Political Philosophy: State and Freedom

Political Philosophy: State Formation and Freedom

• Rousseau's perspective aligns with the modern state's self-perception. Rousseau famously stated, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." He questioned how a state could justify enslavement.
• Hobbes argued that individuals relinquish freedoms to escape a "state of nature" and enter a "political state." This surrender is necessary to prevent a "war of all against all." Individuals become subjects of the sovereign, who maintains peace.
• Rousseau refutes Hobbes' argument. He asserts that abandoning freedom compromises one's humanity and inherent worth. A contract that requires surrendering freedom is inherently invalid because it contradicts the very right to enter a contract.
• Republican Ideal of Freedom. True freedom resides in a diminished number of constraints on one's actions. An individual is free when no one is entitled to prevent them from acting as they desire.
• Social Contract: The social contract doesn't relinquish individual freedom to a sovereign, but rather creates a collective. Citizens, whilst subjected to laws, are also their creators, thus free.
• Potential Dangers: This idea has inherent risks. Governments have used the legitimacy of their law enforcement power in the name of the general will to justify actions deemed oppressive. Conversely, this principle is not inherently flawed. When a government acts on behalf of the people, citizens are bound by their actions, even if not directly involved in a decision. International laws recognize the different levels of responsibility in conflicts where not all states are directly engaged.

The General Will

• General Will: This concept equates to the collective will of participants, such as a university faculty. Even if individual members disagree with specific policies, they are still viewed as part of the collective. Theoretically, this collective will always seeks the common good. However, the people's collective will isn't always aligned with what is best for society.
• General Will vs. Will of All. Individuals tend to pursue their personal interests, whereas the general will aims for society's best interests. There is often a discrepancy.
• Social Contract's Significance. A true social contract includes the obligation for the coercive force to be used in ensuring compliance with the general will. This represents a form of positive freedom. However, this concept carries inherent dangers.
• Political Theories and State Formation. Thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Nozick offer different perspectives on why we enter a political state. Nozick argues that the state exists solely to protect individual freedoms and rights, whereas Hobbes and Rousseau present different reasons for its importance.

Natural Rights and Property

• Nozick's perspective on the state The state's role is limited to upholding rights to life, physical integrity, property, and liberty (freedom from enslavement). The right to property is vital because people must own means to pursue their goals.
• Natural Rights and the State: Locke and Nozick believe in the inherent right to property. Individuals have a right to their bodies and anything they develop or obtain legitimately becomes part of that ownership. The state's role is to protect these rights.
• Kantian and Rousseauian perspectives differ. Kant and Rousseau argue that property rights aren't natural, but arise from the state through laws. Individuals acquire property rights within the framework of a social contract and legal system recognizing reciprocal rights.
• Taxation and Property Rights: Taxation, though potentially perceived as a violation of property rights, is inherent to the state's authority. Individuals are considered to be part of a collective that, through its governance structures, establishes its own set of rules for ownership. Taxation is a part of the societal agreement.

Just War Theory and Individual Rights

• Grotius' view on war: Grotius viewed war as a legal dispute without a global state. Victory validates ownership, and captives become valid property. This directly clashes with Rousseau's view that inherent human freedom cannot be surrendered.
• Rousseau's Critique of Grotius. Rousseau disputes the idea of claiming legitimate ownership through conquest, arguing that individuals retain their inherent rights to life and freedom. Individuals should be distinguished between acting as state representatives (e.g., soldiers) and their individual status as ordinary citizens.
• War and Rights: In line with international humanitarian law, even during wartime, individuals—including opposing fighters taken prisoner—retain their essential human rights, as enshrined in the legal system.

Mill and Utility

• Mill's Philosophy of Liberty: Mill argued in On Liberty that utilitarian principles also necessitate the protection of individual rights. Government interference is justifiable only to maintain individual rights; not for maximizing overall societal benefits.
• Harm Principle Only actions that harm others warrant restriction; personal freedom should be paramount. The concept of "harm" is central and has an established legal meaning.
• Justification for Individual Rights: Mill's approach seeks to explain why individual liberties have worth even within a utilitarian framework.

Democratic Issues

• Tyranny of the Majority: A common concern is that a democratic system can lead to the suppression of minorities. The "tyranny of the majority" represents a situation where the majority suppresses the rights of the minority through democratic means.

• Voters and Self-Interest: Rational voting often involves aligning with personal or sectoral interests. This approach can potentially lead to a system that doesn't effectively serve all.

• The "General Will" and Democracy: Within a democratic system, the general will is expressed through the mechanism of voting, in which the decision is made by the majority. However, the will of the majority won't always represent the best interest of all.

• Tyranny of the Middle: This refers to a situation where the prevailing political discourse and policies are determined primarily by the desires of those situated in the political center.

• Group Interests. Powerful lobbying can lead to decisions in support of specific group interests rather than the broader societal good.

Tyranny of the Majority

• Concerns of Utilitarianism and Democracy. A utilitarian perspective sometimes struggles to address the potential for the majority to impose its will on the minority, even when theoretically beneficial for the majority.

• Conformity and Suppression. Societal pressure to conform to dominant trends can stifle personal expression and innovation, potentially hindering overall societal advancement. Individual expression and autonomy are curtailed.

• Balancing Rights and Utility: Finding the balance between individual rights and overall societal well-being is a key challenge in democratic systems, particularly when facing inherent societal tendencies towards majority rule. This balance becomes central given the complexity of human motivation and the potential for conflicts of interest in both individuals and the state.