Political Science 200

Thomas Hobbes

-English political Philosopher(1588-1679) -The Leviathan(provides justification of the sovereign state.

Anarchy and the state Hobbes and scott

-Even if we accept Hobbes's idea that we need the state... -Scott's anarchist squint suggests that people are in a constant struggle with the state -States Homogenity & control -Individuals Autonomy -According to Scott, struggle is the foundation of social progress What do you think of this view of politics?

Be able to comment on Scott's view of the "Anarchist squint" in Two Cheers for Anarchism

-More specifically, Scott believes that an anarchist squint can give us new insights into the role of contentious politics in bringing about social change -What kinds of progressive social change? •Expansion of freedom •Expansion of democracy •Scott argues that major changes are almost always brought about by acts of insubordination •All hierarchical organizations seek to restrict autonomy •However, disorganized lawbreaking is essential for social progress Examples of change Scott provides two examples of social change The New Deal, the civil rights movement

Hobbes state of nature

-state of war "every man against every man" -anarchy where there is no sovereign state -A condition of war in the state of nature -Why would the state of nature be a condition of war? 1.Greed(Competition) 2. Insecurity(Difference) 3. Glory(Reputation)

Scott everyday acts of resistance

Examples: foot-dragging, draft-dodging, talking about bosses behind their backs, etc. •Everyday acts of resistance are not openly defiant •In that sense they reinforce political order •However, they do implicitly contest political authority -Everyday acts of resistance (EORs) are at the root of all social changes. They create a repertoire of cultural symbols, around which movements for change converge. 2.EORs show that most people have the ability to mutually cooperate without coercion 3.All people have an inherent desire for individual autonomy

Confucius

(551-479 BCE) A Chinese philosopher known also as Kong Fuzi and created one of the most influential philosophies in Chinese history.

Anarchism

Anarchism is often associated with opposition to the state •However, anarchism as a political philosophy is broader than this •In general, anarchists have a problem with hierarchy •The state is only one form of hierarchical power •Wealth can be the basis of hierarchical power as well •Several forms of anarchism •Anarcho-capitalism •No state •Private property •Socialist anarchism

Locke theory of revolution

Citizens can permissibly revolt against the state Hobbes believes this is wrong

John Locke

English philosopher who advocated the idea of a "social contract" in which government powers are derived from the consent of the governed and in which the government serves the people; also said people have natural rights to life, liberty and property.

John Locke, Second Treatise of Government

He wrote that all human beings have a right to life, liberty, and property and that governments exist to protect those rights. He rejected the theory of the Divine Right of the monarchy, and believed that government was based upon a "social contract" that existed between a government and its people. If the government failed to uphold its end of the contract by protecting those rights, the people could rebel and institute a new government.

State of nature by hobbes

In the first case, if two individuals desire a scarce commodity, they will compete for the commodity and necessarily become enemies. In their efforts to acquire desired objects, each person tries to "destroy or subdue" the other. On account of the constant fear produced in the state of nature, Hobbes believes, it is reasonable to distrust others and use preemptive strikes against one's enemies. Hobbes also considers humans to be naturally vainglorious and so seek to dominate others and demand their respect. The natural condition of mankind, according to Hobbes, is a state of war in which life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" because individuals are in a "war of all against all" (L 186). In such a state, Hobbes contends that individuals have a "natural right" to do whatever they believe is necessary to preserve their lives. In other words, individuals in the state of nature are not constrained by moral or legal obligations as neither could exist prior to the establishment of a commonwealth. In the state of nature "nothing can be Unjust' since the 'notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place" (L 188). Human liberty, for Hobbes, is simply the freedom of bodily action and is not limited by any moral or legal notions. A person is free, in other words, when not physically confined or imprisoned. Because the state of nature is a state of continuous and comprehensive war, Hobbes claims it is necessary and rational for individuals to seek peace to satisfy their desires, including the natural desire for self-preservation. The human power of reason, Hobbes says, reveal the "laws of nature" that enable humans to establish a state of peace and escape the horrors of the state of nature.

Similarities and differences between Hobbes and Locke

Locke and Hobbes are both famed political philosophers whose writings have been greatly influential in the development of modern political thought. In addition, the two are similar in that both refer to a "state of nature" in which man exists without government, and both speak of risks in this state. However, while both speak of the dangers of a state of nature, Hobbes is more pessimistic, whereas Locke speaks of the potential benefits. In addition, Hobbes speaks of states of nature theoretically, whereas Locke points out examples where they exist. The common thread between Hobbes' state of nature and Locke's state of nature is that Hobbes and Locke both speak to the dangers of a state of nature. Both men refer to men as being equal in this state; Hobbes states that "nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of mind and body.....the difference between man and man is not so considerable" (Wootton, 158). Similarly, Locke describes the nature of nature as a "state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another" (Wootton, 288). Despite this equality, however, both men warn of the danger of the state of nature. For Hobbes, the entire time that man is in a state of nature, he is in a state of war. He states that "if any two men cannot enjoy the same thing, they become enemies and in the way to their end....endeavor to destroy or subdue one another" (Wootton, 158). Locke too points out risks, saying that without the "law of nature" (further discussed in the next paragraph) everyone may execute decisions, leading to a state of war (Wootton, 290). To summarize, both refer to the dangers of a state of nature, and describe states of war existing in the state of nature. Despite these similarities between the two ideas, Locke and Hobbes' state of nature do differ from one another. First, for Hobbes, the nature of nature is perpetually in a state of war. According to Hobbes, the chief reason why men given up their authority to the sovereign is to seek peace, and avoid the "fear of death" (Wootton 160). By contrast, while Locke does speak of states of war as well, for him they are a subset of the state of nature, and not the entire equation. Locke specifically states that "men living together according to reason...is properly the state of nature. But force, upon the person of another...is the state of war" (Wootton,291). Thus, by this reasoning, Locke's state of nature is a much kinder place than Hobbes', where man's life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Wootton 159). In addition, another difference between the theories of the two men is that Hobbes speaks hypothetically of states of nature, whereas Locke points out times when state of nature actually exists. Locke believes that all rulers are in a state of nature, and governors as well (Wootton, 290). The key difference between Locke and Hobbes in this area is the specifying of the existence of a state of nature, the greater negativity of Hobbes, and Locke's use of examples in contrast to Hobbes' hypotheticals. In conclusion, while the states of nature of Hobbes and Locke have their similarities, they also have key difference. They are similar in that both men recognize the dangers within a state of nature, and they also both acknowledge the perfect equality of man in this state. Their theories differ, however, when it comes to the extent of the state of war, the more negative perspective of Hobbes on man's natural state, and in their use of examples (or lack thereof).

Significance for American politics(Locke)

Locke's theory influenced the American Declaration of Independence •Legitimacy is based on a social contract •Social contract is between all citizens, and the state

Locke State of Nature

Men exist in the state of nature in perfect freedom to do what they want. The state of nature is not necessarily good or bad. It is chaotic. So, men do give it up to secure the advantages of civilized society. Locke's state of nature isn't as bad as Hobbes's, so why would anyone ever leave it? •It causes a series of "inconveniences" •What would be "inconvenient" about the state of nature? Three inconveniences 1.We tend to be partial to our own interests 2.There are no impartial judges for deciding disputes, and we are way to vengeful for our own good 3.Without a state, executing the law of nature can be difficult

Law of Nature (Locke)

Naturally existing moral principles that obliges mankind to obey, that follow from the existence of God

Confucius theory of moral leadership

Respect for elders and tradition •Past sages as models of leadership •Emphasize familial ties and filial piety •Political leaders serve as moral exemplars •Leader privileged access to "the Tao" •Leaders should focus on cultivating virtue •They also need to fulfill familial obligations

How does Locke's theory of government relates to the theory of government put forth by the U.S. framers in the Federalist papers.

Separation of powers and to avoid tyranny by revolting and etc.

Socialist anarchism

Social anarchism is the branch of anarchism that sees individual freedom as interrelated with mutual aid. Social anarchist thought emphasizes community and social equality as complementary to autonomy and personal freedom.

theory of property

Theory created by John Locke which says if you own something now you have a voice and are a citizen who can now vote you can now vote (this is only for white males) -We gain property rights through labor First premise •We own ourselves and our labor •God gives us a right to them •Second premise •Working on something puts our labor into it •Conclusion •I gain a property right over something by mixing my labor with it

Articulate the anarchist criticism of the state

They argue that centralized states threaten freedom •Furthermore, they argue that all hierarchy threatens liberty -Anarchism calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable

Be able to explain why the framers of the U.S. Constitution defended a federated system of government with separation of powers and checks/balances

To prevent tyranny. To protect against factions To protect peoples rights

Locke on Legitimacy

We leave the state of nature to safeguard our property rights •What kind of government should we create to keep us out of the state of nature? •Why not follow Hobbes and have a totalitarian state? •An absolute monarch would not really take us out of the state of nature •Why not? •Because an absolute monarch or totalitarian state would threaten our individual rights What type of government would rational people create to exit the state of nature? •One that respects property rights and has the separation of powers •Locke believed that legislative and executive powers should be separated to avoid undue concentrations of power

Hobbes preferred government

absolute monarchy, totalitarian, can't revolt against the state, it has one mind, no factions, and overall stable

sovereign state

exercises power over a territory and people and is recognized by other states. Hobbes believes that the state has authority over us and can force us to do things we wouldn't usually do. -When people create states, they give up some of their rights. -Right to life, Right to everything and everyone, in the state of nature there is no injustice or justice. -Hobbes thinks we give up our rights to everything and everyone