Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
hegel
"When philosophy paints its grey in grey then has a shape of life grown old. By philosophy's grey in grey it cannot be rejuvenated but only understood. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk." -- G.W.F. Hegel, 'Preface', Philosophy of Right.
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Library
Links - weblogs
Links - Political Rationalities
Links - Resources: Philosophy
Public Discussion
Resources
Cafe Philosophy
Philosophy Centres
Links - Resources: Other
Links - Web Connections
Other
www.thought-factory.net
'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainity and agitation distinquish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.' Marx

a condition of peace « Previous | |Next »
November 13, 2005

The tradition of modern political philosophy ----ie., not Plato's Republic, but Hobbes' Leviathan, Rousseau's Social Contract, Hegel's Philosophy of Right, and Rawl's Theory of Justice etc --- takes its bearing from the idea of freedom and the centrality of freedom in understanding political life in modernity. It subdivides in terms of its understanding of freedom, ie. negative and positive freedom. By this is meant freedom as the pursuit of our desires without obstruction or interference and freedom as self-determination or autonomy in the realm of politics. Rousseau is generally understood as the turning point between the two conceptions of freedom in modernity.

When I read Kant in the light of the modern liberal traditon I was suprised how much like Hobbes and Locke he actually was. The concern is with harmonizing individual wills---just like utilitarianism that defines the political philosophy of the newly born Australian colonial state in the mid to late 19th century.

In the 'Perpetual Peace' essay Kant, working in the social contract tradition, says that the task of of creating the good organization of the liberal state only involves arranging the state in such a way that the:

"... self-seeking energies [of men] are opposed to one another, each thereby neutralizing or eliminating the destructive effects of the rest. And as far as reason is concerned , the result is the same as if man's selfish tendencies were non-existent, so that man, even if he is not morally good in himself, is nevertheless compelled to be a good citizen."

Law does this job of neutralizing. The state's concern is to compel the antagonism of hostile attitudes and drives submit to coercive laws thereby producing a condition of peace within which the laws can be enforced. Kant in short, does not take us very far beyond a Benthamite utilitarianism, which presupposes the security of life and property.

In the Hobbe/Locke understanding of the social contract security is deemed to be a trade off with respect to individual freedom: the prudentially calculating individual gives up a part of their freedom to enjoy the security of life and property. That is the current discourse of the national security state in relation to terrorism. It is our duty to consider the law as just.

So how can it be guaranteed that the national security state will not itself become an arbitrary power; that it will rule in accordance with the rule of law?

The standard liberal answer to despotism is representative government and the division of legislative and executive powers. As we know in the Australian national security state today, legislation is the exercise of executive power( through CoAG). So where is the constitutional check on the executive-legislative power? Where is the power to suspend government if it violates the freedom of the people to ensure national security from the enemy without and within?

Elections is the classic answer. But the national security state now manipulates fear of violate death and ethnic nationalism to ensure national unity under the state and the continual re-election of the Coalition political party.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 1:02 PM | | Comments (2)
Comments

Comments

Hi Gary,
Interesting topic. The ideas of the political spectrum have been talked about lately, with the book Beyond Right and Left for instance, and perhaps some of these theorists could be placed on that spectrum.
Rather than placing Hobbes with Locke at the Right, I would place Hobbes on the authoritarian Right [monarch rules], Locke at the Centre [liberal democratic parliament], and Rousseau on the Left [the leader personally represents the General Will, or whatever he calls it].

When I read the Perpetual Peace pamplet by Kant I thought it sounded sort of vague. Perhaps his idea of the categorical imperative could tie in with the social contract idea of reciprocity - but he seemed very strict and too black-and-white about it. Kant didn't write much about politics - but I think that Hannah Arendt wrote about a Kantian kind of politics that sort of linked the rule of law with a theatrical kind of understanding of what a person is. Freedom in society and freedom in the self, perhaps. I have only dabbled in this, and would love to research it properly. Interesting stuff.

Hi Gary,

there is a very real possibility that my lack of philosophical points of reference, may negate my opinion, but indeed it is also partly the point i make, theory would suppose that two equally potent and opposing schools of thought would create a balanced and fair political climate, however, it is often the case that where there are these circumstances in politics, and society in general, there is also a desire, perhaps even a need for one side of the scale to over-balance the other. Equilibrium, is a eutopic simplistic overview, simply because humanity itself exists in varying shades of grey, and the willingness to exist within that balance,is entirely dependant on the equaliy of the end product.

Where you have people who believe that their opinion will not be heard, or given fair hearing, they inevitably feel compelled to maintain their idea of "fairness" by bending the rules, democracy depends on compromise for its survival,which is why there are seldom just two points of view in answer to any question, my point is this...you don't have to agree with the point i make, that does not mean it has less merit
People are free, providing they aren't compelled to relinquish that freedom to remain a member of the society they exist in.