Perhaps in the age of globalization where the domestic agriculture policies of the United States can totally alter the stock market of Thailand the answer to the question of how should governments respond to the eroding sovereignty isn’t to give more power back to the people but give more power to the elites. This is, at least in part, the argument of Fareed Zakaria in his addition to the globalization literature happily titled The Future of Freedom. In his examination of political systems throughout the world and in the United States he argues for a few main issues, some widely agreed upon and others quite controversial.
Read More »
In a critique of United States involvement in Iraqi and Afghani elections, anti-war activist and member of the board of directors for Peace Action Rahul Mahajan exclaimed “[w]e Americans tend to use words like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ in a purely talismanic manner, without attaching any actual meaning to them (2)”Â. With the US military first invading Afghanistan, and then Iraq, in the name, at least partially, of democracy, it may be hard to swallow the thought of Americans just throwing a prized word like ‘freedom’ or ‘democracy’ around with no real meaning behind it, unfortunately Mahajan is correct in his observation, and it is this correctness that leads to the real question of does America really exhume democracy abroad? Or does the nation simply exude a grand hypocrisy on an even grander scale? With a nation founded on revolution and the philosophies of John Locke, is it possible that America has now moved away from this original platform of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness†to “life as we want you to live it, liberty only as we provide it, and happiness as long as we agree with itâ€Â? If this is true, then, it is important to explore what John Locke would have to say on the issues of law, both for US Citizens and whatever other citizens the US forces its laws upon. In the exploration of his beliefs, along with that of Thomas Hobbes, it can be said that while Hobbes inevitably must settle on a government ruled by laws which are checked by the people, it is John Locke in the Second Treatise of Government who provides the logical and justifiable reasons for the formation of a government by the people, for the people, where the law’s legitimacy rests in the hands of the majority, not the leader of government. In defense of this statement it is necessary to explore, quickly, how Thomas Hobbes establishes, however grudgingly, a rule of law based on the majority. Then, it is important to understand how Locke postulates the same basic idea, but does so much more agreeably. Finally, with this knowledge in hand, it will be necessary to apply it to the US, Iraq and Afghanistan of present day.
Read More »
In a specific criticism of what he called the “liberal’s failureâ€Â, founder and chairman of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism Nicholas Provenzo exclaimed “[t]he pattern endures, the repeated error of treating dictators as ‘rational actors’ and predicting their actions based on that assumption that dictators will choose a course of action that benefits their countries and their citizens (1)â€Â. Clearly a logical claim in this day and age, when the word “dictator†brings to mind the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Hussein, this belief in the irrationality of dictators wasn’t always so. Namely, seventeenth century political theorist Thomas Hobbes stood up in firm support of a dictatorship, whom he referred to as an absolute sovereign, and even placed his arguments into one of the most remembered political writings of all time, The Leviathan. In this work Hobbes attempts to set up a relationship of absolute authority between the governed and the government, but inevitably fails to establish an absolute ruler or a submissive people. Ultimately, the rational person who is Hobbes’s sovereign can never be proven rational, and Provenzo’s criticism remains strong even in Hobbes’s theoretical world.
Read More »
The great philosopher Socrates argues, as a character in Plato’s Republic, that “it is by nature fitting for [philosophers] both to engage in philosophy and to lead the cityâ€Â.1 While there is little contention that Plato’s Philosopher-Kings would make the best rulers, what is of contention is whether or not the rule by philosophers is natural or even possible. By examining what constitutes the nature of a philosopher and of ruling it can safely be concluded that Plato is correct in his belief in the Republic that Philosopher-Kings would not only make the best rulers but would also rule naturally, simply as an extension of their virtue and wisdom. This will be defended through three main contentions. First, it will be argued, contrary to Strauss and Bloom, that the art of ruling is not inferior to the art of contemplation but rather an extension of it. Secondly, an examination of the nature of ruling and its relation to the philosopher’s knowledge of the Forms will conclude that only the philosopher could rule. Finally, by examining the existentialist notion of relationships and in particular the ability of relationships to provide unique insight into life and therefore add to the overall wisdom of a person it is clear that the formation of a very unique relationship, that of a ruler to a polis, would not only be in the nature of a philosopher but would also be a desirable aspect to the examined life. After all this analysis is complete, the final observation to be made is its relevance in modern times, which comes by examining the nature of liberal authoritarian governments throughout the world.
Get the Full Text (PDF) »
Get Adobe Reader
