256: The Ways of Liberalism 3

As we saw last time with Mandeville Liberalism was almost defined as the religion of greed. A popular belief in our time, but historically not the truth about liberalism, which finds its origin in the individualism, which already emerged in the Renaissance.

Traditional English liberalism has rested on a fairly simple concept of liberty—namely, that of freedom from the constraints of the state. In Thomas Hobbes’s memorable phrase, “The liberties of subjects depend on the silence of the law.”

English liberals have regarded the state as a necessary institution, ensuring order and law at home, defense against foreign powers, and security of possessions—the three principles John Locke summarized as “life, liberty and property.”

They have also maintained that the law can be used to extend the liberties of subjects insofar as the law is made to curb and limit the activities of the executive government.

The main element in liberal theories is the position of the state. With the rise of parlamentary democracy and all the legislative zeal of the representatives, the role of the state is still an important issue.

Even in such a sense that instead of a state influence as small as possible, the 20th century liberals in England saw the state as an instrument. The central aim of this new school was utilitarian— namely, freeing men from misery and ignorance.

The French development of liberalism oscillated between the Lockean ideas and those of Rousseau, who lays particular emphasis on freedom and equality. The French scene was devised in royalism and conservatism on the one side.

And socialism, anarchism on the other side. Liberalism was the theory of the middle, but it never was really adopted as a name of a political movement, and the theory was predominantly Lockean

Is is interesting to note that the emphasis on the freedom of the person and a minimal interference by the state is just a few steps away from anarchism. We should dig into that subject too.

Most telling is the view of Jean de Grandvilliers (1925), a french politician. According to Grandvilliers, the true meaning of liberalism is to be found in a policy of extending the liberty of the people; he maintained that the intervention of the state is not only a useful, but also a necessary, means to achieve that end.

The basic idea here is that the state belongs to the people, the enlargement of the power of the state is equally an enlargement of the power, and therefore the freedom, of its citizens. This is called statism.

In Germany, as elsewhere, we may discern not a single doctrine of liberalism but at least two main, conflicting schools, which again may be classified as the Lockean and the étatiste.

Here you see the basic conflict of liberal theory. On the one hand it wants to minimize the influence of the state in the life of the individual citizen, and on the other side the liberal sees the state as an instrument to elevate the masses.

In the US it isn't an honor to be called a "liberal", I guess. In The Liberal Imagination, Lionel Trilling (1975+) , an American literary critic, author, and teacher,defined liberalism as meaning, among other things, “a belief in planning and international co-operation, especially where Russia is in question.”

This definition may not have been wholly authorized by common usage, but there can be no doubt that the word liberal has come to be associated in the American public’s mind with étatiste and left-wing ideologies rather than with the Lockean notions of laissez faire and mistrust of organized power.

One might divide liberals into those who see freedom as something that belongs to the individual, to be defended against the encroachments of the state,

and those who see freedom as something which belongs to society and which the state, as the central instrument of social betterment, can be made to enlarge and improve.



The Discussion

[13:20] herman Bergson smiles
[13:21] herman Bergson: I knew you would react...Gemma
[13:21] herman Bergson: And Kiki..I hope this lecture clariefied a few things?
[13:21] Kiki Walpanheim: yes
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: not really
[13:21] herman Bergson: ok Gemma
[13:22] herman Bergson: shoot
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray smiles.
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: i am called a liberal because i am for more government
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: i am for caring for the poor who have no work
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: and for the ill
[13:22] Repose Lionheart: me too
[13:22] herman Bergson: yes...
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: and was very much in favor of the new health plan
[13:23] herman Bergson: Well ...
[13:23] Bruce Mowbray says Yayyy, Gemma.
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: and want the government to do something about energy
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: and greening
[13:23] herman Bergson: to put it all in proper perspective
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: and it is most strange that during this oil disaster in the gulf
[13:24] herman Bergson: The basic idea of liberalism is the freedom of the individual...
[13:24] herman Bergson: problem is ..
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: that those who have been screaming about government interference
[13:24] herman Bergson: when the individual isnt gifted....or is ill..or unemployed…it is not much fun to be an individual
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: now what the government to take over the curing of the private company's problems
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:24] Kiki Walpanheim: but whichever strand of liberalism is, i think the central idea is not about simple redistribution of wealth
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: soooo true!
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: Gemma
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: right KIKI
[13:25] Abraxas Nagy: it never is
[13:25] herman Bergson: I think it is about redistribution of wealth
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: here in the usa the conservatives want low taxes and no government
[13:25] Kiki Walpanheim: but about elevating, encouraging the individuals to be in pursuit of happiness and thereby benefit the society as a whole
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: feeling strongly about that
[13:26] herman Bergson: But I mean it....
[13:26] herman Bergson: We live in such wealthy societies...if I speak for myself...
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: it would be nice if there could be a redistribution of the enormous differences yes
[13:26] herman Bergson: yes Gemma....
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: but maybe if those really really rich paid more taxes!!!!!
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: but NO
[13:27] herman Bergson: A world where people get paid bonusses of Millions of dollars....that is absurd
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: cannot get that through yes it is absurd
[13:27] herman Bergson: those millions belong somewhere else
[13:27] Zinzi Serevi: yes
[13:27] Zinzi's translator: yes
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: would do more good somewhere else
[13:27] herman Bergson: in the first place they are stolen from all customers
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:28] herman Bergson: did Marx say..Profit is theft?
[13:28] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe what is in common is about encouraging creativity, innovation, which is the key to public benefits
[13:28] herman Bergson: In a way it is….excesive profits is theft...immoral
[13:28] Kiki Walpanheim: innovation in science and tech. for example
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: yes, agree, kiki
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: and i think liberalism is suitable for promoting creativity
[13:29] Zinzi Serevi: or education
[13:29] herman Bergson: yes....
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: yes, and productive of greed and systemic inefficiency
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: tho how to redistribute wealth is in dispute, it is not the key to solve all the problems...
[13:29] herman Bergson: But that is the ambiguity...
[13:30] herman Bergson: on the one hand a liberal wants as less involvement of the state as possible
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: oh well not so here
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: i dont believe in anarchism
[13:30] herman Bergson: On the other hand they want the state to educate the masses
[13:31] herman Bergson: only human being can think of anarchism Kiki...
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: oh....
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: liberals are accused of wanting more government
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: here
[13:31] herman Bergson: not an organism in this world thinks of it
[13:32] herman Bergson: So..quintessential is: what is the role of the state
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: here the most conservatives want NO government except military protection
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: the new tea party for ex that is their mantra
[13:33] herman Bergson: yes Gemma...that is the most extreme position for a liberal
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: what is
[13:33] herman Bergson: an army and police..that is al that is needed in a society
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: yes lol
[13:33] Abraxas Nagy: liberals meet anarchists
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: but that is the conservative view here
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: soooo....America is a liberal democracy, in which it's "left" and "right" are effectively the two historical positions of the liberalism of political philosophy...
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes I know
[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim: i see some very big gov. in some places have very poor police to protect its citizens
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: some call the liberals communist or at least socialist
[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim: so if the police do the job well, that is not a bad thing
[13:34] Bruce Mowbray: How about different modes of government: federalism - federal, states, counties, townships, villages - each with differing governmental responsibilities?
[13:35] herman Bergson: Brudce,..
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: well , at least, having a big gov. regulating everything except protecting its citizens, it worse than the tea party option...
[13:35] herman Bergson: that doesnt affect the basic political view here..
[13:36] herman Bergson: you are for an government with big influence on society or you are for a government that only provides for an army and police/justice system
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: tho i wouldn't say i am in favour of the tea party option, not that sure....
[13:36] Bruce Mowbray: Some levels of govt. will take the Lockean side - others will take the other side, of the liberal ambiguity...
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: i think police/justice system is fundamental, yet some very central big gov. which regulate almost everything else could fail to do that
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well if we take the American perspective…any social involvement of the government...in health care etc is called communism..
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: i think some other regulation from the gov. other than just police/justice system is also necessary tho
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: lol
[13:37] Bruce Mowbray: in USA, almost all policing is handled by municipalities -- or perhaps states (highways, etc.) -- almost NO federal police, except in emergencies.
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: Well Adam Smith said...there are thing the individual citizen cant afford...so that should be a government task
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: take scientific research for example, tho the firms would fund some research, they are mainly market oriented only
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: you have the FBI tho
[13:38] Bruce Mowbray: Every single county in America has a health department -- and NONE of them call that 'communist.'
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki...
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: and if the gov. could do that as well, then more fundamental , theriotical, non market oriented ones could be taken care of too
[13:39] herman Bergson: So the govenment should organize education and give room to pure scientific research
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: yet they are paramound
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: i think so
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: that is just one example...i think
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes absolutely
[13:40] herman Bergson: I agree Kiki
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: i think the problem with some very big gov. is not that they interfere too much, but that the inteference is not in the right places...
[13:41] herman Bergson: My idea is that our societies have become so complex that talking about liberalism or socialism..left ..right...is just a debate in the margine of reality
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, professor, i think so
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: agree
[13:42] herman Bergson: The system is run by economics....the stock markets....the speculators
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: American conservatives do want health care, libraries, schools, etc -- They just want them governed closer to home - not my the federal government (Wash. D.C.)
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: then problems come…environment, scientific research, monopoly....
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes Kiki
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: i think we can leave things to the market for what it can do, and regulate what cant be solved by simple --market
[13:43] herman Bergson: And all is coverted into profit or loss
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: Laissez faire.
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: but , if the police/justice system really is good, then i would be very much satisfied....even in the tea party option
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray gasps.
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: hmmmmm
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: me too bruce
[13:44] Zinzi Serevi: pfff
[13:44] Zinzi's translator: pfff
[13:44] herman Bergson: I understand Kiki....
[13:45] Zinzi Serevi: i dont
[13:45] Zinzi's translator: i dont
[13:45] herman Bergson: But there are things the indiviual cant afford..
[13:45] herman Bergson: so just add education, healthcare, pensions and we have a deal ^_^
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, and i think private health insurance has flaws
[13:46] herman Bergson: Just keep in mind.....
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: wel...maybe some regulation in the economics, the market....i dont know...
[13:46] herman Bergson: Locke lives in the 17th century..the world was so much simpeler then
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: guess so
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: yes ㋡
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: i was reading locke today.... to the 5th chapter....
[13:47] herman Bergson: Just take china now....
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: will continue after this lecture...
[13:47] herman Bergson: It is tied with hands and feet to western economics....stock markets etc
[13:48] herman Bergson: It is just playing along
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: which right now is very scary
[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma..who is ruling the world?
[13:48] Rodney Handrick: yes it is Gemma
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: the market?
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: the Bilderbergers?
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:49] Rodney Handrick: I'd say the officials at the world bank
[13:49] herman Bergson: At least not our Prime Minister..that is for sure.. ^_^
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: I'd say
[13:49] herman Bergson: lol Abraxas
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray smiles.
[13:49] Rodney Handrick: Isn't the world bank a private entity?
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: think so...
[13:49] herman Bergson: Well...this is the scary face of liberalim then, I guess
[13:50] Abraxas Nagy: exactly and so is the US federal banks
[13:50] Abraxas Nagy: private
[13:50] Rodney Handrick: Then it's the shareholders of these private corporations
[13:51] herman Bergson: Well...I think I should focus on egalitarianism next time..or communism...
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: looking forward to it
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: yep me to
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray says Yep!
[13:51] herman Bergson: we need a couterpoint..
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: i agree
[13:51] Rodney Handrick: many people in the US think we're heading in that direction
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: been thinking about these things all these years
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: me
[13:51] herman Bergson: Liberalism isnt the solution in my opinion
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: so have I Kiki
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: a lot actually
[13:52] herman Bergson: Well..maybe it is....the human being is the problem ^_^
[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: nods
[13:52] Rodney Handrick: thank god I'm not human...lol
[13:52] Bruce Mowbray: hahaha
[13:52] herman Bergson: ok...this concludes the series on the religion of greed ^_^
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: hahaha
[13:53] herman Bergson: On to the next religion....
[13:53] herman Bergson: the one of sharing...
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: that sums it up nicely
[13:53] herman Bergson smiles
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:53] herman Bergson: thnx Abraxas
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: yw pro
[13:54] Bruce Mowbray says, Things are looking up.
[13:54] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your endurrance...
[13:54] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: Thank you professor and all
[13:54] herman Bergson: and contributions to the nice discussion
[13:54] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:54] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:54] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:54] Bruce Mowbray: Thank YOU, professor.
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: it was inspiring again thanx herman
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: thanks
[13:54] herman Bergson: thnx Abraxas
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday i hope
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: yep
[13:55] ZANICIA Chau: yes truly inspiring, thanks Professor
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: see you all in 2 dayes
[13:55] herman Bergson: Hi CONNIE
[13:55] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye..:)
[13:55] Zinzi's translator: bye bye ..:)
[13:55] Sartre Placebo: thx and good night everyone
[13:55] CONNIE Eichel: great class, professor :)
[13:55] herman Bergson: Nice you came in too

245: On Liberty

One of the central concerns of social and political philosophy has been the issue of what limits, if any, there are to the right of the state to restrict the “liberty” of its citizens.

Unless one is convinced of the truth of anarchism, there are some actions with which the state may legitimately interfere, and unless one accords no value to personal liberty, there are some actions the state must leave to the discretion
of the individual.

One of the best defenders of liberty was John Stuart Mill with his book "On Liberty" (1859), written during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837 - 1901), a period of moral paternalism.

A period of what he called "tyranny of the majority", wherein through control of etiquette and morality, society is an unelected power that can do horrific things.

Mill's On Liberty addresses the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. One argument that Mill develops further than any previous philosopher is the harm principle.

The only reason that could justify the use of coercion against a person is to prevent harm to other people. And for preventing this we call 911, in other words such actions come within the scope of legitimate state power.

Other reasons, according to Mill, do not justify legal coercion. One cannot restrict someone’s actions because they are harmful to that person; paternalism is not legitimate.

One cannot restrict someone’s actions because they are wrong or immoral (but not harmful to others); legal moralism is not legitimate.

One cannot restrict someone’s actions because his or her character would be improved by doing so; moral paternalism is not legitimate.

This all might be true, but it shifts the discussion from liberty to the concept of harm. When do we harm others? Is it only about physical harm or also psychological harm?

Joel Feinberg (October 19, 1926 - March 29, 2004) , an American political and social philosopher, known for his work in the fields of individual rights and the authority of the state, argues that any notion of harm that is going to play a role in answering normative questions will itself be normative in character.

The normative issue raised by paternalism is when, if ever, the state or an individual is entitled to interfere with a person for that person’s good. Motorcyclists are obliged by law to wear helmets. We have to comply to all traffic signs and obey their 'orders'.

How far may the state go? Again the fierce debates in the US about National Health Care are a textbook example. It is for your own good and for the good of the nation, that you don't perish because you are killed by doctor bills.

But there is more. The state can do more and that next step is often the cause of nationwide debates, demonstrations and so on. The issue is whether the state may enforce morality?

It is present in discussions of the legalization of homosexuality, pornography, surrogate motherhood, and active euthanasia. The focus of such discussion is not the harm of such activities but their immorality and whether if they are immoral that is sufficient reason for the state to proscribe them.

According to Thomas Hobbes "a free man is he that... is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do." And Mills added "as long as he doesn't harm others". His motivations were pure utilitarian.

There are other approaches possible of the problem of Liberty. For that we still have a number of political philosophers in store .



The Discussion

[13:25] herman Bergson: Somuch on Liberty today
[13:25] herman Bergson: Feel free to ask questions and make remarks
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: A virtue ethicist would say that liberty is the freedom to be good, true to our deep nature?
[13:27] herman Bergson: you are free not to make remarks too of course…it is your liberty ㋡
[13:27] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Repose, what I just told is the true liberal point of view, developed by Mill
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:28] herman Bergson: there are other views of course...
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: What the F*CK?~!
[13:28] Zinzi's translator: The discussion in the Netherlands on TBS there who wants to watch porn is a good example of a moral government, I think
[13:28] herman Bergson: for instance when you value society more than the individual, you get another story...look at socialism for instance
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: is Mill a socialist as well as a libertarian?
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: we have these discussions in the WSA constantly about freedoms and law
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes....to explain TBS....
[13:29] herman Bergson: Convicts are convicts to psychological treatment in the netherlands, when they are diagnosed are mentally ill
[13:30] herman Bergson: and sexual offenders among them are allowed to watch porn movies in their cells
[13:30] herman Bergson: there is an upheaval about that now...
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: i bet!!!!
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: no porn for the scorn.. so to speak
[13:31] herman Bergson: is it their liberty to do so, or has the state the right to restrict their liberty?
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: hard for a society to decide these issues just on the merits...
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: well they are already restricted to the prison lol
[13:31] Zinzi's translator: well child porn is illegal
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: quote from wikipedia -- Later he(Mill) altered his views toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to his Principles of Political Economy in defense of a socialist outlook,
[13:31] Zinzi's translator: but not grown up porn
[13:32] herman Bergson: Very good Kiki....
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: interesting, Kiki
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: mmmm
[13:32] herman Bergson: John Stuart Mill is on our list of course....we keep this remark of yours in mind
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe individuality/freedom of speech, faith etc.. are different from the economic aspect?
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: i think many people bounce between the socialist and then to teh very consevative views and back again
[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes...that may be true Gemma
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: yes, Hippies for Reagan ㋡
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:34] Zinzi Serevi: lol
[13:34] Zinzi's translator: lol
[13:34] herman Bergson: But it is interesting to ask if both sides agree on freedom of speech for instance and freedom of faith
[13:35] herman Bergson: If you would agree on that and say that for instance in the economic aspect they dont agree, you see real politics come to life
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe individualism needs some ground...like basic resource for survival, a shelter, basic education before each individual could embrace that liberty?
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:36] herman Bergson: Education...another good example....
[13:36] herman Bergson: we force our children by law to attend school
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: so Mill's socialist preference might just goes naturally with liberty...
[13:36] Qwark Allen: better then force them to work
[13:37] herman Bergson: indeed Qwark...
[13:37] Guz Rowlands: lol u r when u get 18
[13:37] Guz Rowlands: first force is to learn second to work
[13:37] Guz Rowlands: we all born as number not our choice but we r
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: Mill also wrote things like..... barbarians are not fit for liberty and only the civilized are eligible for it
[13:38] herman Bergson: In the Social Contract view, we stay free when we agree on restrictions on our freedom
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: wonders if this is correct....
[13:38] herman Bergson: so, for instance ..compulsory education is a generally agreed on issue...
[13:38] herman Bergson: and as such not an restriction of our liberty
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: yes, even in the USA it is not controversial
[13:39] herman Bergson: So the real politics is where are the limits of the state in creating these restrictions...how far can it go
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: necessary for society
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: of course it is the restriction of the liberty of children
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: nods at herman. Hobbes' social contract covered last week, the social contract seems to help ensuring liberty. So he contributes to liberty tho he has a predilection for authoritarianism
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: hmmm...
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki...the social contract creates sovereignty and authority
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: i think education is compulsory because it is the ground for liberty--only those educated are more competent to be responsible for themselves
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: interesting
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: well children need to be restricted repose lol
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: omg
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: Mill defended liberty by emphasizing on the importance of education
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: :_)
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: but would it be right then to restrict the liberty of the ignorant adult?
[13:42] Abraxas Nagy: and adults not?
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: yes, children are a special case
[13:42] Abraxas Nagy: darn chatlag
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: not restrict but offer a way out of the ignorance
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: but, sometimes health care, resource for survival, and a shelter are more fundemental for ppl to embrace education....
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: or a different matter anyway than adults
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes
[13:43] herman Bergson: My remark was lost...
[13:44] herman Bergson: in chatlag...
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: it happens
[13:44] Abraxas Nagy: it sure does today
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: yep
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: for me personally that is why the issue of libery if very much confusing, and i am very interested
[13:44] herman Bergson: very annoying
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: very
[13:45] herman Bergson: It is one of the fundamental aspects of political philosophy Kiki
[13:45] herman Bergson: How far may a state go in restriction the liberty of the individual
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: i see.... i have a ton of confusion apart from that...on liberty alone
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: no farther than necessary for the common good ㋡
[13:46] herman Bergson: well..it is a scale from extreme liberalism to absolute egalitarianisn or socialism
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: like, the floor and ceilings of free speech....
[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes Repose...the common good...but what is that
[13:47] herman Bergson: A government can hide behind the Common Good argument
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: yes, i see it ㋡
[13:47] Qwark Allen: lots did it
[13:47] herman Bergson: then you get the tyranny of the common good
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: yep
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: fraud and lies are not tolerated, but when they are in the most vicious forms they are tolerated
[13:48] herman Bergson: that was what Mill was so against in that Victorian era
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: which are---ethics, religions, political ideologies
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:49] herman Bergson: what do you mean Kiki?
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: defining the common good is always a fight
[13:49] herman Bergson: yes Repose
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: a fight to expand our hearts
[13:49] herman Bergson: again...the liberals against the moralists in this case
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: or constrict them
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: e.g. lie to make money is not allowed.....but performing sorcery only to make money even if the performer does not believe in the religion, is ok
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm
[13:50] herman Bergson: Well I think we made a good start with the historical moment of the Social Contract theory...
[13:51] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:51] Qwark Allen: thank you herrman
[13:51] herman Bergson: Hobbes made us free humans
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: hope i remember it all till April 13
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: and the boundary between sedition, incitement to violence, and ideas that motivate crimes ..is obscure
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: Hard as that is to beleive...
[13:51] Qwark Allen: or at least the thought that we could not be
[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: ideas that motivate crimes is no crime
[13:52] herman Bergson: And regarding your remark Kiki...that is an issue in itself ㋡
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: not yet anyway
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: oh...
[13:53] herman Bergson: You dont need to Gemma
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:54] herman Bergson: http://thephilosophyclass.blogspot.com
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: yes i know that
[13:54] herman Bergson: theblog gemma ㋡
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: yes i think Hobbes idea free us from constant fear-defense-fear, which is a vicous circle, so it frees us humans
[13:54] Guz Rowlands: bye bye all i need to go for minute
[13:54] Qwark Allen: see you soon
[13:54] Guz Rowlands: TC
[13:54] Guz Rowlands: c u next time:p
[13:54] Qwark Allen: ty herrmman, interesting as usual
[13:54] herman Bergson: Ok...thank you all for participating today
[13:54] Zinzi Serevi: bye Guz
[13:54] Zinzi's translator: bye Guz
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: have a nice break
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: thank you professor
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: and all
[13:55] herman Bergson: See you all in a week
[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye qwaek&gemmaaa :-))
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: bye
[13:55] Zinzi Serevi: have a good time Herman
[13:55] Zinzi's translator: Have A Good Time Herman
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: c ya herman and thanks
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: Mhh *Kiss* Bye bye!
[13:55] herman Bergson: thnx all ㋡
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: What the F*CK?~!
[13:56] Sartre Placebo: good night, thx herman
[13:56] herman Bergson: what got into you Abraxas?
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:56] Zinzi Serevi: what is it Abrax?
[13:56] Zinzi's translator: what is it Abrax?
[13:56] Zinzi Serevi: oww he left already..lol
[13:56] Zinzi's translator: OWW Already he left .. lol
[13:57] herman Bergson: something is wrong in SL
[13:57] Kiki Walpanheim: have a nice break. see you
[13:57] herman Bergson: ok...thnx Kiki
[13:57] Zinzi Serevi: yes it is
[13:57] herman Bergson: very annoying
[13:57] Zinzi's translator: yes it is
[13:58] Repose Lionheart: bye ㋡
[13:58] herman Bergson: Nice outfit Repose
[[13:58] Repose Lionheart: thanks, Prof ㋡
[13:58] Zinzi Serevi: bye
[13:58] herman Bergson: Bye Zinzi

244: Thomas Hobbes (1588 -1679)

One of the greatest worries of philosophers like Plato and Aristotle was that the city-state would disintegrate into factions with their private interests and that this clash of interests would culminate in civil war.

A situation, where there is no control, no rule, but only a war of everyone against everyone. This was exactly what Thomas Hobbes saw happening to his country in 1641, a civil war that lasted ten years.

Thomas Hobbes, born in 1588, died in December 1979 at the remarkable age of 91. He analyzed his situation and wrote two influential books: De Cive ("About the citizen"), 1641 and Leviathan published in 1651.

If he hadn't written those books my lectures on Power and on Rights could have made history, like Hobbes did, for without depending on him I use similar arguments to describe a kind of first beginning of the state.

However, this rather means that my way of thinking is almost obvious for us, while in Hobbes' days it was an innovative way to describe the political state of the human being.

First of all Hobbes was everything, that God had forbidden in his days. He was a materialist, which means that he denied that there exists an immaterial reality.

And impressed as he was by the scientific methods and discoveries of his days he also was a mechanist ("man is a machine") and determinist, which means that everything is an endless chain of causes and effects. In relation to the later this can lead to hot debates on something like "free will".

We begin with our "status hominum naturals", our natural state, which is a state of war of all against all, "bellum omnium in omnes" in which "homo homini lupus est" or man is a wolf for his fellowman, which we can read in De Cive.

Maybe in the good English tradition with The Magna Carta Libertatum (The Great Charter of Freedom) of 1215 as an example Hobbes concluded, that only a social contract could create a life worth living.

I think that this social contract idea doesn't sound so special to us, but in 1650 it was special. Hobbes was in fact the first one who said that sovereignty and authority of the state are not based on religion, but on a social contract between men, no God or religion needed.

The social covenant involves both the renunciation or transfer of right and the authorization of the sovereign power. Political legitimacy depends not on how a government came to power, but only on whether it can effectively protect those who have consented to obey it; political obligation ends when protection ceases.

This convenant is not just an agreement, but a logical consequence of laws of nature, which Hobbes describes in the chapter 14 of his Leviathan. Law one states that "a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life"

and law two "that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things."

And Hobbes explains: "These dictates of reason men used to call by the name of laws, but improperly: for they are but conclusions or theorems concerning what conduceth to the conservation and defence of themselves; whereas law, properly, is the word of him that by right hath command over others. (Chapter 15)
- End quote -

Of course we can put some question marks behind this initial state of nature of man. Children for instance are depended on their parents in stead of being in a state of war with them. There already is natural obedience.

Hobbes suggest that our communal life is prone to disaster when we are left to interact according only to our own individual judgments, but is that so? Does it turn into chaos and conflict unavoidably?

At first sight you might think, that everyone follows only his own interests. But isn't that a little against, what makes humans human: rationality? Also without a social contract you would discover, that you cant live in a group without dealing with the others in the group.

Or maybe Hobbes state of nature would be peaceful and only a small group driven by their passion instead of common sense would cause trouble in our natural state way of living.

A logical consequence of Hobbes' theory is, that the state takes over the role of the individual, and thence can be regarded to be in a state of nature.
This means in war with every other state.

Eventually this should lead to one global government. The ultimate result would be the final global social contract. So far we have only the United Nations.

However, the type of state Hobbes proposes is not exactly what would make us happy. Hobbes' main concern was to argue that effective government—whatever its form—must have absolute authority. Its powers must be neither divided nor limited. In other words: absolutism, the totalitarian state.

But he leaves an escape route, as he writes in chapter 14 of his Leviathan:
"A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void. For (as I have shown before) no man can transfer or lay down his right to save himself from death, wounds, and imprisonment, the avoiding whereof is the only end of laying down any right; and therefore the promise of not resisting force, in no covenant transferreth any right, nor is obliging.
- End quote

It is fascinating to read the words, which were written down by Hobbes more than 350 years ago. Just imagine the man sitting there, probably writing with a feather on paper, that may have been rather expensive in those days. And all these words are still clear to us, make sense and inspire us. Fascinating.

Here is a small sample of the texts from chapter 14 about the laws of nature, which Hobbes formulate. Just click the book to get the notecard.


Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
Chapter XIV
Of the First and Second Natural Laws, and of Contracts

A law of nature, lex naturalis, is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved. For though they that speak of this subject use to confound jus and lex, right and law, yet they ought to be distinguished, because right consisteth in liberty to do, or to forbear; whereas law determineth and bindeth to one of them: so that law and right differ as much as obligation and liberty, which in one and the same matter are inconsistent.
And because the condition of man (as hath been declared in the precedent chapter) is a condition of war of every one against every one, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily alloweth men to live. And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves.
From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavour peace, is derived this second law: that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. For as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of war. But if other men will not lay down their right, as well as he, then there is no reason for anyone to divest himself of his: for that were to expose himself to prey, which no man is bound to, rather than to dispose himself to peace. This is that law of the gospel: Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them. And that law of all men, quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete text of Leviathan: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/hobbes/thomas/h68l/index.html


The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: When you click the picture you get a part of chapter 14 of Leviathan
[13:21] herman Bergson: in which the two laws of nature are described
[13:22] herman Bergson: Leviathan is fascinating reading...
[13:22] herman Bergson: It is the age of rationalism....
[13:22] Object: Thank you for requesting this information
[13:23] herman Bergson: I guess you have to digest it all ^_^
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:24] ZANICIA Chau: haha
[13:25] herman Bergson: Most important aspect of Hobbes is that he doesn't need a god to establish a state and authority
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yet there is a lot of text about god , almost half the Leviathan
[13:26] herman Bergson: But scholars arent sure about how serious that was meant
[13:26] herman Bergson: because he was a materialist
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: yes, same with the founding documents of the american republic
[13:27] TBDiscovery Harbour: Would Hobbes agree with Socrates, in Crito, that a social contract is tacit?
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: would he agree with Socrates merely accepting death when there was an alternative
[13:27] herman Bergson: Well...one of the criticisms on Hobbes is that there almost never was established a state by contract but by war and occupation
[13:28] herman Bergson: So if socrates meant to say that such a social contract is a kind of natural phenomenon...
[13:29] herman Bergson: I guess Hobbes would agree and say that he only had created a theoretical justification]
[13:29] herman Bergson: Well Repose...that is the question...
[13:30] Rodney Handrick (appears in class): So, Wake up!
[13:30] Rodney Handrick: Mister Freeman...
[13:30] herman Bergson: in fact Hobbes states that no authority has the right to take someone's life
[13:30] Rodney Handrick: Wake up and...
[13:30] TBDiscovery Harbour: Well he seems to have felt that by living within a given region, one must abide by the social rules, and therefore cannot revert into what Locke would deem a state of nature.
[13:30] Rodney Handrick: Smell the Ashes...
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: rodney goodness
[13:30] Rodney Handrick: Hi Gemma
[13:31] herman Bergson: This state of nature is questionable...if it even ever existed
[13:31] ZANICIA Chau: That was truly unnecessary , Rodney
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: the gesture
[13:31] Rodney Handrick: testing new viewer
[13:31] TBDiscovery Harbour: Could it exist for someone such as Ted Kaczynski? (pre-prison)
[13:31] herman Bergson: Dont do that in class Rodney ..dont think it is the right place for that
[13:32] ZANICIA Chau: huh not in the middle. How rude
[13:32] Rodney Handrick: sorry
[13:32] ZANICIA Chau: apologies proff
[13:32] herman Bergson: Who is this Ted TD?
[13:32] TBDiscovery Harbour: The Unabomber.
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: serial bomber
[13:33] herman Bergson: Ah I remember
[13:33] herman Bergson: We were talking about this state of nature man would have been in..
[13:33] TBDiscovery Harbour: He wrote the Communist Manifesto - brilliant guy, but you know the rest.
[13:34] herman Bergson: and I think we now are more inclined to say that this primary state already a social state was
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:34] TBDiscovery Harbour: But my point is that he lived in the woods and aimed to keep laws away from him and as such, separated from government. However, his mailing brought him back into the governed culture.
[13:34] herman Bergson: Well the communist manifest presupposes also a natural state
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: and his education
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: he was not a blank slate
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: "state of nature" falsely assumes we are
[13:35] herman Bergson: youmean that this TEd lived in the state of naturre?
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: he did
[13:35] TBDiscovery Harbour: True. So there is no way to completely assuage all guilt and live alone without culture?
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: off the grid as they say
[13:35] TBDiscovery Harbour: I'm asking, not necessarily arguing for it.
[13:35] herman Bergson: I would doubt that...impossible to return to such a state after being educated
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: naw, he just lived IN nature
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: lol true
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Repose, I would agree with that
[13:36] TBDiscovery Harbour: Then could we claim that feral children are in a state of nature, or does the animal culture make them assimilated?
[13:36] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-( afk
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: nothing wrong for the state to protect each individual from the harm of others, either by fraud or force
[13:37] TBDiscovery Harbour: Perhaps, Kiki, but what if one does not want such comforts?
[13:37] herman Bergson: That was Hobbes main focus, Kiki...the role of the state is offering protection
[13:37] TBDiscovery Harbour: We assume that they do, but what if one does not?
[13:38] herman Bergson: Well TD is one doesnt want such comfort he places himself ourttside society, outside the group
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: well i agree with that
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: why not? TB? then everybody takes care of themselves, fear->defense->fear, seems like mob rules
[13:38] herman Bergson: in fact he shows contempt for the values of the group
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: cannot do that in this society
[13:38] herman Bergson: and claims to have a better set of values
[13:39] TBDiscovery Harbour: So if there is no outlet for the solo avenger, then are we not setting ourselves up for attacks?
[13:39] herman Bergson: Dont understand your point TD
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: I don't believe in anarchism, because without the tyranny from the state, other individuals could do more horrible things
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: lone wolves?
[13:40] Athena John: so you're saying evil is innate without big brother?
[13:40] herman Bergson: It is a bit paradoxal...
[13:40] herman Bergson: for you are a lone wolf within the context of a society
[13:40] TBDiscovery Harbour: If an individual decides to go it alone, but has no outlet because the laws of the nation reach every point of the land, then we are setting outselves up for the creation of monsters.
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: we just had a case here of a group of militia preparing to cause damage to the "state" but attacking police
[13:40] herman Bergson: maybe on an uninhabited island you could succeed in being a lone wolve
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: just arrested
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: why could a person not just decide to go it alone? Why would you need group approval to do it?
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: have been preparing for 2 years
[13:41] Athena John: Gemma, they had a religious edge to them as well
[13:41] herman Bergson: But in our world 'the state' is such an abstraction
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: well that is questionable too
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: lol our government mean
[13:41] TBDiscovery Harbour: Where would you go, Repose? The law extends to all parts of a nation.
[13:41] Athena John: Repose, many people in my country try that. They usually end up in a cabin in the woods dead and forgotten
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: well even if the state doesn't do any harm to you, the other individuals could be just as vicious or even more harmful, could be
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: true, TBD
[13:42] herman Bergson: It is a known phenomenon....
[13:42] herman Bergson: in the Middle Ages we called such people hermits
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: yes, Athena
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: i think we have established that even in a small group there is some form of government
[13:42] Athena John: Now we call them Unibombers :)
[13:43] herman Bergson: I guess there always is a small group who is not happy with a given situation
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: leaders
[13:43] TBDiscovery Harbour: In the US, there are organizations that specifically track the movements of small anti-government groups.
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe because Hobbes was born in an age or turmoil, which made him feel the threaten of deaths all the time....
[13:43] herman Bergson: Unibommer......just think what we are talking about...
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: every age seems to have that
[13:43] herman Bergson: the behavior of ONE single human being in a society of 300 million people
[13:44] ZANICIA Chau: -which is why they take themselves off in despair, not meaning to be a 'wolf' to anyone
[13:44] ZANICIA Chau: or a leader
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: during peach, with no wars, i think ppl still have the traits of aggressiveness and avariciousness, maybe only more subtle, and hidden
[13:44] herman Bergson: Oh yes Kiki...the Civil war had a great impact on him...had to leave his country for that
[13:45] Athena John: Yes, look at the US in the 1980s. the aggressiveness was channeled into business and the squashing of certain types
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: i think, that , i like his idea of protecting each individual from others, either by fraud or force, but
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: but i dont like the idea of monachy and authoritarianism
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well... I guess we laid the first stone for a new approach in political philosophy...
[13:46] TBDiscovery Harbour: So has there been agreement concerning whether the social contract hinders liberty, and if so, is there a universal level in which members are willing to succumb to?
[13:46] herman Bergson: No Kiki...from now on we gonna discuss the social contract.....a king restricted by law
[13:47] Athena John: One must give a little liberty (the liberty to kill, rob, etc) to live in a society
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: well, even if the state doesnt deprive you of liberty, other individuals still can--- i think protection to ensure safety is the ground of liberty
[13:47] TBDiscovery Harbour: Then who decides how much to give?
[13:47] TBDiscovery Harbour: If the state is abstract...
[13:47] herman Bergson: We have to hold back here....
[13:47] Athena John: The State ISN'T abstract- thats the point
[13:47] herman Bergson: The concept of liberty is complex and has many meanings.
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: constraint can free one too for greater productivity -- discipline is a kind of constraint
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: need to balance it all
[13:48] herman Bergson: So maybe...next lecture we might dig into the concept of liberty
[13:48] Athena John: And for a ruler to be withheld by rule of law, they must subscribe to it. And not all do that. I give you George W Bush as a prime example
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: oh...
[13:48] TBDiscovery Harbour: But we're still assuming that our values are the same for all. And that's a bit much.
[13:49] herman Bergson: That is to discuss TD
[13:49] TBDiscovery Harbour: The Bush tirades are a bit old.
[13:49] TBDiscovery Harbour: Very good.
[13:49] ZANICIA Chau: G Bush was just a puppet
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: so is Obama
[13:49] ZANICIA Chau: yes
[13:49] herman Bergson: Well...maybe he signed a contract with another company:)
[13:49] Zinzi Serevi: lol
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: they all serve wallstreet
[13:49] Zinzi's translator: lol
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: they are all complexly responsible to many
[13:49] ZANICIA Chau: lol
[13:50] herman Bergson: Ok...
[13:50] Athena John: In this context they make sense. Magna Carta was created to restrict monarchy. The us constitution does the same for the presidency... if that individual subscribes AND the people keep him in line
[13:50] herman Bergson: before we continue on our quest into history we'll make a stop at the station: Liberty
[13:51] herman Bergson: and ask ourselves what that may mean.
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: wow a big station
[13:51] TBDiscovery Harbour: And who is keeping Obama in line? We could argue that for days.
[13:51] herman Bergson: Well TD..that is a bit off the point here
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: the people that really run things
[13:52] herman Bergson: So, I want to thank you for this great discussion again
[13:52] TBDiscovery Harbour: And Bush attacks are on point? I find that unfair, with all due respect.
[13:52] TBDiscovery Harbour: Every meeting I attend in SL turns into a Bush bashing.
[13:52] herman Bergson: And I'll send you into the bush...class dismissed
[13:52] ZANICIA Chau: lol
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:52] TBDiscovery Harbour: We're supposed to be adults.
[13:52] ZANICIA Chau: Thankyou proffessor
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: ‚ô• Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ‚
[13:52] Athena John: Thank you professor
[13:52] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke herr professor :-)
[13:52] Justine Rhapsody: Thank you professor
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: thank you professor
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: Tuesday maybe a new aspect
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: having critisism isnt bashing
[13:53] TBDiscovery Harbour: When I can't respond it is.
[13:53] Athena John: Respond all you like. Be prepared for a response back though.
[13:53] herman Bergson: I'd rather stop the Bush babble....isnt relevant here
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: we try not to be personal in this class
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: I agree herman
[13:54] Athena John: Sorry- I started it. My apologies to all. I found it relevant
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: that's ok :D
[13:54] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Herman, take care all of you..:)
[13:54] Zinzi's translator: Herman thanks, take care all of you ..:)
[13:54] Zinzi Serevi: happy eastern
[13:54] Zinzi's translator: happy eastern
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: easy for political philosophy to tip over into politics
[13:54] Athena John: Funny that
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: but not always productive
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: a lil discussion can be stimulating
[13:55] herman Bergson: Well...Athena I understand...but when we drown in specific examples we go down the drain with our discussion ^_^
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: many times lol
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: you have no idea
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: ok people see you all next time :D
[13:56] herman Bergson: no more bush talk here..! plz
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: see you all tuesday
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: bye
[[13:56] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman *******
[13:56] herman Bergson: Bye
[13:56] Qwark Allen: was interesting like allways
[13:56] herman Bergson: thnx Qwark
[13:56] Qwark Allen: ;-)
[13:57] Kiki Walpanheim: see you
[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thanks herman; -) - thanks class :-))) I go now thinking
[13:58] herman Bergson: You are welcome Bergie
[13:58] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i know :-))

243: on Rights

" i'd rather call this as right than power" was a remark of Kiki Walpanheim in our latest discussion. This remark points at a quintessential issue in political philosophy.

In my latest lecture I already referred to the relation between power and right in the example of the stronger against the weaker.

The stronger TAKES the right to command the weaker by using his physical predominance.

But intuitively you feel that this would puts us in a "homo homini lupus est" situation, "a man is a wolf for his fellowman" - situation, which we'll get explained when we'll discuss Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) soon.

Power and rights are closely related. Maybe we could say that there is no power without rights. That means that we derive power from rights. Or we take rights by using physical power, in fact overpower the weaker.

I suppose that we all have at least that much political insight, that we are prone to say that the later situation, the situation of overpowering the weaker by (physical) force, is the least desirable.

It is all around us. We live in a world with a United Nations, an Amnesty International, a Google that leaves China, because its (alleged) rights to distribute uncensored information is not repected.

And so the picture, with which all political philosophers had and will have to deal, is the observation that power over your fellowmen is derived from rights and that we have to respect and protect these rights. For that purpose we make laws.

in an earlier lecture I quoted Cicero (died 43 BC), who said "True law is right reason in agreement with Nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting … there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens,"

This I think completes our picture. Cicero gives an explanation for how laws protect our rights. it adds the final piece to the puzzle: the human being is obliged to obey the law. Here we are faced with the moral duty to do so.

Thus we arrive at the point that political philosophy is not primarily about power, which a man like Machiavelli might have thought, but mainly a matter of rights and Cicero already shows us where to find the source of these rights:

The combination of Reason and Nature, our reason as means to understand Nature. In the period before Machiavelli, there was a conviction that there was an external creator of nature and its order.

The human being lives in accordance with the natural law, which is known by using our reason. Because with Machiavelli we have arrived at a moment in history that beliefs shift from a creating God to a scientific explanation, all kinds of new questions emerge.

Wikipedia defines natural law thus: "Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.

The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is man-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law."

Does such a natural law really exist? Where does it come from and how can we know it? Natural law implies and protects natural rights. Which rights?

What to do with people who break the law? Do we have a right to punish these people? Do we have a right to chop of a hand, when someone steals?

Fortunately we still have some centuries to go and we may hope that the political philosophers we will meet,will come up up with some good answers.

Fascinating perspective…. ^_^


The Discussion

[13:17] herman Bergson: Our next stop is Thomas Hobbes
[13:18] herman Bergson: You have the right to ask questions and make remarks now ^_^
[13:18] Zinzi Serevi: can you give one example of a natural law?
[13:18] Zinzi's translator: can you give one example of a natural law?
[13:18] herman Bergson: well.... the right to your own life
[13:19] herman Bergson: the right to the integrity of your own body
[13:19] herman Bergson: the right to property
[13:19] Zinzi Serevi: ok
[13:19] Zinzi Serevi: thanks
[13:19] Kiki Walpanheim: ((thanks for the quote))
[13:19] herman Bergson: the right to free speech
[13:19] herman Bergson: cute wasnt it Kiki ^_^
[13:19] Kiki Walpanheim: ;-)
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:20] herman Bergson: these could be regarded as natural rights
[13:20] herman Bergson: in contrast with positive law...which means that man creates rights by law...
[13:20] herman Bergson: for instance the right on Health Care ....
[13:21] Kiki Walpanheim: i think men are born with empathy as well as selfishness(or rather, self-interest/ greed, depending on how we call it)
[13:21] Liza Deischer: it sounds like the natural rights apply more to constitutional rights
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes Liza..of course...
[13:22] herman Bergson: And Kiki...
[13:22] herman Bergson: that will be the issue to deal with by our political philosophers...
[13:22] Kiki Walpanheim: so perhaps natural law means sth. accomodating them? like acknowledging selfishness, or self interest
[13:22] Kiki Walpanheim: rather than surpressing them
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: oh i am not sure of that
[13:23] herman Bergson: Well..here comes in to play the idea of virtue!
[13:23] Kiki Walpanheim: like , free market , takes advantage of self interest, or rather , greed
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: i think by natural law we are bound to respect the rights of others
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: because they are natural
[13:23] herman Bergson: In a way the moral obligation of the human being to excel, not to be selfish but social
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well Gemma...there are those who will claim that these natural laws are products of our imagination
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: lol ok
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: i know
[13:25] herman Bergson: yes...philosophers, Gemma...you know the breed
[13:25] Liza Deischer: yes you can ask yourself the question what is so natural about the respect of the rights of others
[13:25] herman Bergson: Well Kiki...free market is not just about plain greed
[13:26] Kiki Walpanheim: not to be selfish but social?....depending on how we call them.... the right on health care is more of the social aspect, as i see it
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes Liza..the fundamental ethical question
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: don't think we know enough about "nature" to what is and isn't a natural law
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: sheesh
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: to know what is and isn't a natural law
[13:26] Kiki Walpanheim: nods at herman, yes free market is more than that, but self-interest is one of the issue
[13:26] herman Bergson: Hi Repose...good remark...yes that IS a question too
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: Hi Prof ㋡
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: some thought it unnatural for women to vote
[13:27] herman Bergson: Well Kiki..Hobbes can be an interesting fellow in this context then ㋡
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: and had a right to own slaves
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: their "natural" superiority
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: refuge of scoundrels
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: moral scoundrels ㋡
[13:28] Kiki Walpanheim: ((would look it up))
[13:28] herman Bergson: What are you referring too Repose?
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: the tendency of people to write their own bigotry into the laws of nature
[13:29] herman Bergson: so..selfishness
[13:29] herman Bergson: ?
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: bias
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: foolishishness
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: hatred
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: bad stuff
[13:30] Abraxas Nagy: ignorance
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: and also, are the rights accommodating natural laws, negative rights, or positive ones
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: sorry i missed the lecture -- may be a bit off point
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well...that will be a major point for the coming lectures and political philosophers
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: nods
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: and has been with us from the beginning of humankind
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: would be interesting
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes ..we HAVE to deal with these question....
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:31] herman Bergson: does natural law exist?
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: oh dear
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: hmmm...
[13:31] herman Bergson: and if so..what is it...how can we KNOW it?
[13:31] herman Bergson: and what when we break natural laws???
[13:32] herman Bergson: and if it doesnt exist...where are we then???
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: negative rights sometimes is nothingness for men, and positive rights entail that other ppl have obligations to aid those in need with coersion of law
[13:32] herman Bergson: Really...and exciting landscape of fundamental questions
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: *coercion
[13:33] herman Bergson: a c or an s....I dont know kiki ㋡
[13:33] Kiki Walpanheim: ;-) seems to be a c
[13:34] herman Bergson: We have 600 years to go....still
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:34] herman Bergson: there must be at least one with a good idea ^_^
[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim: as back to the issue of "right to health care"
[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Kiki
[13:34] herman Bergson: amazing story how the US deals with that
[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim nods
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: ridiculous
[13:34] herman Bergson: from a European point of view of course
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: from a humane point of view, too, I think
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: we are so antiquated in health care
[13:35] herman Bergson: so anti - social
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:35] herman Bergson: so expressively AGAINST sharing
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: not in the care but in providing it
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:36] herman Bergson: yes..sharing...mutual responsability
[13:37] herman Bergson: In a world like ours you cant uphold the idea...let every one take care of himself
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: sharing sure is justified with consent, but how about imposed one with coercion of law
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: there are still those who believe it tho
[13:37] herman Bergson: oh...another issue of course..liberalism
[13:37] Liza Deischer: well, it seems that that is where we are going back to
[13:38] Liza Deischer: everybody taking care of oneself
[13:38] herman Bergson: Well Kiki...we are already very well used to that for centuries....taxes was one of the greatest inventions of all times
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim nods... maybe the crux is how much ppl can be taxed justly
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: well depends on the services provided
[13:39] herman Bergson: that has been the core of all political debate through the centuries too ㋡
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim nods
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: a question of economic efficiency in the level of taxation too
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: oh well
[13:40] herman Bergson: and in that sense I am not so much in sympathy with US Republicans ㋡
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: no
[13:40] Abraxas Nagy: neither am I
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes REpsoe...very good
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: it is a non-moral good though -- efficiency
[13:40] Abraxas Nagy: but there's not to much difference tho
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: me either lol
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: Europe has opted for the greater moral good of helping people
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: what did i hear it called
[13:41] herman Bergson: Europe isnt a saint
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: while sacrificing some bit of effiency economically
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: nope
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: natural law---efficiency----what makes a law justified
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: codependency something
[13:41] Liza Deischer: and Europe going back in time
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: or perhaps natural law helps with efficiency too?
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: maybe
[13:42] Abraxas Nagy: natural law = survival of the fittest
[13:42] herman Bergson: The laws are basic Kikki...so helping the weaker might be one of them
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim nods at herman
[13:42] herman Bergson: no Abraxas.. I dont agree
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: well how is it not?
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: or, natural law = survival of the kindest, who can cooperate in social groups
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: same effect
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: only in cooperation
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well...as a social being you also could help the less fitted to survive...or should we kill all our handicaped people
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: agree
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: i think as soon as groups are formed they begin to cooperate to keep peace and prosperity
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: among the group
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:44] herman Bergson: exactly what..kill them?
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: or we dont kill the handicapped but leave them be and let them rot naturally?
[13:44] Liza Deischer: good point gemma
[13:44] Abraxas Nagy: noooo
[13:44] herman Bergson: lol
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: but then along comes another group
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:44] Abraxas Nagy: we take care of them
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: not in agreement
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: and here we to
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: go
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes good point Gemma...it is about interests
[13:45] herman Bergson: the balance of interests
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: ah yes good point iondeed
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: survival of the fittest again
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: yep
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: as groups
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: and so the war begins
[13:45] Liza Deischer: :-)
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: leave the handicapped be and let them rot --- is back to the issue-right to health care.......
[13:45] herman Bergson: I dont agree with putting it in an evolutionary context Abraxas...
[13:46] Abraxas Nagy: mmmm war can have many ignitions
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: tho i dont think it is a good idea to force ppl to share
[13:46] Abraxas Nagy: how to say
[13:46] Abraxas Nagy: ah but sharing would be natural
[13:46] herman Bergson: I think it is one of our human qualities that we share, survive together...the weaker and the stronger
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: yes i agree
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: true, if sharing were natural, why not a law to share ㋡
[13:47] herman Bergson: In evolution the 'fittest' means 'best adapted to its environment'
[13:47] Abraxas Nagy: the idea of having more than the other is an illusion brought to you by commerce
[13:47] herman Bergson: but that is not a social feature of behavior
[13:47] Liza Deischer: I wouldn't be surprised if the weakest are the best adapted
[13:48] Liza Deischer: need to adapt in order to survive
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: pretty sturdy illusion...
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: hmm
[13:48] herman Bergson: Well in a way your words make sense Liza...if I see homeless people living for years in the streets....
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: ah yes
[13:49] Liza Deischer: well, I think there is something between the weakest and the strongest
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: on the streets survival is back
[13:49] Liza Deischer: I think those are the most adapted
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: you cant survive if you dont adapt
[13:49] herman Bergson: adapted to what?
[13:50] Abraxas Nagy: the streets in this case
[13:50] Liza Deischer: the strongest will try to make there own laws
[13:50] herman Bergson: to the not sharing of others?
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: your immediate environment? Your true nature?
[13:50] Liza Deischer: who can't do that will adapt
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe the art is about balance between our self interest part and social part
[13:50] Abraxas Nagy: ah yes good point
[13:50] herman Bergson: Very true Kiki
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:51] herman Bergson: That is what all philosophy is about in these matters
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: I see.
[13:51] herman Bergson: This was a great discussion....!
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: it sure was
[13:51] herman Bergson: May I thank you all
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: yep!
[13:52] Sartre Placebo: thx herman
[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: Thank you herman
[13:52] Qwark Allen: ty heerman
[13:52] Sartre Placebo: thx all
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: thank YOU herman
[13:52] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: and thx all
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: wow time went so fast
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: yes lol
[13:52] herman Bergson: Thomas Hobbes will be our guest on Thursday
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: ah
[13:52] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:53] Qwark Allen: nice
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ;-)
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: Mhh *Kiss* Bye bye!
[13:53] Sartre Placebo: don´t you think he might be a bit smelly ?