idealso3
Wed 09/24/08
we give up the ability to judge
set up legislature to do that.
I own my own body .. that's the sourde of life
porperty .. life , liberty , estate
laws oriented toward protecting us .. not because we're children .. no because were adults but without some kind of common authority .. we are inevitably going to land into disagreements that could escalate
recognition of human inperfection to have the ommon authority
law protect us by institutiong a systme of regulation .. don' gie up our property .. but regulated by government
.. just like in US
right to speech but the speech is regulated
right to life is regulated in a sesne as well ..
well in the state of nature .. a murderer can be chased down and killed
punnishment .. ven in the state of nature is only for the sake of stopping the violation and turning it
.. so the state now will punnish violators
and may ahve to kill if hunting down .. if you can't incarcerate them
but even life in prison is a control over somebody's life
so if yo violate some o else's rights, you are ineffeect making yourself vulnerable to the authorities
.. forfit those rights to the extent that you violate the law of nature
always a rational function of stoppoin the crime .. not eye for eye tooth for tooth
government then acts like an umpire and referee
impartial individual who has to make a judgement on whether it's a strike or a ball, etc
.. based on the rules of the game --> natural law are the rules
uses another analogy .. maybe more relevant :
accountability .. refs and umpires can't be challenged
so the ref analogy gives impartiality but not accountability
the other metaphor:
trusteeship .. in terms of the accountability ofhte common authroity .. like a trustee .. for an estate
where, especially if people are under age, a trustee is appointed to oversee the estate .. tells the beneficiaries how much they'll get .. for their good
the task of the trustee is not for their benefit .. because they're not parties to any benefits
and protections
.. trustee is acting for the beneficiary
gvernment officals are public servants .. serve the people for the common good
according to locke .. government that is setup by concent
and can never leve
we cannot allow sucession .. because it undermines what has been created
ut everyone that's born in mis implicit ..
concenting by continuihng to live in thh society .. contining to benefit from it .. and implicetly recognizing the duties as well
any individual born into society .. you have th right to leave it
but among the original members, possibility to leave would be serious
democracy -- accountabililtyy through eleections
locke .. people have the right to rebellion .. but very conservative on it
because what was set up .. will of majority
so if a reveloution is ever justied .. must be a clear majority
a minority . that will never justify any kind of rebellions
-------
Fri 09/29/08
locke would say that people in the state of nature hve the duty to help others. .. not in the state?
.. well in this text ..
at first ... just says do no harm
then kinda says that we have a duty to help out each others afte ourselves
but then only says in preservation .. so kinda negatvie of it ..
minimal state (individualism) / libertarianism - good definition of it is in locke .. sec 88
power of making laws / power of war and peace
those are two necessary functios to alk about a state
at least a police force -- we're not injuring each other .. and military function
so locke is in the minimal state category
we don't have minimal states
|
modern welfare state -- most of the western states are modern welfare states
|
|
collectivism .. socialism
we (Us) probably moved from sort of a minimal state in 1890 .. sherman anti-trust act
really accelerated in the 1930's .. the great depressions
and when fdr became president, he did a lot of meausres to create the mooern state
big idea here .. in the modern welfare state there'a an argument made to , in some extent redistribute private property .. distributive justice
.. philospher "john rawls" .. "a theory of justice" .. came out in 1971
ressurected political philosphy as an active area of philosophy
in part justified the existance of the welfare sttate .. to some extent redistributing rpivate property was a valid and moral thing
example: social security
.. takes property from one group of people to another
his book is really a philosphical defense of the morn welfare state
robert nozick .. philosopher .. both of these guys actually taught at harvord ..
"anarchy state and utopia"
wasn't a polotical philosopher per se .. he was on the harvord faculty when rawls write his book .. compelled to critique it
so wrote his book in 1974 .. a critique of the theory of justice .. only really justifiable state was the minimal state
considered foremost political philosphers of hhe 21st century
nazik's book might have set the tone for regan and thatcher administration
two manjor parties are in the middle with republicans more towards the minimal state.
john rawls would saa that htere was a valid way to incorporate the good semaritan idea in the idea of government
where as nozick would say no .. that would always be a form of theft
locke is taking about the minimall state .. is he really in favor of it?
first, he would not have been arguing for the modern welfare state .. didn't exist
goverrments that he was used to didn't really do much more than the modern state
but several things in the second treatise that mihgt say that he would be in favor of the minimal estate..
either locke would not have thouhgt of the modern welfare state .. or you woul need more justification for are state that addresses moe functions
review of main ideals .. and then new material
a lot in there about what we mean by political power an d comparing political power to other kinds of huiman relationships
political power - paragraph 3.: .. a right of making laws ..
paternal power . cahptter 6
other types of human relationships that are not analogous to political power
talks about master and servant, slave
none of those are really the same as political power
what about paternal (parental) power?
shooting down filmer "king as father"
differences:
paternal power is temporary .. political power is generally not
political power includes right to use death as punnishment ; parental power doesn't usually include death!
husband wife -- power of creating a new generation
master-servant .. that's a contractual thing .. no right over person's liberty
master-slave: (justifiable for POW situation) if the end of goverrment is the preservation of property .. well the slave has no property / posessions
state of nature .. all free and equal:
free in the sense of: we own orselves .. we have a right to our lives, to our labour and a right to mix our labor with what's in common .. right to live our lives as we see fit .. only duty is to live according to the law of nature
law of nature: everyone has a right to property .. just like you do .. so in your activites .. life your life the way you want to ..but you shouldn't interfere with others in their goals.
moral obligation to follow the law of nature
intutiviely bestowed upon our psychology
just like we know fairness.
when we stry to follow the law of nature, we start to disagree .. one of the inconveniences .. partly because we all have kina a biased viewpoint of the world
equality: ..
everyone has political power in the state of nature
not been transfered to a government but exists .. has to exist .. equally .. we all have an EQUAL right and duty to inforce the law of nature
one of the inconveniences of the state o nature .. we don't have the collective force to exert on the violator of the state of nature .. nozick suggests taat a possie would form that woull enfroce the law of nature
and there might be compeeting possies
and people would go to those people and ask for protection ..
one of these groups would become the onlly one
even though in the state of nature, individual, w'ed be drawn to collective action.
.. not a formal social contract .. nott a society per se
before the social contract , in a state of natures, there could be alliances being made
rulers sorta in a state of nature with themselves .. and they can make alliances
Locke executive
no three parts of goverrment as we see it ..
legislative, executive and federative
we think of part of government that carry out th elaw .. separate from court system .. but locke wouldn't .. executive .. that part of th government that actually makes peoooole behave .. police, penalty and court
federative: (could include defense) .. foreign relations in general
.. state department and the defense department
federative is split up into several branches of govenrment in US constitution
congress delcares war; executive is commander in chief ..
world war II was the last time congress has declared war
.. ability to make war has gravitated out of the legislative branch to executive.
nam -- blank check to wage war for 90 days
the imperial presidency
arthur slushinger "the imperial presidency"
.. but congress funds war
.. afects the ability to wage war
.. korea, vietnam .. not against a country / entity . but civil war
.. and the you get out of the habit of war
another thing: police force for UN rather than a /war/
.. strong motivation to create a civial governmetn .. need enforcement group
two step process:
1 - agree to social contract .. has to be unanimuous .. otherwise, just stay in the state of nature
.. haven't agreed to typpe of government
.. all the details are not part of the original agreement
then form the actual government .. and there, locke says you 're not going to be able to get unanimous agrrement .. suggests majority rule
.. easy to say that but imagine if you were in the state of nature anddyou had to amke a decision like this .. irrevocable decision .. that must tkae kinda a leap of faith when you don't even know what the government is going to look like ..
designed always to preserve private property
so it would be understood taat this would not lead eventually to a communism society .. htat would go against his whole enfasis on provate property
if it deos that, maybe you wounldn't care so much about it's organization
.. no one has to give away some of their wealth .. when you ennter the soiial contract .. under the condition that hhe goverrment that is formed will hav the role of preserving all private propperty
give up your freedom to live yo life according to your vision of the law of nature.
can't execute the law yorself
may be obligated to help execute the law.
what do you get when you enter civil society
advantages
.. protection for your property
colllective power of the society to enforce the law of nature
convencience of unbiased (hopefully) who can resulve conflicts
also have:
one of the probelms with the law of nature is that it is vague .. hard to know how that law of nature is supposed to follo .. but when you have a government you have actual laws
Laws htat, in an ideal society flesh ouot hh elaws of nature .. give a littl specificity
a little less ambiguous
declaration of independence: read it after the last few chapters of 2nd treatise
see if you can identify actuall stuff that borrows heavilyt from locke
what was jefferson's motivation for being so blatent?
surely the dec was justified in some ways by locke .. but is that the correct reading of locke???
interesting queston .. can argue both sides
chapter XXI
.. the extent of legislatie power Paragraph 134.
would locke believe in distributive justice?
limitations on the legislative?
legislative as top part of government .. 'cuz that's what he wants .. parliment over king
executive can only functn after the legislative fuction happens
in theory you could have the legislative and executive be the same person
also .. no person is above the law .. so legislative is superior since executive must obey the laws just like everyone else
controls that have to be placed on the legislative
cannot be used to exert arbitrary power - haved to be designed to preserve private property
can't be extemporaneous laws: not written down .. when soeme thing happens hthey say "olk you violated thh alw" can''t do that
**3rd thing ... para 138.
.. legislative cannot take your property from you .. you entered it to preserve your property
para 140. governments take our money all the time ! taxes
.. but taxes by concept of majority
on one had he's sayiing gotta fund the government .. and everyohe should pay their fiar share .. but you shouldn't be forced to pay it
.. tax policy .. what is a fair share?
one could agrue that those passages seem to imply that locke wouldn't favor a modern welfare state .. where you would take some wealth from one persn to another
and how is this a LIMIT on the legislative? not that everyone individually can decide .. is it through the legislative? then there's no limit on them .. otherwise, through a referrendum?
4th thing .. cannot transfer the role of making laws to anyone else .. cannot pass to some other branch or external pbody
-------
Wed 10/01/08
second essay
apparently there hve been soclarsh who have claimed that locke can be interpretied to psssibly allow distrubutive justice .. a state may have the right in some cases to take wealth from one party to anothe
the basis for that is the discussion in chapter 5 .. how you acquire estate through your labor .. allowed as long as there's enough for everyone else
in england there wasn't extra reources .. obviously limited resources in england so you woul have thought he might have addressed this issue
if you're operating in a situation of scarecity we speculate .. there may not be neougg for everyone satisfied .. if some people fully reached their desires and others weren't .. that might be a violation of the law of nature .. therefore there might need to be a political roll to play in terms of evening out that scare resource. .. might mean distributive justice ..
but that whole argument is based on chapter 5
for monday . de toqueville .. chapter 14
for wedensday , ready both chapters .. since we dont have friday class
american revolution, declaration of independence .. later
new material ..
"conquest" - chapter
a lot of political structures have been created by conquest
recognizes that has happening historically .. is this a valid kind of state? moraaly justifiable?
just war:
person waging unjut war .. given up rights to life .. and peroon waging just war against them .. when they win they have all the rights of the peoples life
what is a just war?
war is not ordinary state of nature
susually somethhng that occurs during a state of nature .. war between two states, in the state of nature
if a war between two political societies .. what makes it a just war with respect to one party
just: self defense
unjust: agressor - violator of law of nature .. remember everyone would have the right to punnish that individual in the state of nature
so each nation state has the right to enforce the law of nature as they interpret it
so assuming the enfrocer of the law of nature is correct, just war
the winner could be an unjust state .. but if they do and enslave the other state would not be morall justifiable
but if the just state sdoes that .. technically the combatants .. non-combatants cannot be enslaved or cildren of combatants
with respect to property: limited by what is compesnation to your side for having had to fight the war
but what if there's not enough .. seems to say that if there's not enough we have to look out for th needs of the familles of the combatants before reparations
there is, therefore, a justification for conquest .. with all these conditions imposed on it
does that make a civil government?
this does nt constitute a civil society .. this is sa state of war continued into peace because a civil society required this social contract with free concent.
if you're conquered and yourlife and liberty is at the behest of the conqueror .. that's not adequate concent
. but the concent could happen later .. as lnng as the people who were in voleved are allowed to act as free people .. they might be able to form that situation into a civil society.
so he had to have that chapter in there to deal withthe historial fact of conquest.
from our point of view today .. in terms of the historial clout that it has had .. the chapter on disolusion of government is most important
disolution society vs disolution of government
society was initial social contract (unanamous)
government is everythng that follows .. actual structure etc.
society first then government
now we see distinctin between those two things
disolution of society .. automatically lose the government
can lose the government
but how can you disolve the society: if you're conquerered .. could be outside influence that essentially destroys .. some kind of tramatic event
we cant' just agree among ourselves that this society was a bad ideal .. the original agreement was irrevocable
. but all the founding members could die and none of the children concent .. and then where's the society?
if you come here from another country and become naturalized .. you would never have the right to leave .. expressed concent.
disolution of govenrment .. how the govenrment can change
can change ..usually because of certain bad things that happen
t one point, talks about when ever the legislative functin of govenrment is changed contrary to the people .. that constitutes the disovling and allows the people to reconstitute if they want
ways that the government can be changed
essentially the lesilative branch hhs been changed if the prince replaceds the laws of the legislativewith his own laws
that would b egrunds to crecreate a goverrment strucuture
2. not allowing the legislature to assemble .. that is considered to be a fundamental change in the legislature and therefore the people can reconstruct
- king could kinda change the waa the representatives are selected
might figure out a way to get his chronies in there.
king could have manipulated things
finally, if the government is turned over to a foreign power .. if that takes place, would be sufficient grounds to reconstruct.
also talks about other kinds of things that could justify reconstitution
things like userpation and tyranny
usurpation and tyranny difference
both of them are bad .. and moral justification for reconstituting government (can amount to a revolution)
usurp .. another person becomes king .. ..
you can be a userper without being a tyrant
you can be a tyrant w/o being a usurper
tyranny .. a rightful executive .. perosn who's in charge .. supposed to be there but that person starts to act beyound the law of hhe legislature
so when a king whould start to rule over arbitrary decress .. that would be tyranny
embmer, power here is not absolute
on perogative:
both tryanny and perogative are in some sense actions by the executive in absence or contrary to an existing law
but if a fire is spreading .. it might be appropreiate o destroy one house in a fire chain .. goal of presrvation is eing met
perogative. and he's OK with it .. the legislative may not be able to see every posssibility when making the laws
a cercomstance could arrise where the law doesn't cover it but something has to be done.
what willl happpen usually when a king acts that way: as long as it's done for the righr reasons, the subjects will be fine wwth it
but perogative could turn into tyranny .. an executive might say its perogative but it's really tyranny
perogative maintain the goal of goverrment; tyranny is a threat to the main goal.
declaration.
law of nature -
justifying wwy they need tt make this document
certain unalienable rights -- life liberty and "Happiness"
so why hapiness vs property:
cynical: remember that most of the founding fathers were land owners -- well off rich people .. speculation is that: whee he got to that pont .. toying ith life liberty and property .. but that would give the impression tht everyone had a right to property
rhtorical interpretation: life and liberty sound clorious .. whereas property sounds grubby .. so pursuit of hapiness
"all men are created equal" .. state of nature .. total freeodm and equality in terms of our executive right to enforce the law of nature
deriving our just powrs from the concent of governed -- that's a direct quote
general proposition that when government becomes destructive at these ends then people have the right to abolish it .. chapter xv
right to alter or abolish
prudence will ideed dictate ...
in that chapter on gvverrment deals with an argument against this theory .. idea that government will be necesarily unstable
locke's answer to that .. people are slow and resistant to change
hen theereaons get sufficent people a a right
.. "but when a long train of abuses"
page 127 .. "but if a long train of abuses"
userpations
tyranny
2nd column
what has the king done with respect to the legislative:
called together lesilative bodies that places unusal, uncomfortable ...
ie, preventing the legislative of meeting
when the king or executive interferes with the actual content of the legislative
he has disolved representative houses
"imposing taxes on us .. " ..
"abolishing our most valuable laws"
suspending our own legislatives
a prince whos character s thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit
at some point, when the people revolt . only appeal to whether just or not .. to heaven ..
so appealing to supreme judge of the world
why do this?
2nd treatise .. was a justification for the govenrment that they were under
so what better way to justify what you were doing
could also be a knind of in your face, stick it to 'em
american revolution .. an outgrouth of this lockean viewpoint
but! is jefferson right in this document??
arguments on both sides
.. they're not reaaly DISOLVING the governent .. then they'd be taking out britan too
and wwat kind of concent did the colonists give to the government
are colonies an extension of english land? but if so , they shoud have had representation in parliment
but that's not how they worked.
above all, these were economic enterprises .. at the very least, the new world was abundant in raw materials
ideal that these colonies were setup to bring money into the coffers
mercantalism .. goal .. to get gold and silver into coffers
the real reason everything went bad . england started taxing the colonies!
--> boston tea party
they had these own little colonial governments .. independant
locke: if you give tacet concent, you have the right to give up thte property and go somewhere .. create a new social contract
if you think of the colonies as an extrension of england, then they woul have needed to find new land
on the other hand, they moved from britan out to the new world .. now it look slike they were tacetly members of english society now they're in new world ..colony wwth independant government .. eseentially created a government (although under the british) .. quasi independant .. becoming defacto politicall independant .. onlly tie was the purse strings .. ... so we're not going to pay you any more
human history is never clear cut .. usually significant events take advantage of that .. and you could argue that this was a grey area
.. locke would turn over in his grave but that doesnt mean anyting becaae he was british :-D
-------
Mon 10/06/08
de toqueville
early sociologist
forgeiner coming to a place and describing it better than we could ourselves
cultureal sociologst .. americans as a way of thinking what's differnet about their thinking
born 1805 .. to low end aristogracy
petite nobles
father had been a prvicial governeor .. county executive
french revolution 1789 .. mother and fther nearly beheaded
decided to go off and not be a land aristogrcrate but be a lawyer
half-hazard but well rounded education
born after the parents had trouble with the revolution
but by time 1815 rolled around, 100 000 electors in france .. all the people who could vote
1830 -- expanded the electors to 231, 000 ..
looked around to see what the model might be for the future .. it's america
.. just getting rid of limitations by religion, tax, anyone who piad taxes owned land
anyone who owned land could vote
seeing anew world rising
came here in 1831 to see what this new world might look like
french were very either very positive or thought it would be a disastor
he started out on the suspicious side
this country is an experiment .. and the challenges are not over
social democracy .. don't have arristogcrates and commoners, just citizens .. we dont have that here
political democracy .. the people voted .. sometimes looked upon by rule by the worst .. rule by everybody ..
we hadn't arrived there in 1830 but that was the direction
would it turn well or bad
you can't tell which he means .. often go together
toqeville came with a man named belmonte
coveredNew England
and eventually wanted to see a place really wild .. came to fort howard .. green bay , wi
quotes from journal here:.
toqueville swam across the fox river
onieda .. duck creek
came twice
came in 1835 as well because his first book which we're reading was so well liked .. by both liberals and conservatives
he americans were a little ambivalent about it .. objected to some parts, flattered by others
fate of native americans .. very good .. realized the difficulties that we werre getting into
i the first book 1830 .. a little more suspicious of democracy
second book .. flows a little more toward our direction
why was he suspicious of it?
first, his parents had been neirly keilled inthe revolution
catholic church .. terribly wounded
.. first decent gothic cathedral trahsed by the mob
had read the classics and people like plato were quite suspicious of the uneducated and he'd assimilated
had also read madision .. enphasized over and over again that you hhve to have government with divided powers .. he wanted everything split up because he was so afraad of the rule by the mob
so he took all this to the US with his own sense that perhpas democracy would be problematic
does he have an idea of justice as something universal and eternal?
absolute vs relative excellence of laws
what would absolute excellence do?
there is something that lies behind our attempts to do justice .. there is an ideal .. something he sess as God ordaned
he's a good catholic
if toqueville saw "the voice of the people is the voice of god" would he buy it?
nah! you can't reduce something universal to some people's voice
justice remains true whether it's recognized byt he people or not
justice .. recognizing legit rights w/o pregideous
assign of his liberality and that he has the best lessons of chirstianity
.. bothered byt he fact that blacks don't get to vote .. illogical .. not the way god intended
modern conception of justice as fairness, but not equality in all senses
two things that make him not so modern:
1) definitely see scommunities as having rights too and we tend to see rights as inherint in individuals .. he is quite sure that hey pertain to both individuals and groups
2) we tend to believe that enforcement of legit rights w/o pregidice will lead to equality of wealth, education
he thought that the opposite .. the talented will pile up
so those are two ways he was not considered modern
in the lat 25 years .. dbate over equality or given advantage to disadvantage
.. he saw a contradicion and we see it as somthing that can be done at once .. both lifting up peple who need help and also equality
rights are against the majority .. even if they say you can't do x
even if te majority says blakcs should't vote, it's irratinal
but didn't think that hhe rights agains hhe majority protect equality
3) what's the limits of the deomcratic power .. how much power should the majority have?
chap 15 - the rights of every peoole are confined within the limits of what is just.
so rights .. not you cna do whatever you can vote .. they have the right to do all sorts of things within the boundry of wht is just
what might endanger deomcracy
in Vol I .. belives the deomcracy is most likely to fail when the majority so harms the rights of the minory that they resist .. and anarchy results
.. attach the wel-to-do .. try to pull them down .. tht he thought would lead to disorder and then despotism
why isn't this happening in the US?
why? structural and culuture factors
1) just allowing a certain number to vote .. if the rable canot vote, that's going to affect it .. but this is about to change .. about to expand who can vote ..
2) federal system ..
national majority may vote something and the local people just ignore it .. prohobition .. they got beer in from canada
central goverrjent in his day was also much weaker than it is now
2) judicial power .. really crrtical ..
very disticut idea of how the judiciary should function
might think that the job of the judiciary is to protect the marginalized
rather, he saw the judiciary as a kind of aristocratic force . "natural aristocracy"
.. contempt for the masses .. worry that the masses might not be good enough to make these decisions .. idea that th emasses might be unjust
but if tha'ts true today maybe .. he also saw this profession as fundamentally there to protect the wealthy and priviledged against the mob
is that true today?
weel laws stand up for individual when an individual sues a company
he saw the judiciary as aristoratic and conservative .. ie, maintinaing legit distincitoos between people
and we today see it both ways .. two edge sward
so, separation of powers and the judiciary system
3) something more internal to people: the cristinn religion
in chap 17 .. cristian religion is necessary for the democracy to survive
why?
higher morality .. tkaes account of other peoples needs wishes and rights .. golden rule
people who thing if they'd really waat this to happen to me before they act
and he belived that htere was no way to teach the typical soccer mom w/o the teachings of the church
worried that reilgion was fading in modern times and glad that it hadn't faded as much as in europe
europe .. time of enlightenment and locke .. 14% churchgoers but they returened in 1830 to churchiness
when he came back .. the second volume aadded considerably more sophisticated analysis of the effects of democracy and plays into staying away from depostism
in vol 1 .. says that if americans lose their liberties ..
danger majority opressing minority
vol ii
two factors
1) increased power of the central goverrment over local goverrment
.. becaause local govenrment taught domcratic virtues ..
o now its not only religion doing the trick but also local deomcratic practices
why would the central goverrment start to take over and suck power ut o the localities
.. another idea .. its a lot of little groups asking ofr privildges from government .. ie, auto company wnats one rule for the whole country re: autos
perhaps blacks would , in the face of local hostility ask for protection at the centrall government level.
like the way oneida were treatd here
terribly maltreated by local majorities -> as for national govenrment to step in ->
ppolitical democracy -- a lot of people voting
vs having just a few people vote
tyranny of the majority is mitigated by having a weak central goernment ..
idea of natuaional majority . w/o realizing that you could still have local majority .. so in book 2, the tyranny can happen at multiple levels
book 2 .. deomcracy is the school of virtue so you have t stop the central government from taking value out of local government
but how do you do that and protect minority groups
conflict between liberty and equality -
idea taat if you have a system which is fair .. some will prosper and others will fall .. and we have this hope that everyone will be above average
so the school system is much worse in encouraging the bright than the dim
.. we'd try so hard to be above average that everyone would come out mediocre.
we do "bright students" within the same school .. french ,etc .. get put in a different (more challenging ) school
right vs rights
in order for a people to really understand justice, they have to be given a lot of rights
.. you realize what you'd like to do with your life, and you start to respect that other people will want to live the same way
analogy of child .. when they have toys and learn the concept of posession .. udnerstand what it means to have things and realize that others hhv their things and respect th4e right of other people to have things
.. and that was one of the advantages of democracy .. gives more rights to peopole
advantages of democracy .. patriotism:
"religious" patriotism
rational, reflective patriotism
republic noble lie --> love for the land
people in europe, the land has been there forever .. tradition to e patriotic to that place
this is a new land .. none of that tradition .. another kind of patriotism -> since everyone is participating, they feel ownership for what happens
rational patriotism is more steady .. more effective, important during lack of big event going on.
americans talk about this stuff conciously
english .. it's not rational .. hard to articulate their patriotism
respect for laws: observed that in the US .. seemed to be a profound respect for the law.
.. had a role in creating the law .. ownership of the laws
but also - i mean, not everyone owns the laws .. but why should the minority respect the law
.. you might be in the minority .. and you'll want it to appy to you as well
views the minorities as fluid
so what is your motivation for going along with the majority if you're a permanent minority?
democracy requires that the minority accepts the rules of the majority
page 252 -- end of chapter 14
idea of difference between school system --> maybe an average standard but not the geniouses
liberty bound to disappear . equality win out
some of the things that he asys couldn't happen have happened
.. there's been greatness .. we get nobel prizes
don't expect a deomcracy to acpt powerfully among nations? .. well US at least inthe 20th centry as played an important role
if the facts aren't quite in line, what casued that? is he wrong .. or are there other factors?
is it possible that we have among our society of equality .. some very exclusive institutions .. yale, johns hopkins .. a smuggled aristocracy?
-------
Wed 10/08/08
difference between abolute excellence of laws and relative
beginning of chapter 14
bottom of 237
realtive excellence:
in a democracy the laws generall y have absoulte excellence rather than relative and via versa with aristocracy
democracy .. inexperienced at lawmaking .. soo the intent of the law is the greatest good for greatest number .. but can sometimes be ineffectual .. not carefully crafted .. so thye might fail
aristocracy - been making laws for a long time .. tend to favor the aristocrat class .. but very effective also .. in that sense they have a certain kind of excellence .. because of their effectiveness
young american democracy does not have experience with making laws
but deomcracy can always change a bad law
is there a hidden aristocracy in the US -
class of lawyers as serving the place of an aristocracy in toqueville
related to excellence or lack of in democracy
white collar vs blue collar
tendancy for white collar people to think a certain way .. blue collar different
and white would be percieved as a hinger class
politicians .. out f touch .. class of themselves
hen if they were a true aristocracy, then they'd make laws for their own well-being ..
bailout bill .. initally defeated by the house
one of the reasos why the bill was defeated in the house .. almost all of the house memberws got all these angry letters of opposition ..
blank check and going to benefit the guys on wall street .. the fat cats that control the financial market
percetpion that the law was made to bale out the rich .. aristocratic law
colleges and univercities .. east coast college who produce power brokers .. maybe that was what bento was getting at
interesting that the bill passed on friday
didn't change everyone's mind but fewer against it on friday .. because people began to see that the situation was going to harm everyone
.. now, bill doesn't look so aristocratic
concept of relative excellence and absolute excellence .. toqueville was convinced that deomcracy had lawss of absoute excellence .. benefit all of society
cahpters 15 and 16
tyrany of the majority
democracy was not a safetynet to prevent tyranny from occuring .. tyranny .. overnment operatiing in suhc a way that it harms the citizens
so can have tyranny of theemajority
page 255:
can exercize political tyranny over the minority .. majority holds the political power .. could be wielded against the minority
when locke talks about forming a civil society .. that's in essence a unanimous decision
irrevocable decision to join society .. at th will of the majority at that point ..
ap of faith .. to come out of the state of nature and agree to a social contract -- and being bound to it -- without knoowing what the goverrment will look like .. you could enter the social contract .. and every decison after that you might diagree with but you'd be bound to go along with it.
but now toqueville .. see a problem .. just because it's ruled by the majoirty .. doesn't mean that it's a safeguard against tyranny
new warning about democracy
political authority that the majority has
decision smade by majority rule
page 255 - middle .. "the moral authority"
alludes to that effect of the majority silencing the minority
page 263 - I know of no country of which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discusson as in AMERICA
what is really meant by the moral authority of the majority
with a king .. perception tht the king is wise than the peoole
255 -- the theory of equality is thus appied to the intellects of men
if you take the idea of equality and push it too far
all equal .. all equally wise .. then obviously the more people that believe in a certain position . tte more likely it is to be the correct opinion
not just that the majority has the power to make decision s.. if the majorrty things a certain way, we believe the majority must be right
majority can go against the law and it becomes the standard -- black people allowed to vote but couldn't becuase white people ignored that law
central government vs local control
.. presents that as an argument against the tyranny of the majority .. but really just moves it to the local government
he was thinkihng of a single natuional majority .. then certainly administration at the local level could work against the central majority imposing its will on the entire country
but doesn't account for the possibiliity of local majority . right there in your face .. close to the action
if a democracy leads the citizens to think tha theemajority is right .. is he right about the llittle independance of thought.
--> internet changes that.
daily show ..
part of the reason they exist is the expansion of the number of channels
before cable .. most people in the 50s and 560s when they watched tv, they had 3 or 4 stations
a few players dispensing the wisdom
cable can have a minority voice .. that's still economically viable .. can reach a small minority of people
after the mjaority makes their decission , all discussion is closed
only reason you'd discuss afterwards s if you feel the majority is wrong .. but the majority holds a moral authority
so we just assume that they're correct
media itself good example: only put stuff on if it'll get good ratings
.. but cable changes that
in the us .. the media focuses on certain things .. dont seem important enough for americans to hear about
bbc cable channel
penalty you pay for voicing an unconventional idea in democracy . .
264 - top .
penalty is kind of subtle .. legally you have free speech but people are afriad to exercize it becuase there is a penalty
fear of social ostracism
democracy or human nature?
--> reverand wright
sense of survival
price you may pay might even be economic
not being offensive?
is it because we have a deomcracy or is it inevitable?
offensive .. key word -- some people are even offended by the discussion of controversial issues
different in other countries .. discuss all kinds of political issues
spain: dear friend .. can be best at disagreeing with
maybe an identification of ideas with people
moral authority -- good thing to think ..
japan the way you act around people vs what you feel inside
outward facade that doesn't necessarily reflect what they're thinking inside
debate in general:
fights mascarading as debates
separate an idea from a person
college: encourage civil debate .. ideas vs person
education system lacks debate
.. support ideas opposite yours
idea & person go together
real freedom of expression .. get rid of political correctness .. concsider all possibility
toqueville might attribute it to democracy .. but idk
maybe to make deomcracy work, we have to adopt the idea that we are all equal
..> political implications for thinking otherwise
--- ideas can cause harm .. but not necessarily sohould be surpressed
someimes when people try to avoid saying certain things, they might see them as dangerous ... should we surpress them or deal with them?
on liberty - says that ideas should alwasy be free .. doesn't admit that certain opinions can harm
most radical view of freedom of discussion
-------
Mon 10/13/08
decide groups on friday
last chapter in democracy in america
a lot of the ideas at the national majority would not necessarily e carried out at the local level
legal profession serves as a kind of mitigation of tyranny of the majority
law of precidence:
- present cases frrom the pst .. and use that to say that this is the way we should do it now
in france .. every case is a starrt from scratch
but if you have the law of presidence , there's a homage paid to past tradition
also, doesn't use the term judicial review but referes to it at one point.
page 279 - they can declare a law unconsitutional
interesting that judicial review is not actually stipulated, but it's implied over the years
whee it was excerized for the first time in 1803 .. no one objected.
marbery vs madison -
right before adams left office, he made a lot of political appointments .. one of them was marbery
there awere so many people appointed that they gouldn't send out all the written confirmations
so when jeffereson took over in 1801, he wasn't very happy that these appointments had been made, so he instructed the secretary of state madison not to send those papers
marbery refrerredd to a law from 1779 .. but the court declared that as unconstituional
other mitigaton of tyranny of the majority: trian by jury
as a judicial institution .. very straigtforward
.. interpretation of goverment .. argument agianst the jury as a judicial institution .. we're putting a complicated process into the hands of common ppeople
people who do not necessarioly have any trainings .. so as a shortcomoing juries may not be very good t judging and interpreting the law .. toquieville doesn't argue with that but has a lot of positive things to say:
we he syas its a political institution .. there's other functions of trial by jury -
- one of the most effective ways to educaie the people ..
in crimial law, deciding wht's the facts in the case
but in civil cases, when one person uses another, .. juries are really doing: not a question of breaking a particular law .. more questions about what's really right / fair/ just
forces pepple to deal with these questions outside of their narrow view
that kind of training would make a person realize that tyranny is a pissibility in a democracy and make the majoiity a little more cognicent of the rights of others .. less likely to tyrannize the minority
what often happens .. the judges acts sorta like an instrucor .. tell hte juiry what to ask .. etc .. judge leadin the juiry on to the right course of action.
in some cases, juries are only in name only .. become the arm of the judge
how can trail by jury be so educational if so rare?
in our society , through the media and trhough novels, through tv, movies, we have seen lots of trials .. they might be fiction but they are trials
.. dramatic stories worked out in a trial ner the end
the thing that we have in common is the courthoue .. a secular place to deal with what's wrong, right and fair .. when you look at most of the dramatic stroies that are told in our coulture, the vast majority involve a trial
a lot of our ideas about justice do come from trial by jury
but these days, people jsst want to get it over with -->
when people are on the jury, they really fell a solumn obligation to render justice
in some sense you do begin to look fore deeply at quesions of justice
- - - - - - - - - - -
introduction to "on liberty".
On liberty:
probably one of the most famous philosophical works ever
mill was quite effected by de toquevills book and tyranny of the majority
born in lundon
father james mill was famous in his own right .. early utilitarians -- philosophical movement .. jeremy benthon .. an important person on ideas .. way haead of his time on issue s.. equality of women .etc
first of 10 chhildren
james mill (father) lived right next door to benthem
in benthems will he stipualted that he wanted to have his body preserved ..
but his head was mangled up in the preservation process .. so he has a wax head
james mill came to london for the purpose of writing a book and became in volved with iultilitarianism through benthem
james mill had some strong ideas of education .. decided to education js mill is a very rigorous methodical way .. all done individually in james mill's office.
- started hi educaiion with his father at 3. started laearnig greek
8 - latin
before he was 10 years old he had read 5 of platos dialogus in the oroiginal greek
10 years old -- learne logicl
13 - david recardo .. foremost political economists in the 19th cent .. friend of james mill .. got him to teach pol. econ
14 - james mill taught his version of poltical economy .. he'd lecture and js's assignment was to take notes and them right them into a book .. so he wrote a book when he was 14 .. still in print!
iq test .. the peopl ewho created it decided to gauge famous people iq based on achievements of their youth and js mill was rated the highest 190!
davinche 145, lincoln , too
but his education didn't have any liberating types of things .. no literature, music , art .. mill (father) was really into all this reigourous stuff but none of the finer arts
and so it was a knd o f a screwed education in certain ways
james mill of course also taught utilitarianism to js
"greatest good for the greatest number of people"
benthen wanted to establish ethics on scientific grounds so to do that, wanted to emperically look at human nature and see hwat thye're like and then generate ehtics of of that evidence
if you look scientifically at human beings .. they're attracted to pleasure and avoid pain
in general we search out pleasurable things and we avoid things that are painful
a true eithical system would be .. whenever you diecde what's the moral thing to do .. have to look at outcome .. how much pleasure will it create and how much pain will it avoid
and compare it to an alt. and the eithical course would max pleasure and min pain
js became a utilitarian just like his father
when js mill was 16, james finally published his book .. a huge sucess
as a result of writing tha bbook , became an expert on the
got a job working at the east indea house (james did) .. and got his son a job there too eventually
when he was 19 and working at the east india house .. had friends who were also util. and they were trying to change society .. imporve society with util. and affect politics
and when we was 19 years old, suddenly fell into this severe mental crisis - depression
what caused him to lapse into this .... asked himself how would he feel if all things things he was doing were sucessfulll .. all the things his friends were trying to do .. and he realized htat he would feel no emotion whatsoever
so then he thought he was an emotional criple .. blamed his education.
reading XXX .. and burst into tears .. so then he realized that he does have emotions .. so he got out of this depression
decided he wanted to change his life a bit
wanted to branch outside of util. wanted to meet other intellectuals
about this time he met harriet taylor - 1830
he was 24 and she was 23 .. young intellectual .. probably one of the first real movers and shakers in the woman's movement
not a util. but she knew a lot of intellectiual people in london at the time.
she was married at the time . but from the moment they met, for the next 19 years, they were unseparable. huspands name was john taylor
sometimes he'd go on vacation with the taylors or sometimes just with mrs.
.. a lot of social pressure felt to break off that relationship
but also an intellectual relationship -- wrote a lot of essays ..
and we don't know the exact details of that said it was platonic but it was true that when taylor died, the two did marry (two years later -- widow wait time)
they were collaborators and wrot a ot of stuff before and during marriage .. but they didn't publish much .. most of what they wrote was filed away
wrote a lot of essays on social issues
trues out that ultimatly the first published work that was a colaboration was "on liberty"
why did it take so long , why was it necessary
read dedication. she had died several months before this was published
but basically sayig hse wrote most of it .. why did she not get her name put on it.
h. (from handout) illness & tragedy (1854-58) .. reoccurance of TB (had gotten it from his dad)
js mill had a recurrance of tb in 1854 and then it was contageous, harriet caught it .. so they both began to see their own mortality and that thee might not have a lot of time left .. so they decided to try and et all the drafts into publishable forms .. called these essays .. mental pemican (indea word for conectrated food with melasis and dried beef .. lifth weight food that you can take with you .. but a lot of caleries) .. write very short, concise essays to get them out tt the public and hope that future authors could expand on them.
evnetually two more care out .. representative government
3rd .. subjection of women .. really dealth with how women in british society were treated differently from me
why didn't they publish right away? conjecture
these essays were their children .. so they seemed private eventually maybe planed to share them but didn't feel compelled until death approached.
other things that compelled him to write this.
disdain for the masses
much of this essay is defending the right of people to live the way they want to live
part of that feeling was perhaps exaggerated by what he and taylor suffered for their relationship
conneciion to toqueville .. they met when toqueville on tour
js mill wrote review for both volumes
didn't seem as afraid of the tyranny of the majority in his first review .. so a lot of life experience shwoed him how tyranny of theemajority can be a cirtical thing .. problem.
a democratic government can be tryannists
need for defensive liberty even in the new era of democractic institutions
another thing that contributed .. example of france
toqueville studied deomcracy because he thought it was the new wave ..
did come in 1849 - 2nd republic .. a representative form of government w/ constitution ..
so when france established a republic ..
person who was elected president was the nephew of nepoleon .. to a four year tear as president
when this happened js mill was exstatic when they created this government .. said that it would be a blueprint for constitutions throughout the world .. reaaly happy
louis nepoleon get's his four year term and he doenn't want to give up the presidency .. so he tries to get a vote of th epeople to change the constitution / extend his rule .. those didn't work
finally took over the government and declared himself dictator .. thus the second republic was distroyed.
progess in human affairs was not linear .. things could go bad .. so a very sobering example to mill
1850's all kinds of girations to try to avoid a civil war .. everything was a bandaid
so even the longest running democracy was threatened.
argues for liberty of action .. right to do things .. lead our lives as we see fit . w/o contrats of society .. now, he's not recomending lawlessness but theeonly legit role for society and government in our lives: unless i'm harming someone else in some fassion
that doesn't mean that society has a right to prevent me fom harming myself .. says that society does not have a right to do this
so this book gtries to extend the general concepcts of lintellectual liberty to action .. way we lead our lives
perhaps the most important reason for this book was to justify liberty on util. grounds
most of the defenses on liberty have been done on self-evident through
to says to be the first attempt to justify liberty as somthing of value.
harm to others -> 68.
69. - (10)
says basically, unlike the writer of the declaration of independance .. he's not going to assume self-evident .. he's going to ry as say that its good becuase it leads to good for the greatest number
that's tricky because it's easy to argue the other way - ex: post 9/11 .. certain liberties restricted.
.. safety .. we're protecting you
so often, certailing liberty is what get's argued with utilitarian principles
so dangerous two -edged sward .. how successfull is he at this?
could you argue alternatives
and that's what's done quite shortly after .. /liberty, equality, fraternity by james fitzjames stephen/ ..one of the very first rebuttals to JS mill on liberty
book structure
intro chapater .. have to be protected from the tyranny of the majority
tries to anticipate counterarguments all the time in chapter 2.
creates the counter arguements n chapter 2
possibility that one person can be right and society might be wrong .. important to let that one person speak
but suppose the other way around: tries to argue that we should still allow him to speak even under those circomstances
why? if we don't debate, we don't fully understand
also the very meaning gets lost .. you say the things and they become mindless repititions of things you've heard
ex: cristian morality .. easier for the cammel to go through the eye of a needle.
talks like a cristian but is critical about things like cirstian morality -> mistake to think that cristianity has the total wisdom of what things are about.
probably really an agnostic. .. likes to justify with logic and rationality
-------
Wed 10/15/08
why listen to the isolated person . divides it into several cases
individual might be right / individual might be wrong
counter argument .. you're accusing society of claiming infalability when it tries to silence that one voice but eh question is this .. given a society and individuals .. many of them are aying stuff that really isnt true .. most of the time people disagreeing with society are wrong ..
so if we're pretty sure we're right ,shouldn't we act on that?
otherwise, you parylize society
how does MIll respond?
suppose we don't know yet that societyis right or wrong.
assume taat the individual could be right
even if society is right, can't be sure you're right
but of the probability is pretty high we're right .. shouldn't we be allowed to act on that probability?
or is Mill saying we have no business acting on something if we arent absolutely sure we're right
.. says .. how do you know? how does society come to the conclusion that their idea is right .. do you just do it by assumption or is theee a reason toachieve a certain certantY/ .. you achieve that when you continually can refute arguments against it .. so to disallow the argument on the other side takes away the very mechanism that allows you to achieve relative certainty
page 79
a few pages later .. page 81, mill actually inadvertantly adds strength to the argument. "if even the newtonian philosophy"
.. assuming that newtonian physics are the final answers .. but we know they're not
.. so he almost falls into that trap himself
second counterargument: lets suppose as a scoiety , there's an idea that serves a social function ..
ex: the soul in Utopia and ttat was presented in U as a useful idea .. socially useful .. reason being .. necessary to create a reasonable civil society
so this one will go like theeargument in Utopia
some ideas might be wrong, but htey serve a utilitarin funciion in terms o organizing society and making it run smoothly and hterefore we have to preserve those ideas even if they're true.
that's the counterargument.
when i make the statement ttat this idea is beneficial to society, well that itself is an opinion .. so how do i know that it's socially beneficial? we have to debate it ..
that's a matter of oinion and it many be wrng . therefore we should still allow discussion.
idea not challenged falls into being like a habit
if the ideas are use ful .. maybe we shoujld keep them in opration because we need them .. and he says well uwe should debate whether the idea's useful .. that can not be presupposed and therefore, we shoul still have the debate and discussion
mettioned something else, more ssubtle - it has to do with .. makessthe point that it's really sometimes vey difficult to separte the truth from it's usefulness
for example, go back to utopia .. in utopaii presentaion of afterlife and soul .. and rewards an punnishments after dealth .. in afterlife
presented as socially useful idea .. but you get the feeling that most people believe the idea .. how well would it work if we said "just pretend to believe it"
in other words, the usefulness of an idea depends on whether its true or not ..
and so the subtle argument that mill is making .. can't fully separte th two ideas because the usefullness is strengthened on if its true .. believed to be true .. needs to be domonstrated against counter arguments
anohter counterargument: the sifting out process .. assume that hen these individuals spout off ideas contrary to conventional wisdom , they're probably usually wrong, so it's really necessary to put up a lot of road blocks to those individual opposing positions .. in the sense of making it illegal to make these statements .. tec
because it acts as a sifting out process
truth will get trhough the barrier .. because thruth will win!
but mill would disagree that truth will just go through any barrier in society .. in point of fact, most of the time society can stifle true ideas by thiss process .. wwee we say truth will out , a true idea may be burried for centries and maybe some day arund the road it reemerges and maybe that time it's not stomped on like 300 or 400 years ago.
so that truth will out is a kind of fiction
so he doesn't buy that argument either.
o those are three counterarguments in the frirst third chapter 2.
second third .. allowing debate even if the person is wrong ..even if htere wre no individuals out there to argue against, society would be benefitted by artificially creating some disagreers
then he gets to the third argument
up until now, we've been supposing 100% right and 100% wrong .. and the reality is probably much more complicated than that
in the first two cases, battle between two ideas ..
3rd part idea .. two ideas that both contain elements of the truth .. and the product is not the defeat of one idea dd the victory of another but hte crationnof a higher truth
interesting model becuae it allows us .. ... two sides can botth be partially right .. and can veiw their relationship as more of a cooporative relationship .. that model would eiliminate a lot of the uncivil arguments that crop up .. get rid of battle to the death idea
really most debates are like that .. between two sides, each of which has some of the truth .. then we must encourage debate so we can get a higher level of truth
one more counter arguement -
all weel and goo dhwat you say mill but we just have to make sure that it makes temperate , civil and that we avoid invective / tacktics like bullying and belittling and making fun .. and the kinds of arguements that are not fair
gotta keep the argument fair .. aviod going at each other's throats
but mill says : 116-117
"Before quitting the subjet"
fair and unfair .. suppress facts or arguements .. misstating the elements, misrepresenting the oppositie opinion. .. those are things that might be considered not fair debating
but isn't ttthat what debate is all about? how do those things actually get resolved? in a good healthy debate?
if you misprepresent the other side, the othr side should speak up
those kinds of things which might be considered unfair debate are alomost natural things that hapen in discussion and really the only way to correct those unfar things is through the discussion itself
a lot of times, what we think of a unfair is just really suuccessful
invective .. adhominim .. trying to intimidate the other side rather than addressing the arguments
mill's observation:
individual usually is the one who gets attacked .. directed against this loone voice
generally speaking, if you're an individual and you have an idea thattyou know is opposite conventional wisdom, you try to tactfully argue your case
so must more likely to be used by society
what about more than two sides?
does say that in many of the really important qustions that humans deal with, we haven't actually gotten the full answer .. still tentative, so in a sense that would imply that at the moment there can be several sides that are still worthy of being considered possible truths
but doesn't really address multiple sides
but if thre's partial trues .. then there are multiple truths
if you have to accept one side or the other, then youre just adopting more and more partial truths.
chapter 3 - on individuality .. focus primarily on the right of a prson to act according to his individual preferences as opposed to just stating opinions
not a relativist but when yoou get to lifestyles, its a bit different
lifestyle lie a pair of shoes .
if lifestyle were like intellectual truths, they we're moving toward the one truth .. if that were the same with lifestyles, then we should all live our lives the same way
so there is a distunction thathe makes between lifestyles and intellectiual truths.
does not believe in a single ideal way to live a life.
.. varying lifestyles because more like a pair of shoes
relativity in lifestyles
to get to the full meaning you have to experience .. even though he uses the shoe metaphor he also amkes the point that when we have a variety of lifestyles, some may emerge as being preferable to others.
facinating thing about chatper 3: in chapter 1, he's promised us an argument based on utilitarian grounds ..
page 69: not going to use any abstract rights .. i'm going to forgue defending liberty as simply an a priori right; i am going to defend liberty as leading to valueable results .. i'm going to show that liberty has utilitarian benefit rather than intrinsic value
locke: liberty is intrinsically valueable.stae of nature description
going to show that if you allow liberty in a society , it's going to be instrumental to the good things
the problme that throsen has with this ...
gets into chapter 3 and this chapter ultimately is a lonve song to living your life as you see fit .. and the quesiion is .. are the arguments that he makes in here toally utilitarian
page 120 -- should be an argument for peole who are drawn to .. then why is uhe useing an arguemtn that say that people dont' value it.
--> do we always like liberty? ... sometimes it's stressfull
isn't it true that sometimes you dislike being told what to do .. but write an essay on "your choice"
when you really think about it, we don' necessarily value liberty
and if yoy're a utilitarian and you're tryihng to max pleasure and minimzed pain, whouldn't you say that the utilitarian thing to do is to reduce the choices?
so if he says some peoople dont' put much value, should...
p 123
page 127 - people drawn to calvin but not a life of freedom.
greek ideal as defense but that's not utilitarian
same aage .. valuable to themselves --> more valueable to others ..
ould understand mill if he said .. everyone has in an idea society .. the freedom to live their life as they see fit .. most will choose to l