Open Thread: Class of 1-18-06
If you felt your comments didn't get a chance, or you have thought of something new...have at it! Leave your comments on this thread.
posted by Mungowitz at 6:20 PM
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
About Me
- Name: Mungowitz
We have been writing together since grad school, starting in 1980. It's still pretty fun!
Previous Posts
6 Comments:
So...what do you think of Hobbes' justification of the state? Is it persuasive? What objections can you think of? Remember, if Hobbes is wrong, we have a problem: WHAT is the justification for obedience to the state? Is it just power, the claim of Thrasymachus?
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/faculty/mgreen/PhilPerspF99/Notes/nThrasymachus.html
Now I see why most people in 17th century England thought Hobbes was a closet atheist...
I think Hobbes' justification of the state is persuasive. However, I think his vision of what that state needs to be in order to achieve its goals is extremely skewed. Even without assuming a set of 'natural rights' that the state is obligated to protect (Locke), one can still argue that it is within the people's interests to include in the contract the rights to life, liberty, and property, which they will recognize and implement. Thus we start with the concrete and uncontrovercial assumptions, but are still able to end with the (more) ideal state that Locke describes.
Okay, but then you would have to say this: what WOULD produce cooperation?
Hobbes says we have to be overawed, matched against a force so tremendous that there is no hope successful resistance.
Like when the Branch Davidians holed up near Waco. The U.S. government sent tanks, and armored personnel carriers.
There can be no question of resistance.
Now, the method of SELECTION might be different, sure. Maybe democracy, or a parliament. But the fact remains that the central argument is that government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
I am not resisting the idea that the government must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I think Locke would also agree with this. I am simply asserting that Hobbe's assertion that the legitimate use of force must be infinite and absolute is both unnecessary and unjustified.
In fact, I would argue that your example of the Branch Davidians holed up near Waco actually supports my view. In this instance, we are dealing with a government presumably unjustified in infringing upon certain basic rights, but which is still able to quash all questions of resistance and which is still able to maintain order by being the sole possessor of legitimacy in the usage of force (even if that usage must be limited by considerations of rights granted by the social contract). Thus, we start with Hobbe's uncontrovercial premises and end with Locke's vision of a state protecting Life, Liberty, and Property that is still able to maintain order.
Well, since nobody seems to be writing on this thing, I don't feel bad about continuing to talk about the Social Contract. Hobbes asserts (and professor Rosenberg seemed fairly convinced) that the State of Nature is analogous to international relations. I disagree:
1. The state of nature presupposes equality, but in a world of a single-superpower this is certainly untrue.
2. The state of nature is pre-society and is therefore 'pre-norm'. In the system of international relations, however, norms certainly prevail. Whereas in the former, nobody can be said to have an idea of right and wrong, *most* states certainly know it is bad to arbitrarily attack other states, and this limits their actions. If IR mimicked the SoN in this respect, then the US would have conquered everybody by now (or at least, would have nuked the hell out of everybody in 1945 before other states gained nuclear capabilities), simply because we can and it would be in our interest (I mean, oil would be a lot cheaper, anyway). Sure, some rogue states act out of accordance with these norms, but that happens in society also, and those states get punished for it (see Axis powers in World War II). (Note that this idea of pre-norms also takes the wind out of Hobbes argument for an absolute ruler when he refers to the resulting chaos that would ensue with the dissolving of that state. Once society has been in place, peoople have internalized norms that would presumably limit their actions if they were then thrown into anarchy. Once a state exists, the State of Nature is precluded)
3. Although weak, institutions such as the UN and 'contracts' such as the Geneva conventions also limit state action (If they didn’t, then we wouldn’t have to outsource our torturing to other countries).
If anything, IR might be said to resemble Locke's version of the SoN wherein certain 'natural laws' are recognized - life, liberty, and property (in this case, embodied in national sovereignty). Not really sure the implications of the SoN not being analogous to IR, but thought I’d put it out there anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home