideas of Positive Freedom:

1. Formal (absence) versus effective freedom (Power to). 2. Doing what one wants versus autonomy. Autonomy requires one to act on their values (having money and being able to spend it). 3. Freedom as freedom from political interference versus freedom as political participation. Republicanism argues that freedom is found in democratic political participation, not just outside political regulation.

Hobbes Negative Liberty

Absence of obstacles, which impede the individual from exercising his power. Liberty is the 'absence of impediments to action', where the obstacles of impediments are external to the individual. Anyone who is a prisoner or in chains is deprived of their freedom. Hobbes continues to argue that the law is also a barrier to an individual satisfying their desires, so liberty becomes famously 'the silence of the laws'. As we can be impeded by weather or land, a less broad definition is that 'we lack freedom if we are coerced by other human beings'. The external obstacles are thus the actions of other beings. "Freedom is doing what one desires," and Hobbes argues that freedom is being allowed to fulfil one's aims.

Marx HN Natural Claim

Appealing to what's natural is risk when it comes to human nature, as it isn't always right or natural. What appears natural is imposed by the dominant class.

Berlin on Freedom

Argues negative freedom is concerned with restricting the law. It focuses on how much intervention in our private lives is acceptable, and law is an infringement of freedom. Those who advocate positive liberty will see laws as enabling and empowering and will be more concerned with how the laws are devised and who sets the agenda; the former is about absence of intervention, while the latter is about the kind of intervention.

Proudhon

Argues that voluntary, peaceful institutions should replace coercive ones. 'To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, etc.' The people for all to enjoy, should own private property. Proudhon declares 'Property is theft.'

Conservative HN

Distrusts political rationalism and radical change. In Burke's Reflections of the Revolution in France, he identified a core principle of his political thought: Liberty can't be considered 'in all the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction,' it must be viewed in context. Politics and government mustn't proceed by appeals to 'abstract values' (such as Liberty, equality, fraternity - French Revolution motto), but through a gradual reform. Ruling is an art and mystery best discovered through evolution and tradition. Man gains his identity from the society he's born into. Conservatism rejects the social contract between autonomous individuals, as our ability to reason is limited as we're only a small part of the whole. Law, order and security should be the main interests of the state. We can't rely on 'individual rationality' human beings aren't perfectible, and there's little evidence of them being 'alienated' from their nature.

Mill Liberalism

Emphasises both the rational and social nature of human beings. Mill connects 'rationality' to pursuing happiness and virtue, an essential part of self-development and human progress. 'Arguments for Tolerance' - imposing one's conception the good life is wrong. Society must be neutral between conceptions of the good life, so whilst advocating democracy, he remains concerned by the prospect of the tyranny of the majority. He advocates limiting the laws a democracy is allowed to pass by his 'one simple principle' that will protect individual liberty.

Locke Social Contract

Felt it was needed in order to retain as much autonomy as possible. The state protects us with well thought out laws rather than arbitrary ones.

Positive Freedom

In the realm of PL I don't just follow my desires, but I'm able to reflect on and select appropriate desires. This gives full meaning to "I could have done otherwise." Those that advocate this 'higher liberty' usually stress the need for paternalistic guidance; that intervention and even coercion may be necessary to empower individuals to overcome their internal constraints (ignorance, weak will, lack of judgement) in order to achieve the self-control and vision integral to the real freedom of actual realisation of their potential. So the reluctant pupil coerced into attending school is 'Forced to be free' (Rousseau) to learn skills that empower them.

Difficulties with the Social Contract

It presupposes that people in a state of nature have the moral understanding to enter such a contract. Moral obligations are logically prior to a binding contract, and it doesn't necessarily deliver moral values.

Neutrality:

It's difficult for the state to remain neutral, if we require equal opportunities, laws must be introduced to secure this, therefore intervention is required. Classical liberals would reply that people need to suffer the consequences of their choices in order to learn. Revisionist liberals would argue that a classical liberal state would actually diminish freedom, waste human potential and give preference to the wealthy.

Berlin's Negative Liberty:

Picks out freedom of individual people (x) from interference by other individual people (y) to act as they want (z). His idea of positive liberty picks out freedom of a person's higher self (x) from interference by their lowest self (y) to act rationally (z). The difference between the two is created in what they count as the relevant agent, constraint and goal. But these aren't the only options.

Paternalism

Presupposes many adults are like children. But for Mill, the negative freedom of doing as one desires with the responsibility of reaping the consequences, enables humans to reflect on their desires and choose wisely. This will be facilitated if people aren't subject to storng social conditioning and the pressure to conform from the tyranny of the majority. With this in mind, some commentators argue that positive liberty can be assimilated into a more sophisticated account of negative liberty. We can't be free to choose, unless we're free from constraint.

The state

Recognised as the body that has the right to make laws and to support their use of power with punishment. It has the ability and the right to command and to use coercion and violence to enforce its laws. A state may be legitimate, but lack the power and ability enforce the law, in which case it's then a failed state. The extent to which a state commands or doesn't interfere with the private life of its citizens, the determination of what punishments are justified and how long citizens can be detained without trial, and the kind of protection it should offer against, e.g. terrorism, economic hardship and international health concerns, is a matter of debate.

Marxism

Suggest that the state is oppressive, but more by a means of the economic-socio conditions. We looked at his dialectic view (hegel) that history/economics have led us to the situation we have at the time of his writing. The spectre of communism over Europe. An essential premise is the idea that we should own the products of our labour and that the increased mass production within capitalism has led to humans being alienated from what they themselves produce. The state enables this to happen by letting the economy dictate and simple redistribution from rich to poor will not solve the inequalities inherent within the bourgeouisie/proletariat set up.

Social Contract Hobbes

Suggested that this transference of rights over to the political sovereign would result in a gain of protection and civil society. Hobbes claims the function of the state is to maintain security, safety and stability - law and order is a prerequisite for any other function.

Isaiah Berlin on Freedom

The "Absence of obstacles to possible choices and activities" and "I'm only free when I can also change my mind if I desire and do otherwise." As Mill acknowledges, freedom also requires 'a variety of situations', but we should 'pursue our own good in our own way'.

Conservatism

Believes the state should be organic and change over time Whilst this does result in some situations that may later be deemed wrong or unfair, it's the best method for positive change. We can't just call a revolution over some random facts that some philosophers have suddenly decided are the natural rights (French Revolution). Instead we must let the society grow, develop and mature and change as things need to be changed.

Kropotkin

Claimed that government, as a social system undermines our ability to rationally self-govern. We rely on laws to solve our problems, leaving us less sympathetic. What one chooses to do is of no concern to the state. Most laws reflect the rich and powerful class of society and defend private property (which is often acquired through illegal means).

Rousseau on Liberty

Claimed to have said 'Freedom is for the animals - man should seek liberty' - he wished to distinguish between the rational liberty that citizens of a republic would seek and the wild, unthinking licence of the animal kingdom. Argues that liberty is living under laws we have made collectively. Individual autonomy isn't enough. He claims that punishing those who break the law is 'forcing them be free'. We can object that we need freedom from interference by collective laws as well.

Burke's Analogy

Compares the state to a living plant, and to a member of the family. Change is only good when it respects the past, and the authority are traditions in society. Traditions embody accumulated wisdom.

Marx HN

Dependent on the prevailing socio-economic conditions of the time. The 'essence of men' is the 'sum of the productive forces'. Values and ideology of society are determined in a modern state by the wealthy middle class. The law isn't an expression of justice; it reflects the interests of the dominant class. "It has just as little independent history as religion". People develop and realise their potential through relationships with each other. "Men have and always have needed each other."

Positive Freedom EV:

1. Implies that acting wisely and rationally involves recognising that our real interst lies in not pursuing basic, selfish self-interest, but enlightened choices of self-discipline and self control. This is frequently linked to accepting the common good of society as my good, or performing moral and social duties that help me unite with others in a 'higher' freedom. One is encourage to accept a set of values about what constitutes real freedom, e.g. self-control, self-challenge, group harmony etc. One such value hung above the Nazi concentration camps, 'Arbeit Macht Frei' - work makes you free. Instead of value pluralism, an ideal conception of the good life imposed - a monist political system which rests on the premise that leaders understand what makes us free. The individual is 'dwarfed' to use Mill's term - they 'misunderstand' and need to be 'reeducated' to understand the 'true purpose' in life. It's a slippery slope to the worst features of extreme communist and fascist states. 2. The final questionable step is to convince the individual that this is what, he really would've chosen, if he were sufficiently wise and rational, so it's not in fact a tyranny he's experiencing. He's merely being guided to realise his real interests as opposed to his shallow felt interests. 3. However, the concept of + liberty can be disentangled from ideological hegemony if guidance is genuine and open minded. In Chapter 5 of On Liberty, Mill gives the example of a person trying to cross an unsafe bridge. If the person is ignorant of the danger, then it's valid to stop them from crossing, without infringing their liberty; because Mill claims, his real desire isn't to the river. This is a clear instance of paternalism, as the action is taken to enable them to realise their deeper desires. However, if a person is in full possession of the facts about the bridge, then they are able to have 'full use of their reflective faculty', and can make their own decision and thus withstand the consequence. Mill continues that unless they are a 'child, delirious or in some state of excitement or absorption', then they're capable of making a choice. So with this positive conception of human nature, he assumes an element of positive liberty, the ability to make an informed and rational choice.

Conservative Criticisms

1. The origin of something can be independent of its desirability, e.g. Mill's attack on custom: The wisdom of elders may be obsolete and inappropriate for modern generations. 2. Conservatism over-values social cohesion and order at the expense of competing conceptions of truth. Propaganda and convenient 'myths' may sustain the state, but they belittle and demand the people. 3. Extreme conservatism could politicise all activity to achieve the common good. Plato banned artists in The Republic, and similarly, right-wing regimes often control the media. The term 'common good' is too vague, the public interest may beget the interest of a small percentage of people. Marx argued the the only 'common good' is the one that truly benefits the majority.

Negative Liberty Evaluation

1. The provision of alternative options, so one can change desire and exercise it, may require assistance, guidance and intervention. The simple fact that there are no external obstacles doesn't ensure that alternatives are open to me which I can usually opt for. The runaway cyclist may look for an escape lane - but someone needs to create escape lanes and support people who want to use them. To be really free, a lack of external obstacles is insufficient. A more paternalistic account of freedom is necessary to solve the problems of poverty or lack of education. A further problem is that 'acting as I desire doesn't fully give sense to "I could have acted otherwise". Liberty demands that I can choose my desires as well as act on them, that I'm free from internal constraints. Negative freedom doesn't take this into account, and one should be able to reconsider their desires, acquire new values and pursue different goals. 2. A lack of restraint from one party impacts on another. There's a danger that negative freedom actually destroys liberty and social cohesion and is self-defeating. E.g. our freedom to drive wherever we wish in gas-guzzling 4x4's leads to traffic jams and pollution. 3. Negative freedom can therefore be criticised in that it doesn't accommodate a moral sense. Can real freedom be divorced form morality? Berlin acknowledges that 'the freedom of the pike is death to the minnows.' In an extreme state of negative freedom, we might live in constant fear of being dominated by others, unforeseen dangers and the threatening contingencies of life. In a laissez-faire economy, the wealthy can control the flow of ideas, access to good things, while the weak are left in poverty, unemployment and fear. Such 'alienation' is surely not compatible with freedom.

Liberalism Criticisms

1. They outline fundamental values to be honoured by the state, e.g. freedom, but equally it can be suggested that there are fundamental evils that need addressing. 2. Negative freedom only benefits those individuals with the resources to conduct themselves, leaving the less fortunate without state provisions like healthcare, education and social security. It could equal the right to starve. 3. Conservatives say liberals do not value social cohesion, and are hypocritical when they condemn activities in public, but not in private. 4. They believe that in order to avoid strife in the community, there must be a moral consensus propagated by the family, state and church. 5. There needs to be certain, common rules in order to dispense justice, undermining the pluralist conception of morality. 6. The state as a neutral umpire is vulnerable to responding to the most powerful group - Mill argues this justifies minimal government.

Godwin

Philosophical anarchism - 'principle of private judgement' - as we develop our judgement, we see that we must do all we can to bring about the greatest good, as each person's knowledge increases, they don't need to live under the laws of the state.

Classic Liberalism on Liberty

Emphasises the importance of negative freedom. For Locke, the natural state of human beings as God's creatures is one of rational and moral individuals acting as they choose without interference. So government is therefore based on consent, and its rationale is the protection of those freedoms. Laws are seen as obstacles, but a necessary, minimum restriction to preserve liberty. An unnecessary invasion of a person's natural disposition to dispose of their person and goods as they wish is tyranny. So the role of a government is that of a 'protection agency' (Nozick) or referee. The referee ensures that free individuals don't collide in a way that harms anyone's freedom or is unjust. Governments can also advise and manage minimum bureaucracy, but Mill contests even this, arguing that it's better for private organisations to take on as many functions as possible, to avoid the risk of tyranny. He even claims that it's disadvantageous to attract 'high talent' into government, reminiscent of Plato's reluctant philosophers kings, to avoid a concentration of and desire for power in state hands: 'And the evil would be greater, the more efficiently and scientifically the administrative machinery was constructed.; The classical liberalism focus on political freedoms goes hand in hand with a laissez-faire attitude to the economy. However, liberalism was revised at the end of the 19th century by philosophers such as Thomas Green. The classical emphasis on negative liberty meant that those who were vulnerable and needy could suffer and weren't actually free because of limited resources. So the protection of liberty also required state intervention in the form of education and social welfare, and regulation of working conditions, notably health and safety. Nevertheless, the essential difference between liberalism and socialism is the emphasis on positive liberty is to protect and enhance freedoms, rather than some other aim such as social injustice.

Marx 5 core values:

Equality (needs being met), welfare, importance of meaningful work, community, and history.

Locke Liberalism Analogy

Freedom bubble - state will do its best not to pop it.

What does it mean to be free?

Freedom can quickly turn to undisciplined, lawless and self-defeating behaviour. Surely the trained and disciplined pet can enjoy more opportunities and gain a worthwhile freedom, as they extend their capacities. Education and self-control increase and enhance our freedom as we can achieve more. Similarly, when playing a musical instrument, the discipline of regular practise widens the scope of your repertoire. The opportunities to extend your musical expression are limited if you just play as you please.

A state of nature

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all appeal to this, a hypothetical scenario meant to uncover the unchanging fundamentals of human nature, away from laws and social structures.

Communist Revolution

If a genuine community of equals came into existence, then the state would cease to exists.

Marx Evaluation

If human nature is malleable and reflects our environment, it's hard to see how we would become alienated. We'd surely just accept our limited potential? However, if creativity is our species essence, who is to say that egoism and selfishness isn't part of it too? 1. Marx assumes that once the economic base is equal, social relations will harmonise. However, does this conflict with our species essence? If we're creative and able to accommodate new needs, there will surely be disagreement. 2. Marxism relies upon society holding a uniform opinion and resisting disagreements - we can object that this claim lacks empirical evidence. 3. In the absence of laws, there's a real danger of tyranny. In an unregulated society, charismatic or strong leaders can emerge and prevent fair or equal discussion. 4. In practise, communist societies have been accused of manipulating people and undermining their autonomy. This is illustrated in 1984 by George Orwell.

Hobbes Human Nature

If humans had no laws or government control, it would be a 'war of all against all' and that in the state of nature, life is 'nasty, brutish and short'. Humans are self-interested, fundamentally selfish, and only wish to protect, first and foremost, their own life, and secondly their property.

Aspect of Being Free

Initially a life free from tyrannous laws and then eventually laws that express the real interests of the people and enable them to be free to realise their aspirations. This distinction in what really constitutes freedom has led to widely different ideologies and political systems such as liberal democracy and communism. To understand this we must examine a fundamental distinction between negative liberty (freedom from) and positive liberty (freedom two).

Mill's On Liberty

Interprets history as a struggle for freedom. According to Mill, the most 'conspicuous' aspect of history is the struggle between liberty and authority as the people fight for rights and 'immunities' against tyrannous rulers. Then the second stage was to establish 'constitutional checks' so that the consent of the people was required for rulers to act. The third stage was the evolution of democracy when the rulers must represent the wishes of the people and could be removed from office. In this last stage, the rulers were identified with the people - in effect the people ruled themselves, as the laws simply enacted what the people wanted.

Marxism on Liberty:

Law in a capitalist society develops with the creation of wealth and private property. These laws will disappear when private ownership and class is abolished. This is the first step, which will then enable workers to see labour as creative and fulfilling their needs. In these conditions arises 'the will to abolish competition and with it the State and the law'. Crime which embodies the isolated individual struggling against the dominant, capitalist conditions will cease to exist. As people are freed from subordination to the division of labour, to the dominant ideas and laws of the ruling class, there'll be nothing to fight against. A socialist economy based on the principle of 'production for use' instead of the capitalist 'production for exchange' would eventually lose the need for money. Then, criminal law will become redundant. The social ills such as poverty, poor health and education and unemployment, which foster crime, would have disappeared. So the key to freedom and the absence of laws is planning. Communist states have attempted to build the centrally planned economy, however this has been disastrous. Economic planning requires experts - which is an inherent contradiction. Doing way with the wastefulness and injustice of a free market, to replace it with a harmonious, cooperative and coordinate workshop requires specialist knowledge and leadership. This contradicts the abolition of the division of labour and recreates a managerial class - an elite. Secondly, the free market, for all its problems is responsive to demands from individuals. To run a planned economy is difficult enough, but to respond to individual needs is impossible. Inevitably, the power is a planned economy stays at the top, which again contradicts the claim that under communism people will have the resources to meet a variety of new needs.

Frederick Hayek on Liberty

Liberty is essential in order to leave room for the unforeseeable and unpredictable...every individual knows so little, and we rarely know which of us is best.

Locke's Negative Liberty

Live as you like - freedom is 'a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit...without asking leave or depending on the will of any other man." He justifies the imposition of minimal laws by government, only if it protects this freedom. Yet this is also not without contention. I may be doing as I please, blissfully unaware I have no other possibilities. Could I then be considered free? Consider the scenario that you are free-wheeling downhill on your bicycle, happily ignorant of the fact that your brakes have failed. Some would argue that you're not free, because of a lack of opportunity to change course.

Liberalism

Locke argues for some form of state. Whilst the state is aiming to protect our autonomy as much as possible; if we go against someone else's autonomy then we can expect to have some of our freedom taken away. Locke therefore argues that a state people sign up to is good, and people still have natural rights and certain necessary freedom which override the state if they are impinged. As long as individuals aren't harming each other they should experience negative freedom (Mill's harm principle). Each individual then chooses his or her own path. That may damage their own health but as long as it doesn't damage other then they should be left to live out their own autonomous lives, (we're rational agents who are capable of self-determining our own lives).

Violations of the Law of Nature

Locke felt these must be punished, but without a state the system of punishment will be unsatisfactory because of disagreement, bias and inability to punish.

Aristotle Human Nature

Man is by nature a 'social animal' that abhors solitary confinement, who forms herds and who flourishes through relationships. Without order "people are sub-human and animalistic, or must have God-like qualities.|

Mill's Positive Freedom

Mil claims in On Liberty that left with an abundance of negative freedom, people will learn from experience, practise independent reasoning, and so will develop sufficient autonomy to choose more wisely, and make more discriminating judgement. Therefore the development of positive freedom is parasitic on negative freedom. however, Mill describes an ideal that may happen, but it's equally likely that left to their own devices people may just stagnate and remain trapped in superficial and destructive habits.

Socialism on Liberty

Much more concerned with equality and justice: The focus in on the lack of freedom inherent in economic systems, notably laissez-faire capitalism. "The poor have no rights" for where there is a concentration of wealth and private property in a particular class, the resulting alienation and poverty limits opportunities. Marx's description of freedom under communism: "I can hunt in the morning, etc...just as I have a mind' require control of production and economic power. In addition, the belief that human nature is a product of socio-economic circumstances means that institutions and practices can be structured to promote cooperation and freedom for all. The introduction of comprehensive education in the 20th century is a good example. Freedom is identified with the all-round development of the individual, the capacity to realise opportunities and to enjoy political freedoms such as rights, which otherwise only benefit the prosperous. The + liberty of socialism has the aim of equalising power so that all have control over economic and political agendas. Freedom as power can only be achieve in a just, well-regulated democracy, where authority derives from all and applies to all, rule by the demos for the demos.

Anarchist Beliefs

Natural human sympathy and co-operation. They believe that the state is sovereign, compulsory, claims a monopoly on force, is a distinct body, and the people composing it form a distinct class. Any power exercised by the state is illegitimate and the root of social ills and competitive behaviour. Individual anarchist argue that all legitimate human relations are voluntary. As we're driven by egoism, social harmony without the state will be secured by demonstrating how it is in each person's self interest - the key to survival is co-operation and mutual support. Hobbes would argue that our selfish nature is what led to the creation of authoritative states. Anarchists would respond that aggressive law and oppression doesn't foster the more positive aspects of human nature.

Anarchist Evaluation

Not practical. Holds contradictory views of human nature. 1) There are universal human qualities, like rationality and sympathy. 2) The self is shaped by society. How do we distinguish between what is universal and what is a social product?

Marxist Implications

Social contract and liberal rights are an illusion of the bourgeoisie who seek to protect their status and property. In practise, the poor cannot use their rights. Under communism, people will own their industries and achieve harmony in interests, making a contract unnecessary. Marx argued that rational, autonomous individuals couldn't exist outside of society. We can only conceive of ourselves as free or different in the context of social interaction. Our socio-economic environment shapes our nature and consciousness. Human beings have a 'species essence' - we are creative and adapt to accommodate our needs. When workers are forced to carry out repetitive tedious tasks, we ruin our creative essence and lose control of our work. Marx prescribes scientific socialism - he argues that the demise of capitalism is an inevitable next stage in the development of society. Scientific socialism contrasts with 'utopian socialism' which argues for a communist state on moral grounds. However, moral aspirations have no power to change the social system, as all change is generated by economic conditions. Marx implies a common theme of justice in his work. When he claims that the worker doesn't receive the full value of his labour, this is a desert-based theory of justice.

Law & Liberty

Stemming from the traditional 'natural law' theory is the view that the law of the land should promote and enforce moral and religious standards. This is a 'substantive' concept of law, that the law is framed to produce concrete outcomes. Relationship between law and liberty therefore depends on the moral values held. Liberal values derive traditionally from a theory of natural rights or utilitarian arguments. Either individuals are born with God-given rights to life, liberty and property or the most extensive realm of private life and negative liberty is conducive to individual and social progress and happiness.

Aristotle Analogy (C)

The body is 'prior' to the part - a foot is nothing without a body; and individual is nothing without society. Like in a household, in society there will be natural superiors and inferiors because some have the ability to lead. Thus there's natural hierarchy. Disruption to the harmonious body could destroy it, so evolutionary change is preferable to a revolution. Conservatives stress the importance of tradition and experience, rather than rational ideals.

Marx Sub/Superstructure

The different modes of of production, determining the nature of society. The superstructure evolves out of how people live their lives, division of labour, and corresponding means of production. The ideas we have are historical products, determined by economic substructure, not the products of 'pure reasons'. State isn't a neutral umpire.

Freedom for Marx

The free association of individuals who can develop all sides of their character. In a capitalist state, work is soul destroying and alienating. A revolution is needed to take control of the means of production and bring workers into 'harmony with their essence', eventually it'll lead to communist consciousness and the state will 'wither away'.

Liberalism Neutral Umpire

The government can act as one - and if they're not impinging our autonomy, should be respected to referee. The role of the state is to defend, maintain law and order, and protect our interests and rights.

Plato Analogy

The illustration of the beast. The animal isn't free because they simply pander to their lowest desires and habit, e.g. the lust for power. Freedom is to be able to make your own laws on what it is best to do, and then to exercise these choices. A free person is a decision-maker, who is sufficiently in control of oneself to select opportunities which unlock potential and lead to flourishing - that is, being autonomous. Kant characterises this as being rational, able to choose the wiser, moral option.

Origins of the State

The justification of the state is a demand for an explanation of political obligation. Although I may believe that a law is morally justified or a legitimate religious duty, political obligation is about the sovereignty of the state and its right to enforce that law.

Mill Liberalism Q

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. The only freedom that deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way.

Anarchism

We might take what Locke suggests about the importance of autonomy and go one step further. Rousseau and Godwin suggested that the state is oppressive. If we want autonomy we must abandon the state. The stop before total anarchism would be minarchism or the night watchmen state. A state which provides the minimum in terms of interference with most services being privatised and a free-economy resolving issues.

Conservatism on Liberty

This asserts that expertise is needed in order to rule, in accordance with Plato's description of the wisdom of the philosopher kings. Human nature is governed by irrational impulses and self-interest. On the one hand, there's a clear strain of positive liberty - the paternalistic provision of education and moral guidance through church, school and the state. E.g., Hobbes underlines that freedom depends on the enforcement of law and order, for security and for safety. The decrease in crime allows everyone to take more advantage of opportunities. Conservatives are critical of rationalism in politics. Social institutions should reflect the embodies wisdom of past generations, but the individual is limited. Burke declares 'we are afraid...this stock of reason in each man is small.' so they reject the possibility of the rational construction of utopian ideals and consequently there's also desire for a limiting government. The state should only concern itself with providing security and a legal framework to acheive social cohesion and a moral consensus. They reject 'the nanny state' - here there's an overlap between liberalism and conservatism. A natural hierarchy of individuals will always exist and is acceptable. Any attempt to re-design social institutions to create equality will fail. Within the framework of a cohesive society, strengthened by support for the family, the church and traditional values, there's also a measure of negative freedom. The freedom that we enjoy have evolved over time because they are beneficial to individuals yet don't threaten the social order.

Rawls on Social Contract

To prevent people making choices reflecting natural advantages, he insists people must be put behind the veil of ignorance (original position), however, equality isn't an outcome, but a precondition to make people impartial and sympathetic. If circumstances change, as they often do, we may not consent to the contract anymore.

Importance of HN

Underpins ideologies, appealing to essential characteristics of humanity. Philosophers advocate the moral basis on which the interest of all human beings should have equal consideration.