Society and History

When an individual studies political philosophy, it is usually with the intent to understand the core principles that govern the political life of a city, a region, or a nation. What is it that motivates or causes a mayor to be just, or to be corrupt? What influence does the general consensus of the people have upon the government? In what way does the government manifest its power with the least amount of justice? In what way does it manifest its power with the most amount of justice? What definition exactly can we give to the term the general will of the people? All of these questions are ones that interested people will ask themselves and others in an attempt to gain answers. They will look back to philosophers like Machiavelli, Locke, Rousseau, Plato, among others, to try and find some opinion that has validity. To a large extent, when political philosophy scholars attempt to uncover the answers to these questions, it is not just to help defeat Fascism, or help bring about Communism, or help in strangling Socialism, or generally to aid or destory any other -ism; rather, these questions are asked because people are genuinely interested in discovering what method of government is best for the people.

mediaimage
Political Philosophy is the study of government,The Matter of Political Philosophy Articles of power, of authority. It is a question of who is in power, why they are in power, how they can maintain their power and how the public will respond to this power, and what powers certain authorities hold in certain societies. It is all these questions and more. In our modern society of today’s world, some political philosophy questions would be “To what extent does the authority of the policeman extend?” and “In what justification does a court issue a search warrant?” The reason why it is important and relevant to understand Political Philosophy is to help ourselves better understand, and perhaps one day alter the current society, with social justice as an end. By understanding these concepts, we are better able to grasp the problems that society has withstood for a great deal of time.

There are some basic facts that should be understood clearly before one progresses in depth the study of Political Philosophy. First, there is the question of the issues at hand. Every generation will have its own issues of social justice or political rightness. Those who have only a brief knowledge of history will be able to confirm this. There was a generation whose intent was to liberate all African slaves, another generation that wanted equality for a second class of citizens called Plebians, and at least five generations that worked for the equality of the sexes. Every culture has its rebellious side to it, its nay-sayers whenever the body politic combines. So we have seen groups work for reforms, for changes, for revolutions in all facets of life. We see Animal Rights activists working for similar principles as did the Abolitionists. On the other side, we see Christian Fundamentalists trying to implement an ideology in to the government. There are those who want to create a Communist nation, with free healthcare and education to everyone. And there are those who want to resurrect the Inquisition to deal not just with religious heretics, but with political and social heretics as well. Civil Rights, Free Trade, education, healthcare, freedom of speech, etc., etc.. These are all issues at hand. When we look to the issues, we must understand that they are not related to the study of Political Philosophy.

One might easily make the misunderstanding of associating these issues with Political Philosophy. The error stems from the fact that government bodies are often responsible for enforcing or not enforcing these issues, and the association that one is responsible for the other. While this may be true in some cases, there is a clear difference between Political Philosophy and the current political atmosphere of a nation. Political Philosophy deals with who possesses authority, on what grounds they possess this authority, and how this authority can be used on the public. As far as the issues go, it doesn’t specifically concern Political Philosophy. A dictator might issue a mandate enforcing a strong Civil Rights bill as much as he might issue a mandate enforcing the Bible as law. On the other hand, it might be an elected president who issues a mandate agreed upon by congress to reinstate the draft, or to invade a foreign nation, or to nationalize all industries involving food, housing, and clothing production. Political Philosophy is the question of who is in power, who has authority, and on what grounds that authority is shifted from person to person.

Before we immediately dive in to the tastey depths of Political Philosophy, creating a Utopia in our mind by using a system of checks and balances, or enlightened despots based on a certain religion, or some form of majority rules, or constitutional ethics, etc., etc. — before we jump right in to Political Philosophy to take a stand on what the ideal political state would be, or what the ideal state of mankind would be, there are some other facts that should be recognized. These facts should be recognized only insomuch that they will help guide us to creating a system of politics that will allow the greatest amount of social and political justice. The study of Political Philosophy is a sociological study, not dissimilar to economics in many respects. Much like economics, there are certain stern laws to Political Philosophy that ought to be followed. By understanding these evidenced laws, we are in a better position to make judgments about the body politic, about what is just, abotu what is unjust, etc., etc.. And, by being able to comprehend the outcome of certain actions better, we will be able to theorize a more ideal state of civilization. We’ve already recognized the principle that Political Philosophy is not a study in achieving Nazism any more than it is a study in achieving racial equality. It does not promote one social issue over another. It is the study of how conclusions to these social issues are reached.

Among these stern laws that govern the body politic of a society, there is the one that everyone differs in opinion. All throughout history, whether seperated by culture, language, race, or even era, we have found that people will disagree with each other. One tends to think that opinions become much more conformed when looking within the same society, that a low-income Chinese man in Hong Kong is more likely to agree with another low-income Chinese man in Hong Kong. When comparing this one man with, say, a low-income American man in San Francisco, opinions will differ, and probably greater if the man is from New York City, and then even greater if it is a middle-income man, and even greater still if it is a high-income man. Change the gender, the social background, the political background, the development environment from childhood, etc., etc., and the more likely you are to find yourself with a conflict of opinion. However, regardless of these statistical differences, there will always be differences of opinion. When we take two people of the very same background, even brothers of the same bood, we will find differences of opinion in such a great quality.

What is the point of observing the differences of opinion? Well, among one of the important reasons for observing this difference of opinion, it is to understand how government officials and the public will act when in conflict for each other. You cannot design a political system and define each sheriff or police officer as “having a complete and honest understanding of justice and fairness.” Nor can you design a political system in which the mayors and politicians believe in one issue over another, in Marijuana reform or in Isolationism; nor can you define the public in this political system as supporting Liberalism in every case, or opposing Communism in every case — you cannot design a political system where the thoughts of the subjects and the rulers are already in place. This is a dilemma that many political theorists are pointed to in their own designs of a perfect utopia. Some may be thinking right now that pointing out such an observation is overly obvious, overly simple, etc.. True, it is simple and it is obvious, but it is a stern law of Political Philosophy. You can argue for an enlightened despot that believes in the gospels and enacts them, but his interpretation of them might very well be different from yours. You have to understand that a society will breed, grow, die, whither, change, and alter with every passing month, and that it is the citizens, ruled and ruler, that are responsible themselves for making these changes. A political theorist, then, acts much like a parent — they can steer, but cannot control; it is their duty to instruct, not to legislate. This law of Political Philosophy of difference of opinion is just as solid as the law of competition in Economics. The fact that people will buy products and services of higher quality with lower pricing is as true as the fact that laws or social structure are incapable of creating the mentality of the people.

For example, imagine that you choose the system of enlightened despot as the ideal system for society. It might just so happen that the people are brutes, ignorant and thougthless, violent and cruel, and it is the king’s rule that protects the innocent and punishes the wicked. True, this could very well happen. However, it is just as probable that the king would be the brute, and his people would be just, and that it would be the rule of this king that would inflict so much damage upon the morale of these people. Hopefully, this example will illuminate the importance of this law of Political Philosophy.

Every study or field of interest should start with basic premises, certain provable assumptions, and perhaps even an ideology, a method of guiding towards progress. In medicine, it is the Hypocratic Oath, an agreement to never harm your patient. In chemistry, it may be the idea of aiding technology and the prosperity of society. In physics, it is to find higher truth about the philosophical nature of the universe. In history, it is to understand the truth about the events of the past, in an objective and relevant manner. Every field of study has its own ethical theorem, its own particular fascinations about philosophy, its own place in society. In Political Philosophy, the premise can be stated as follows: to create the most advanced state of human cooperation and co-involvement through theory and practice. It is a sociological science, yes, in that it observes and makes predictions about society and behavior roles of people. In sociology, the ethical theorem is to study the mechanics and dynamics of society, in order that we ourselves can be more knowledgeable, and thus able to make more-informed decisions about our actions in society. But, in Political Science, the ethical theorem is to create a utopia, or at least the closest thing accomplishable to a utopia. A utopia in this sense being defined as a method of cooperation and organization in social affairs that creates a long-lasting prosperity for everyone, justice available to all classes, and equity in the laws and contracts. How to create such a utopia, how to set certain powers or certain rights or certain privileges so that the human world becomes a better place to live, it is this study that all political philosophers have argued and bickered about for centuries. Many of them used logic based on the preceding philosophers, others of them used their own unique arguments. But, it is this field that is a study of how to improve the lives of everyone… And that is why it is a valuable study.

With this law of difference in opinion in political philosophy, we are given guidance on some of the proposed systems of government or rule. For example, we see an error in a system of an enlightened despot, whether that system goes by the title of despotism, dictatorship, monarchy, or aristocracy. Either way, it’s just as possible for the ruler to be the negative element as it is for the population to be the negative element. In fact, with the evidence that we have today, we are much more inclined to believe that the powers of authority will be in the wrong than the actions of the people be wrong. Power corrupts the best, as the phrase goes. If we know this fact, then by giving power to one person and one person only, we are allowing for corrupt power to reign. We also understand that, since the purpose of Political Science is to discover the best means for operating cooperative society, we cannot put all the power of a nation in to the hands of one person. By doing this, we are chancing the lives, liberties, and happiness of all the people in to the hands of one person, whose opinion could be of anything. This is but a simple deduction, and one of the early ones discovered in the science of Political Philosophy.

With all these bases covered, the understanding of difference of opinion, the purpose of Political Philosophy, how Political Philosophy is not a matter of discussing the social issues of the day but determining who has the power to control such issues, etc., etc., with all this covered, I think there is chance to get in depth in this study.

The interest of Political Philosophy is to uncover a method of society that will allow for the greatest prosperity. Who is in control? and In what way does this power structure operate, insofar that it effects society? are the questions asked by this noble science. When uncovering the difference of opinion law in this field, there is a new question that opens the door to hundreds of other ideologies in Political Philosophy. The question is this: in what way can the law of difference of opinion be extended? For example, are people more likely to believe one idea over another, and how universal are these inclinations? In what cultures and societies do we see these tendencies — and, are there reasons for these tendencies to exist in one culture and not within another? We might also ask whether there are particular or specific conditions responsible for people believing certain opinions over other certain opinions. There might be economic or political or social conditions that exist within a society that cause its inhabitants to fear everything they don’t comprehend, or to believe every claim made by religious authorities, or to become inhibited when it comes to expressing their will. We might also ask whether a difference exists on how these conditions effect the ruled as opposed to effecting the rulers. The opinions that people might hold, whether its reverence or irreverence for power, whether its respect or disrespect for tradition, whether it is value for truth or value for self interest, whether it is an affectionate association with dissenters or a staunch affiliation with established authorities — all of these opinions are capable of being altered (if not completed destroyed or created) by the conditions of society. We are attempting to understand all of these questions, all of these open-ended ideas, because we are interested in understanding the matter of Political Philosophy. That is to say, we are interested in knowing what organizational setup of society will best serve the interests of mankind, in pursuing justice, achieving peace, and realizing happiness.

So, then, what is the answer to all of these questions? What can be said about the inclinations of mankind towards believing one idea over another? Volumes and volumes of books have been written on the subject, by at least one million partial authors. An in depth study in to the matter is not necessary, but some guiding points could prove rather invaluable. Perhaps, expressing my ideas through analogy and example would most sufficiently prove my point. Look at the setup of the American government. There are three established branches of the US government: Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. The reason why these three branches of the United States government were chosen, that is to say, the reason why the founders of the United States government decided to create these three branches is because, in their minds, these three branches would act in a way to maximize the happiness of the people while protecting their security and liberty. What was the philosophy behind three branches? It was what our history books call a system of checks and balances. Each branch of the government was independently responsible for a certain part of administering the law. One part creates the law, one part enforces the law, and another part interprets the law; again, according to our history books. The reason why different

1 – Property Relations: A Historical Look
In a society that has been founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment, on the philosophes and the thinkers of centuries past, there is no skepticism as to why reason flourishes to some degree. The all too typical political arguments rage furiously, between liberals and conservatives, between libertarians and statists. Issues like gun control and abortion are argued, each side tying together its different positions through sometimes inane connections and poor generalizations. There is a certain amount of diversity and disagreement in the political arena. It was not the intention of the Rationalist philosophers to say that reason leads all men to the same conclusions, but only that every conclusion or position must be guarded with evidence, reasoning, and logic. To support a government candidate without offering any proof for such support is as idiotic as it is unreasonable. So it happens, that the arguments in the political arena follow a certain set of code, a certain informal rule: if an argument is to have merit, it must have evidence. Thoughts may be considered, but can never be accepted without reasoning. Ideas may be proposed, but will never be believed without arguments.

mediaimage
Among the ideas that are commonly debated in our modern society,Are We Barbarians? Articles there is the idea of wealth redistribution, an idea that is largely associated with liberals and liberalism. Its essential definition is the transferring of wealth from one part of society to another, after the in-place rules of economics have given wealth to one member or another. One of the primary methods that wealth redistribution is enacted is through heavy taxing of the rich, and in turn using that taxes to fund programs such as college funds, better schools, improved social security, among other social programs, so that the taxes of the rich go to the poorer parts of society in a more equitable way. Those who support wealth redistribution also support other things such as raising the minimum wage laws, increasing health care, decreasing the work week, and other things that would otherwise aid the working class and eliminate poverty. However, these progressive reforms that are being implemented into our system, as much as they seem to take hold, poverty, crime, and unemployment still manage to exist and infect millions of lives. And, even beyond this, these progressive reforms are highly criticized by conservatives as being destructive to the economy and antithetic towards ideals of justice. Not only are these progressive reforms ineffective, conservatives argue, but they violate the rights and liberties of people — particularly, they violate the right to property of the people. The property rights of the people as they exist today I shall call property relations.

I am not going to make my views or opinions a mystery here. I firmly hold to the belief that wealth redistribution is, in fact, ineffective. The most effective method of preventing poverty, unemployment, and misery is by reorganizing and rearranging society so that the public is in ownership of the means of production. That is to say, the farms that harvest the food, the mines that bring up the metal ore, the factories that manufacture the products, the stores that distribute the goods, and the vehicles that transport the value created by society, all of these things should be owned publicly. Just as public as the roads, the railroads, the highways, the utility (water and electricity) companies, and parks are publicly owned, so shall the means of production be owned by the public. Regulation may be largely ineffective, but no regulation at all simply allows for so much poverty and misery to flow through. While a bureaucracy might pose as a hurdle to the economy, a completely free market economy may be viewed as a wall that reaches to the heavens, impassable by those who love justice and freedom. It is only by an ownership of the means of production by the public that the ills of a Capitalist society can be remedied. It would require a complete revolution of the property relations as they exist.

“But it is unjust!” is the first cry uttered. The idea that property can be taken away from the Capitalist class, who has worked so hard and so diligently to produce the wealth that they have amassed, is almost seen as theft. If we were to take the wealth of corporations, and put it under the control of the people, we would be violating the property relations of society! There is no doubt to this, as it is my intention to revolutionize the property relations of society. However, there is still the cry that what we are doing is unjust, what we are doing is immoral, what we are doing violates a higher, ethical principle. Some people honestly believe that the words “Laissez Faire” truly exist on some stone tablet in heaven (an opinion which I must admit is quite frightening). “Why should anybody have the right to touch the property of anyone else?” it is asked of us, “Why should the people have any right to touch, to manipulate, to control, to operate, or to possess the means of production, which is the legal property of investors and entrepreneurs today?” These questions, I shall here answer.

2 – Serf to Lord

Prior to the rise of Capitalism and free trade, the belief that individuals are allowed to trade their commodities and goods with minimal restriction, there was the system of Feudalism, or what most historians regard as Manorialism. Feudalism was a term adopted by the French revolutionaries to classify those they opposed. It was believed in that day that serfs belonged to the land, and the land belonged to a vassal and a lord, who in turn had to face others in the hierarchy. The difference between a slave and a serf was not all that enormous. However, the brutality that was displayed against slaves in the Americas was probably much more common than the brutality given towards the serfs. The serfs, while they were considered to a large extent the property of their lords, were still somewhat free. Food was more common and work was not, to my understanding, as brutish as it would be for the African slaves. It is believed by most historians that the system of Feudalism (or Manorialism) arose after the fall of the Roman Empire, with slaves living on large estates with their masters. These were the property relations of this feudal society.

Anyone who saw the misery, the absolute wretched poverty, the injustice of this system, would come to the conclusion that there was a time limit on Feudalism. The day would come when these property relations, and the government (the force) that supports them, would be smashed into oblivion. Of course, those who predicted this believed in some form of posivitism, believing that the course of mankind would — through successive generations — become more humane, more rational, and more gentle and kind in its manifestations. Just as we see so much support of slavery when reading the Law of Hammurabi or Torah, we felt that such oppressive chains must be destroyed. And, so too, when we look at the feudal society, we feel that it could not last. In good time, enough men of boldness, enough men of courage, would gather, organize, and some would sacrifice their lives and their liberty, that the rest of society may breathe freely.

If we were to offer these arguments, though, to a Feudalist, to a vassal or a lord or a king of this era, the arguments we would receive would be plentiful. We might be told that a lord has the right to tell his serfs whatever he wants them to do, because it creates prosperity and wealth for society. Among these arguments, we might hear the same claim that has supported every brutal and vicious movement, the argument that god condones what is going on — essentially, the argument that only the kings and the lords and the knights and the vassals have the ear of god, and the peasants, the poor, and the oppressed are deaf towards any sense of justice. But, among these arguments, we will hear something else: the lords of the manor have the right to do what they like to the serfs, because it is their right to property that they are exercising. It is the property relations of that society which allow this.

We would look at these arguments, with a few drops of suspicion, a bit of disgust, and ultimately, with a fervent zeal that what these men were telling us was lies. If we were to imagine the toils and the labors of the serf class, we see essentially a group of people with few rights. Many of them, for a great deal of time, believed that the way things were are simply the ways things will always be — a traditional argument of tradition. But, no, the state of things in Feudalist society are as unbearable as they are without any regard for justice, honor, or truth. We firmly believe in our hearts that every man has the right to leave any piece of land, that they must be in control of their own lives and their own destiny. Any argument that claims they should be tied to land, that they should be chained to a master, is an argument for injustice and cruelty.

In what argument, though, are we defending the rights of the serfs against the rights of the lords? Very bluntly, very simply, the argument that we are proposing is one on behalf of justice. We believe that each and every person should be endowed to the same rights and privileges. A person cannot be born into the position of a lord or vassal, nor can someone be born into the oppressive situation of the serf. Each and every man has faculties of thought, of suffering, of happiness, of sympathy, of consideration, of responsibility, and with these faculties, each person should be allowed their rights, their freedoms, and their liberty. With these as our arguments, we support the serf’s right to no longer be a serf, but to be a citizen, on an equal footing with a vassal, who is no longer a vassal but just a citizen. We believe that the property relations of the feudal state were without justice. Those who agree with me have, effectively, agreed with revolutionizing the property relations of society.

3 – Slave to Master

Slavery is a cruel, brutish system which has existed from the dawn of time and still exists today. The ancient Sumerians believed and practiced slavery, as much as any ancient culture did. It was common practice that once a tribe conquered another tribe in warfare, the conquered became the slaves of the conqueror. So it seems that war is sparked by the darker side of human passion, it endures through a cruel instinct, and it results with an unrestricted savagery on behalf of greed. Even today, nations that are conquered by other nations do not impose a slavery on the conquered peoples, but a form of Imperialism and economic exploitation through mercantilism. The Roman Empire practiced a form of slavery between natural born Romans and those who have no relatives from the country. Several centuries ago, slavery existed in the United States, but it was a form of racial slavery, of one race owning another race. Slavery, in all of its forms, in the various regions and cultures and nations that it was practiced in, always differed. In some cases, it was a difference between class, as it was in Sumer, or it was a difference between race, as it was in the United States In some cases, the slaves were allowed some form of advancement in society. Even in the United States, slaves were allowed to sell their goods, and use their money to buy their freedom, though this was susceptible to corruption by slavers. I think I can confidently say that there has never been a nation that has not had slavery, except perhaps with very few and very rare examples. Even today slavery still exists in third world, Asian nations that are under the control of a military coup.

The property relations of a society that uses slavery are not that far from the property relations of a feudal society. There is a separation of classes. One class is subservient and another class is oppressive and in control. The serfs in the feudal society were the oppressed, just as slaves in a slave society were the oppressed. The difference is not all that great. In fact, one might argue that the primary difference between these society is the terms and the culture or tradition that exist with them — and those who argue for this are basically correct.

Since many people in America today are descended from slaves, but are now free citizens, our society looks upon slavery as perhaps one of the most evil institutions. The rights of masters over slaves was perhaps much greater than the rights of lords over serfs. We have read and heard so many stories of slaves in the south being beaten, abused, raped, sold from their families, and exploited. We have read the testimony of Frederick Douglass with watered eyes and a deep heart. It seems that the more we learn about the culture of a slave nation, the more we detest it, the more resentful we become of it, the more our hearts fill with passion to liberate the oppressed and vengeance to punish those who committed these crimes. I feel that it is quite unnecessary to defend Abolitionism or to argue for the end of slavery in this society. The reasons that I could offer would simply be ones that are well known to a people and a society that are familiar with the cruelty of this brutish and savaged institution.

I believe that the reason why we detest and abhor slavery is the same reason why we rejected Feudalism as an oppressive, cruel system. In both systems, there is a class of individuals who are treated poorly, who spend the entirety of their lives in the chains of poverty, and are given no right to determine their own destiny. The lords of the manor had a relationship with their serfs that was not entirely unlike the masters with their slaves. We believed in liberating serfs because they are conscious individuals, they have pains and sufferings, they are capable of thought and emotion. Their minds are not at all different than those who govern them, so we must say this: every person must be justly recognized as an independent entity, allowed their own rights, their own liberties. And, so, too, this is our response to the system of slavery: the master must be demoted, the slave must be promoted, so that they may look eye to eye, as citizens, deserving of freedom, deserving of rights. Perhaps one day, when the oppressive systems that have been imposed on man by man have been destroyed, all men can look at each other as kin, and they can view all animals as brothers and sisters in different forms — perhaps, if the flame of liberation continues to grow and expand, if we still feel hope when we grab our chests, then one day, all men and women will regard each other as countrymen.

Yet, there is still something that must be realized in this. When we are crushing the chains that have kept serfs to land and slaves to masters, when we are telling each person that they are free to do as their heart feels and as their mind thinks, we are engaging in revolutionary activity. In the slave societies, slaves are considered property. That is the property relations of such a society. By telling slaves that they no longer must answer to a well-dressed savage, we are essentially revolutionizing the property relations of such a society. This is no mere small reform. We are not limiting the physical abuse that a slave may be forced to endure. We are not limiting the hours a week that a master can push his slaves. To completely overthrow the system of slavery, we are becoming revolutionaries. Thusfar, we have two instances where we felt that it was necessary to completely crush, destroy, and completely rewrite the property relations of society.