There are many threads on these forums where ideas expressed by certain people who claim to be "patriotic Americans" show a complete ignorance of the actual principles that the country was founded on. Since it is obvious that most of you dullards are toooooooo lazy or thick to read the books I have suggested which explain these ideas, I have decided to take this burden on myself and do what your grade and high school Civics classes should have. So I'll start with the Hobbesian idea of the Social Contract and then explain Locke's modification of Social Contract theory. This may take a couple posts, but I'll try to keep it simple as I know it's difficult for you guys to follow any complex ideas:
Once upon time in the 1600's there was a King of England. English people began to think, however: why the heck do we need a damn King anyway? What gave him the right to prance around and tell us what to do? Obviously, this type of talk wasn't liked by the King and the people who relied on the King ("cronies"😉. But they really didn't have a very good answer to these questions. They claimed that somehow God had given them the right to rule over the rest of the poor slobs, but they didn't really have an explanation how God had done so. Further, the English kings had broken with the Roman Catholic Church even though the regular Joes had been told for a long time that the RCC was God's true church. So if the RCC wasn't God's church like they had been told, wasn't it possible that the King really wasn't given authority over them by God either? That spelled trouble for the King.
Now alone came Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes argued that the King ruled over the average slobs because, long ago, the average slobs had agreed that someone MUST rule over them. Now why would people WANT someone to tell them what to do? Hobbes postulated that when Man existed in the "State of Nature" his existence was "nasty, brutish and short". Thus, for their own self-protection, groups of men came together and agreed that they would forfeit their natural freedom for their own self-interest. Hobbes further postulated that the existence of civil society presupposed an ultimate authority. ALL man MUST bow to the ultimate authority of the state or it is impossible for men to enjoy the benefits of the Social Contract. Thus, an absolute authority had to be given to one person as otherwise conflict and chaos would destroy the benefits of the social group. Thus, kings were created by the common consent of man and they were given power for all time as that was a necessary feature of an organized, stable society.
If that was the end of the story, we'd be bowing down to a guy in a crown and I'd be wearing a powdered wig to work. But obviously Hobbes' philosophy was supplanted in the US. I'm taking a break now, but I'll be back with Locke.
TO be continued:
Originally posted by no1marauderAlthough the English monarch has gone from being an absolute ruler to being a subject for Private Eye cartoonists struggling to meet deadlines, two-bit lawyers in this country still wear powdered wigs to work.
There are many threads on these forums where ideas expressed by certain people who claim to be "patriotic Americans" show a complete ignorance of the actual principles that the country was founded on. Since it is obvious that most of you dullards are toooooooo lazy or thick to read the books I have suggested which explain these ideas, I have decided to ...[text shortened]... supplanted in the US. I'm taking a break now, but I'll be back with Locke.
TO be continued:
To Locke:
As can be seen, Hobbes' view was that Absolute Monarchy was essential to civil society. This idea started to come under attack as many people didn't want to give absolute power to any person. The most eloquent exposition of the view that absolute monarchy is not only not necessary, but that it is positively at odds with principles of the Social Contract is in John Locke's Two Treatises of Government.
Most of Locke's first part is spent demolishing the idea that "modern" kings traced their authority from God giving Adam dominion over the world; I regard this as pretty uninteresting. His greater contribution of thought was that the idea of absolute monarchy left the vast majority of persons in no better of a position than Hobbes' State of Nature with their rights being subject to invasion at the whim of another, in this case an absolute other. Locke believed that no man would willingly place himself in the complete power of another for all time as this would be fundamentally irrational. Thus, Man never consented to any form of absolute monarchy. What then did Man consent to?
To understand that, we must go back to first principles. In Lockean theory the starting points are Natural Law, freedom and equality. To Locke, there was a Natural Law that existed from the beginning that was ALWAYS and everywhere valid. This Natural Law presumed that each man, by his very nature, was free and equal in his rights to every other man. In the State of Nature that existed prior to the Social Contract (an abstraction, of course) each man was still bound by the Natural Law. As with any law, there would always be those who violated the natural Law and invaded the freedom and rights of others. In the State of Nature, all man could validly punish transgressors of the Natural Law. But this was inefficient and required men to be judges in their cause. Civil society was formed to dispense justice according to the dictates of the Natural Law.
Thus the requirements of a Lockean civil society are:
1) Limited powers - The Natural Law gives to all man a sphere of autonomy that none may invade. His thoughts, beliefs and actions that don't directly effect other man are his own and he never willingly consented to give power over this realm to any entity. Thus, civil government, a creation of men, was never meant to diminish his fundamental, natural rights but to insure them;
2) Reciprocal Obligations - All men are obligated to each other to respect the rights of others. In our obligations to others is the cornerstone of civil society. Society as a collective association of men is only a means to the end of greater freedom and autonomy for all; it is not superior to the individual.
3) Authority can be Modified or Rescinded - Men gave the civil authority its powers; if at any time Men reason that the authority has been misused they can take whatever part or the whole authority away from those exercising it. Civil authorities are agents of the people acting in their stead, they are not rulers of the people. The people, and no one else, rule subject, of course, to the Natural Law and respect for the fundamental rights of all.
These principles were all embodied in the form of government created in America in the late 1700's. The declaration of Independence is explicit in stating that all Men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. The idea that the majority can do whatever they please is not an idea that 18th century Americans accepted. The idea that what your rights are is solely up to the present majority is something they would have rejected in horror. I may quote some excerpts later from the most articulate of the Framers, Tom Paine.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm enjoying the short course, N1M. Nicely, concisely stated.
To Locke:
As can be seen, Hobbes' view was that Absolute Monarchy was essential to civil society. This idea started to come under attack as many people didn't want to give absolute power to any person. The most eloquent exposition of the view that absolute monarchy is not only not necessary, but that it is positively at odds with principles ...[text shortened]... d in horror. I may quote some excerpts later from the most articulate of the Framers, Tom Paine.
I am not a cut and paster normally, but the first few paragraphs of the second part of Tom Paine's The Rights of Man have always stunned me with their perfection and clarity of thought. I give them here:
CHAPTER I
Of Society and Civilisation
Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government.
To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a centre.
But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.
If we examine with attention into the composition and constitution of man, the diversity of his wants, and the diversity of talents in different men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other, his propensity to society, and consequently to preserve the advantages resulting from it, we shall easily discover, that a great part of what is called government is mere imposition.
Government is no farther necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilisation are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show, that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government.
I could not summarize it any better, so I hope you'll forgive the C&P.
2 questions:
Does Paine explain what he believes is necessary "to supply the few cases to which society and civilisation are not conveniently competent"?
If he does, what relevance is it to present day society and civilisation, which are fundamentally different than they were in Paine's time?
Originally posted by richjohnsonI would dispute that present day society and civilization are "fundamentally different than they were in Paine's time." That they are different may be true, but I do not think that society now is anymore "fundamentally different" from Paine's time than Paine's society was different from the Romans. Paine was arguing for a view of government and Man that was universally applicable.
2 questions:
Does Paine explain what he believes is necessary "to supply the few cases to which society and civilisation are not conveniently competent"?
If he does, what relevance is it to present day society and civilisation, which are fundamentally different than they were in Paine's time?
Paine made no laundry list of what constitutes the "few cases to which society and civilisation are not conveniently competent". I'm sure he felt those might vary over time.
Originally posted by no1marauderI would say that there are more differences between today's world and Paine's than there are between Paine's and the Romans', but that's a matter for another thread.
I would dispute that present day society and civilization are "fundamentally different than they were in Paine's time." That they are different may be true, but I do not think that society now is anymore "fundamentally different" from Paine's time than Paine's society was different from the Romans. Paine was arguing for a view of government and Ma ...[text shortened]... and civilisation are not conveniently competent". I'm sure he felt those might vary over time.
I wonder if Paine would have been as influential if he had been specific on the things for which he thought government was needed. It's easy to get people to agree to general concepts (provided they are sound), but the details are always a b****.
Originally posted by richjohnsonI suggest you actually read some of his works before you muse about their deficiencies. There is a collection here: http://www.constitution.org/tp/paine.htm
I would say that there are more differences between today's world and Paine's than there are between Paine's and the Romans', but that's a matter for another thread.
I wonder if Paine would have been as influential if he had been specific on the things for which he thought government was needed. It's easy to get people to agree to general concepts (provided they are sound), but the details are always a b****.
Part Two, Chapter 5 of The Rights of Man has a series of specific proposals for improving the condition of Europe, essentially proposing a modern welfare state with progressive taxation, subsidies to the poor for educating their children, publically funded pensions, etc. etc. His last work, Agarian Justice, is not included on the site, which argued that the concentration of landed property in hands of a few was the primary cause of poverty in Europe and called for agarian reform. Paine's ideas were influential because they were both far-reaching and pragmatic.
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for the link - lots of good stuff there.
I suggest you actually read some of his works before you muse about their deficiencies. There is a collection here: http://www.constitution.org/tp/paine.htm
Part Two, Chapter 5 of The Rights of Man has a series of specific proposals for improving the condition of Europe, essentially proposing a modern welfare state with progressive taxation, sub ...[text shortened]... arian reform. Paine's ideas were influential because they were both far-reaching and pragmatic.
It's getting late so I'll have to save the RoM for the weekend. Is Part the First required reading for Part the Second?
Originally posted by richjohnsonNo; Part One is mostly a description and defense of the French Revolution. Part Two, particulary the first few chapters, is a discussion of the broad principles of Paine's political philosophy with some zingers tossed at Edmund Burke and his defense of hereditary monarchy.
Thanks for the link - lots of good stuff there.
It's getting late so I'll have to save the RoM for the weekend. Is Part the First required reading for Part the Second?
Originally posted by no1marauderDidn't Locke argue for the existence of Natural Rights on the basis of Man being a created Being?
To Locke:
As can be seen, Hobbes' view was that Absolute Monarchy was essential to civil society. This idea started to come under attack as many people didn't want to give absolute power to any person. The most eloquent exposition of the view that absolute monarchy is not only not necessary, but that it is positively at odds with principles ...[text shortened]... d in horror. I may quote some excerpts later from the most articulate of the Framers, Tom Paine.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, and quite important for understanding Paine, the history of Social Contract theory, and the ideas that form the foundation of the American experiment in self-governement. It is possible, for example, for a Libertarian to read the first few paragraphs of The Rights of Man and twist these words into affirmation of Libertarian philosophy. But, when we look at the specifics in the later chapters, we begin to see that Libertarianism advocates a fundamental rejection of the Founders' ideologies, at least insofar as Paine can be viewed as a spokesman for them.
Part Two, Chapter 5 of The Rights of Man has a series of specific proposals for improving the condition of Europe, essentially proposing a modern welfare state with progressive taxation, subsidies to the poor for educating their children, publically funded pensions, etc. etc. His last work, Agarian Justice, is not included on the site, which argued that ...[text shortened]... arian reform. Paine's ideas were influential because they were both far-reaching and pragmatic.
