political philosophers

[W in 2004]

I just got John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government.  I became interested in John Locke when I had to read excerpts of his writings for my political science class.  I have found his writings to be fascinating.  I usually agree with Locke.  I especially like The Second Treatise on Civil Government.  Has anyone else read Locke’s writings?  What do you think of them? 
Who are some of everyone else’s favorite political philosophers?  Another one of my favorites is Adam Smith, who wrote Wealth of Nations.

[W in 2004]

I have found myself liking Woodrow Wilson!  I have agreed with some of quotes of him that I have read.  I previously disliked him because I thought he wanted one world government, but from reading about the League of Nations, it seems as if the league would not have included all of the countries in the world and would have been very weak.  I do not know if Wilson would have wanted a powerful world government or not.  Unlike some modern liberals, Wilson believed in the power of democracy.  He believed that democracy should be spread around the world because democratic nations are less likely to fight each other.  I want to read more about Woodrow Wilson. 

Here is a speech that Woodrow Wilson gave on the subject of immigration.  He certainly does not sound like a modern Democrat.

Speaker: Woodrow Wilson
Title: “Americanism and the Foreign-Born”
Date: May 10, 1915
Occasion: Wilson delivered this speech to a group of naturalized Americans in Philadelphia.

You have just taken an oath of allegiance to the United States.  Of allegiance to whom?  Of allegiance to no one, unless it be God.  Certainly not of allegiance to those who temporarily represent this great Government.  You have taken an oath of allegiance to a great ideal, to a great body of principles, to a great hope of the human race.  You have said, “We are going to America,” not only to earn a living, not only to seek the things which it was more difficult to obtain where you were born, but to help forward the great enterprises of the human spirit – to let man know that everywhere in the world there are men who will cross strange oceans and go where a speech is spoken which is alien to them, knowing that, whatever the speech, there is but one longing and utterance of the human heart, and that is for liberty and justice. 
And while you bring all countries with you, you come with a purpose of leaving all other countries behind you – bringing what is best of their spirit, but not looking over your shoulders and seeking to perpetuate what you intended to leave in them.  I certainly would not be one even to suggest that a man ceases to love the home of his birth and the nation of his origin – these things are very sacred and ought not to be put out of our hearts – but it is one thing to love the place where you were born and it is another thing to dedicate yourself to the place to which you go.  You cannot dedicate yourself to America unless you become in every respect and with every purpose of your will thorough Americans.  You cannot become thorough Americans if you think of yourselves in groups.  America does not consist of groups.  A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America, has not yet become an American, and the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son to live under the Stars and Stripes.

[W in 2004]

Do any of you know of a good biography of Woodrow Wilson?

[J-Mann]

Do any of you know of a good biography of Woodrow Wilson?

Not sure about biographies.  His "The Study of Administration" was good; revolutionary for its time.

I'm partial to Machiavelli as a political philosopher myself.

[W in 2004]

Do any of you know of a good biography of Woodrow Wilson?

Not sure about biographies.  His "The Study of Administration" was good; revolutionary for its time.

I'm partial to Machiavelli as a political philosopher myself.

I disagree with Machiavelli’s view of human nature.  I do not think all people are as evil and selfish as he portrays them to be.  Machiavelli believed that leaders should lie and be ruthless, selfish monsters.  He believed that because people are fickle, it is better to be feared than loved.  He thought that he had come up with the formula for rulers to attain and maintain power, but look at some of our presidents.  George Washington and Abraham Lincoln certainly did not put their personal political interests above what they believed was right and noble, and they are two of our most revered leaders.

[Bono]

Locke could have been much better if he hadn't been too afraid to take his ideas to their logical conclusion. Besides, he was the one who first claimed that governments have a monopoly on the use of force.
I like Aquinas and Augustine.
I think the best political philosopher of today is Hans-Hermann Hoppe, hands down.

[W in 2004]

Some political philosophers that I dislike are Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Karl Marx.

[A18]

Locke could have been much better if he hadn't been too afraid to take his ideas to their logical conclusion.

And what's that?

[Tory]

Hobbes, because the man is so dead on. To think that people are naturally good is silly and childish. That's why I detest Locke and most of the other enlightenment writers. I believe in free-market and democratic ideals, but do not wear rose-tinted glasses when looking at humanity.

[Bono]

Locke could have been much better if he hadn't been too afraid to take his ideas to their logical conclusion.

And what's that?

That a monopoly on the use of force is an infrigment on property rights, and thus a state is immoral.

[A18]

Locke could have been much better if he hadn't been too afraid to take his ideas to their logical conclusion.

And what's that?

That a monopoly on the use of force is an infrigment on property rights, and thus a state is immoral.

Well, the state does not have a monopoly on the use of force.

[Bono]

Locke could have been much better if he hadn't been too afraid to take his ideas to their logical conclusion.

And what's that?

That a monopoly on the use of force is an infrigment on property rights, and thus a state is immoral.

Well, the state does not have a monopoly on the use of force.

Yes it does.

[A18]

Locke could have been much better if he hadn't been too afraid to take his ideas to their logical conclusion.

And what's that?

That a monopoly on the use of force is an infrigment on property rights, and thus a state is immoral.

Well, the state does not have a monopoly on the use of force.

Yes it does.

If someone breaks into my house and I kill them, the government was not the only thing with force.

The state is just an organized way for the people to use force.

[Bono]

Locke could have been much better if he hadn't been too afraid to take his ideas to their logical conclusion.

And what's that?

That a monopoly on the use of force is an infrigment on property rights, and thus a state is immoral.

Well, the state does not have a monopoly on the use of force.

Yes it does.

If someone breaks into my house and I kill them, the government was not the only thing with force.

The state is just an organized way for the people to use force.

But the state could take that right away from you, if it'd be willing to.

[A18]

Well, government or no government, there are always enough other people who could gang up and take any right away from you. But a republican state with a series of checks and balances should separate power enough that it will protect rights rather than infringe upon them.

[Bono]

Well, government or no government, there are always enough other people who could gang up and take any right away from you.

Difference is without a state, you have a legal right to fight them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We've all seen how that has worked out. Read this, plz.

[A18]

What is "legal?" It is an abstract concept. All it is is people using force.

With a state, it is possible to have the right to defend your property. Without a state, you definitely have that right. That means having a state that doesn't honor the right to protect property is inferior, but having a state that does is equal.

[Bono]

What is "legal?" It is an abstract concept. All it is is people using force.

With a state, it is possible to have the right to defend your property. Without a state, you definitely have that right. That means having a state that doesn't honor the right to protect property is inferior, but having a state that does is equal.

How does a state honor teh right to property if to survive a state needs taxation?

[JohnFKennedy]

Well, government or no government, there are always enough other people who could gang up and take any right away from you.

Difference is without a state, you have a legal right to fight them.

Without a state you also don't have laws and an established judicial system so your "legal right" is non-existent.

Without the state and the governing body laying down laws, how are these "legal rights" decided, who decides what people can and cannot do?

Even if we suppose that there is some form of legal system without the state, who exactly enforces the laws?

[Lunar]

What is "legal?" It is an abstract concept. All it is is people using force.

With a state, it is possible to have the right to defend your property. Without a state, you definitely have that right. That means having a state that doesn't honor the right to protect property is inferior, but having a state that does is equal.

How does a state honor teh right to property if to survive a state needs taxation?

It's a trade-off.  The State takes some and gives more back (ideally).

It's good to see someone with some true anti-Statist beliefs though.

[PBrunsel]

Do any of you know of a good biography of Woodrow Wilson?

"The Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson"

By Herbert Hoover

[muon2]

We've all seen how that has worked out. Read this, plz.

OK, I did read it. It's well written but full of fundmental utopian flaws. Without spending 2-3 hours writing a detailed rejoinder, I'll focus on the obvious shortcoming - population density.

There are many libertarian utopias well fleshed out in written form. I'd enjoy living in many if not most of them. What they have in common is a substantially smaller population base to work from than our current situation. The problem in libertarian, non-statist utopias, is how to handle the "bad apple", that is to say the person who takes advantage of the system to the long term detriment of society. The best defense is a society of low enough density that these people can be identified and isolated by those who want to maintain their libertarian ideals.

As population increases both the number of people who act against the libertarian interests of society increase, and their ability to hide within society increases. Above a critical density a government of laws is needed to maintain societal order. Utopias need to impose some hierarchical order or they fail this test.

Hoppe's point is that a self-interested dictator (ie king) is superior to the random fluctuations of democratic rule. In the short term one can make the argument that a self-interested dictator will provide a better government allowing the population to act freely. However, te law of averages kicks in as the population increases. The likelihood of incompetance taking the throne increases, and with it comes the probability of revolution from the power centers directly beneath the titular ruler. Rather than Hapsburg Austria-Hungary one should consider Imperial Rome.

In the end, large numbers of people force statistics into play. Democracy can have the disadvantage of short-term inefficiency, but it has the ability to provide long-term corrections that are difficult without its averaging powers.

[Bono]

Well, government or no government, there are always enough other people who could gang up and take any right away from you.

Difference is without a state, you have a legal right to fight them.

Without a state you also don't have laws and an established judicial system so your "legal right" is non-existent.

Without the state and the governing body laying down laws, how are these "legal rights" decided, who decides what people can and cannot do?

Even if we suppose that there is some form of legal system without the state, who exactly enforces the laws?

You're right, without a stat ethere are no laws. There are only costums, which are derived from natural rights.

[Bono]

We've all seen how that has worked out. Read this, plz.

OK, I did read it. It's well written but full of fundmental utopian flaws. Without spending 2-3 hours writing a detailed rejoinder, I'll focus on the obvious shortcoming - population density.

There are many libertarian utopias well fleshed out in written form. I'd enjoy living in many if not most of them. What they have in common is a substantially smaller population base to work from than our current situation. The problem in libertarian, non-statist utopias, is how to handle the "bad apple", that is to say the person who takes advantage of the system to the long term detriment of society. The best defense is a society of low enough density that these people can be identified and isolated by those who want to maintain their libertarian ideals.

As population increases both the number of people who act against the libertarian interests of society increase, and their ability to hide within society increases. Above a critical density a government of laws is needed to maintain societal order. Utopias need to impose some hierarchical order or they fail this test.

Hoppe's point is that a self-interested dictator (ie king) is superior to the random fluctuations of democratic rule. In the short term one can make the argument that a self-interested dictator will provide a better government allowing the population to act freely. However, te law of averages kicks in as the population increases. The likelihood of incompetance taking the throne increases, and with it comes the probability of revolution from the power centers directly beneath the titular ruler. Rather than Hapsburg Austria-Hungary one should consider Imperial Rome.

In the end, large numbers of people force statistics into play. Democracy can have the disadvantage of short-term inefficiency, but it has the ability to provide long-term corrections that are difficult without its averaging powers.

Hoppe argues that a monarchy is superior to democracy. But he also concludes that an anarchy of private property, where an aristocracy of the best will emmerge and be aknowledge as such, is even bette than a monarchy. Personally, I thik a barrel of a gun is the best way of dealing with the bad apple.

[muon2]

Hoppe argues that a monarchy is superior to democracy. But he also concludes that an anarchy of private property, where an aristocracy of the best will emmerge and be aknowledge as such, is even bette than a monarchy. Personally, I thik a barrel of a gun is the best way of dealing with the bad apple.

An anarchy of private property suffers the most from population density. It only functions in low population environments where essentially everyone knows everyone else.