NationStates Jolt Archive

I've notice in the General forum that there tends to be a very strong skew towards either liberalism, especially libertarianism, or towards fairly extreme 'American Left' ideology, with a sprinkle of socialism here and there.

I think a lot of people here see political theoy on a sort of axis- libertarian on one side, communism on the other. Essentially, people here generally seem to think if you're not 'libertarian', you're totalitarian. I don't this is true.

So I'm going to put forward a political theory called 'Civic Repulicansim'. This theory finds it's roots in an underlooked area of political philosophy, and is descended from Aristotle, Machiavellie, Montesquies, Heidegger and Arendt.

Basically Civic Republicanism takes something of a middle ground between liberalism (Locke, Mills, Rawls, etc) and communiataurianism (Sandel is probably the best known example of this. In as much as it rejects positive rights theories in general, it is also opposed to Hegel and Hegelians (including Marx and socialists in general).

The object of this theory is to develope a consistent theory of politics which both acknowledges individual rights, as well as individual duties towards society. This second part is important: While most everyone on this forum accepts rights as important, there seems to be a large disagreement in terms of what constitutes individual duties, and indeed if an individual actually HAS duties towards society.

This will be a brief introduction, I will flesh it out more comprehensively later.

Probably the first thing we must look at is the civic republican's idea of freedom versus slavery. To begin with, we need to go back to the traditional liberal/libertarian idea of freedom.
In short, Liberal/libertarian freedom means that an individual is free when:
individual x is free from human obstruction to do/not do be/not be a something he wants to be or do. Freedom then is simply the non-interference of others in my life.

The example I want to draw here is that of a given individual. This individual is a slave: that is to say, another actor could interfere in any of his actions at any time. However, this 'owner' choose not to interfere: as such, the slave is able to do anything he wants to do. However, this slave also knows that at any time, his preferred actions may be interfered with.

Let us compare this to another individual who is not a slave. This person, like the slave, can do anything he pleases without anyone actually interfering with him. However, unlike the slaves, he knows he will never be interfered with, because he has no owner.

The liberal/libertarian definition of liberty would tell us these two actors are equally free: neither experiences intereference with his prefered action. The slave can do whatever he wants, so he is as free as the master.

A civic republican, on the other hand, does not see the 'slave' as free at all: the slave belives he could be interfered with, and as such he is NOT free. We are not free unless we believe ourselves to be free. To clarify, imagine you are living under the third reich, and all your neighbours are being savagely oppressed. However, for whatever reason, the Nazis are leaving you alone- they are not interfering with your life. Liberals would have to say you are free: No one is obstructing your actions. Civic republicans would say you are not free, because you don't BELIEVE yourself to be safe from obstruction.

This leads us to the next point: freedom versus the law. We know that liberals/libertarians say we are naturally free: outside of a legal framework, we are free to do or be however we want to be. This is evident in all liberal philosophy. Think of any theorist you like; they all subscribe to a natural rights theory of some kind.

However, this is not true for the civic republican. He realizes that outside of a legal framework, each actor realizes he could be interfered with at any time. His freedom of action is not guaranteed: he is deeply vunerable to the actions of others. So, in effect, he is in the same place as the slave: able to do what he pleases, but knowing he could be interfered with at any time.

So how does the civic republican become 'free'? He enters into a legal and civil society that guarantees this freedom. He is not free outside of a society that guarantees his freedom. We should contrast this to the liberal idea of freedom: laws, for the liberal, necessarily REDUCE individual freedom (because they tend to obstruct action).

We then conclude that an individual is not only more free in society, but that society actually CREATES this freedom through law and a society which recognizes this law.

I will continue on this in further posts.

Here's the thing: as a libertarian I believe everybody does indeed have civic responsibility they need to fufill. HOWEVER, where we differ from other liberals is that this responsibility should be fufilled at one's own free will, not because of government coercion

Okay I'm going to elaborate this a bit more, so continuing from the first post:

So we understand now that for a civic republican, being free means something more than simply being 'left alone', and we know that freedom is only possible in a cooperative legal project.

We need to further into the civic republican idea of freedom, however. So far we've seen that to be free, we must know or believe ourselves to be free from the possibility of domination.

Domination is any kind of power structure which holds the potential of practically restricting by freedom. So, for example, slavery would always be domination: I would always know that however little my master interferes with me, he would always have the potential to restrict or control my actions. Domination may also be present in other kinds of relationships: a very racist society may dominate minorities, even if their rights are formally protected. If there is segregated institutions, etc, the minorities would know that IN PRACTICE their liberty could be restricted. Some kinds of economic relationships may also be domination in practice: for example, sweatshops would be seen as a form of domination. All of these examples would have to be avoided to have a truly free society/government.

At this point, we can see that an individual is free when he is free of domination to do a given thing; this definition will be somewhat refined later, but it will do for the discussion at hand.

So how does an individual ensure that he will be free of domination? Essentially, his government and society must work towards that end. The political project should work towards the elimination of these relationships of domination, thus emancipating the members of this society.

alright, there is more to follow later

You've got my attention.

Although I'm more of a Federalist than anything else..

I tend to sit on the side of; right wing for economic matters (freemarket) and left wing on social matters (Gay Marriage).

I don't know what to class myself as :P

I tend to sit on the side of; right wing for economic matters (freemarket) and left wing on social matters (Gay Marriage).

I don't know what to class myself as :P

MODERATES FOR MODERATION!

Actually, I'm pondering of starting my own Party.

The American Coalition for Democratic Republicanism.

Where we sit down, horsetrade, decide what we really want done, then try to get those things done.

:D

MODERATES FOR MODERATION!

Actually, I'm pondering of starting my own Party.

The American Coalition for Democratic Republicanism.

Where we sit down, horsetrade, decide what we really want done, then try to get those things done.

:D

I don't suppose you were planning to do that sitting down you mentioned...on a fence? ;)

I tend to sit on the side of; right wing for economic matters (freemarket) and left wing on social matters (Gay Marriage).

I don't know what to class myself as :P
I'd say you are most likely libertarian. Join us!

I'd say you are most likely libertarian. Join us!

I might just do that :D

As for my political affliation now, I'm joining the NZ National party; I tend to sit in the part circa 1990s National when there was a, like I am, a mixture of socially liberal ideas with fiscal conservativatism and freemarket economics.

I've had a look at the other parties, and either they're too hung up about controlling peoples lives, or they can't seem to get their economic credentials together, thus making the list of possible parties to join up to, very small.

Hey Mallberta, I'll respond when I'm less tired then I am right now.

Well, I believe in a thing called love, just listen to the rythm of my heart.

And also, your slave analogy is pretty weird. Liberals don't consider slaves to be free.


:mp5: I put an emoticon here because I am free to do so.

Two major points of issue I have:

1. What system is there that adequately erases the ability of one person imposing on another? What system can erase hierarchy?

2. What justification do you have for saying that people are dutifully obligated to society?

And also, your slave analogy is pretty weird. Liberals don't consider slaves to be free.


I think he is trying to show that people who have bosses and creditors are not free because they have responsibilities to the bosses and creditors.

I think he is trying to show that people who have bosses and creditors are not free because they have responsibilities to the bosses and creditors.
But noone is forcing you to take a job or take a mortage?

But noone is forcing you to take a job or take a mortage?

I agree with you.

Responsibilities are the price of freedom, not hindrances to it.

If we started hugging the trees, things would get better.

Freedom is a moot point. Noone is free from our bonds to society, family, our stomachs (and other organs). I think freedom is relative. The best political/economic system is the one that grants the greatest freedom to its citizens at a given time - for example, in 2005 some of the greatest freedoms are granted by Monacco, Cayman Islands, Martinique. These places have certain commonalities:
- Small countries
- can grow their own food year round
- affluent due to supportive laws
- great beaches
At other times in history, Rome appeared relatively free (as in its people enjoyed more political freedoms, as well as freedom from Maslow's 1st rung).

Why does everyone search for a static ideal balance, when the world changes so dynamically? I think we would find more freedom in flexibility, sometimes a conservative, sometimes a liberal (some to think of it, I think some systems do that).

:sniper:

Freedom is death. Simple I know, but I think true. I gave up trying to formulate a comprehensive plan that allows mankind to achieve a state of "true" freedom along time ago.


I would have to agree with Three Cities, if you look at other smaller nations around the world, freedom is relative.

But to asking people to slow down and think is...
a joke.

That isn't what makes sense to most people. "Pick something and deal" makes more sense to a majority of people.


I don't know when my idea of reason died, but it is tres gauche for individuals to have a plurality of opinions on all topics...gotta follow the alpha members of society and all.


"Oh well the man with two brains says it's a science, got one for my actions the others for the conscience, yeah one's for the sex, the other's consequence and the girl with one brain says "you make no sense." "----the rentals.

Alright, I'll continue on this. I will answer comments later, as a lot of the comments so far are addressed later in this argumentation.

I want to discuss what freedom actually means a little bit more. We've stated so far it is something like: an individual is free when he is free from domination to do a thing.

To make this next section a little easier to follow, I'm going to use a 'triadic structure' (this is bored from MaCallum). Basically, this is a tool to examine different ideas of freedom. It looks like this:

freedom is when x is free from y to do/not do be/not be z,

where x is the actor
where y is the obstacle
where z is the objective

We've already discovered what y is, for a civic republican: domination (the possibility that another actor will interfere with us). However, we haven't really looked at what x or z are.

In this section, I will be examining what an 'objective' is for a civic republican. From this, we will be able to draw the meaning of x, as well as some other things.

It stands to reason that Z can't be just anything. Clearly if I am forbidden to harm someone, (my objective is to hurt) then stopping me is not an infringement of my freedom: this is especially evident that in as much as violence removes the guarantee of non-interference, it will end in a relationship of domination. So there must be some way of determining WHICH objectives are acceptable, and thus maintained as free, and which are forbidden.

This is actually fairly simple: those actions which do not result in a domination of others can be held as legitimate objectives.

However, this results in a problem: how do we know which actions result in dominationn, and which do not? Sometimes this is evident: violent actions, or clearly oppressive ones, are obviously going to end in domination. However, sometimes it is more difficult: do hierarchical economic systems result in domination, or are they legitimate?

There is no immediate answer here. However, let us think back to my other posts: we are free when we BELIEVE ourselves to be guaranteed freedom from domination. So it is possible that a hierarchical economic system may NOT result in domination: if we as a political body do not feel it results in domination, it quite simply does not. If certain kinds of econoimc relationships DO make us feel dominated, they ARE relationships of domination.

At first glance this seems very complex: virtually any relationship may be perceived by some parties as dominative. However, this can be resolved: I will do so next post.

I've notice in the General forum that there tends to be a very strong skew towards either liberalism, especially libertarianism, or towards fairly extreme 'American Left' ideology, with a sprinkle of socialism here and there.

I think a lot of people here see political theoy on a sort of axis- libertarian on one side, communism on the other. Essentially, people here generally seem to think if you're not 'libertarian', you're totalitarian. I don't this is true.

So I'm going to put forward a political theory called 'Civic Repulicansim'. This theory finds it's roots in an underlooked area of political philosophy, and is descended from Aristotle, Machiavellie, Montesquies, Heidegger and Arendt.

Basically Civic Republicanism takes something of a middle ground between liberalism (Locke, Mills, Rawls, etc) and communiataurianism (Sandel is probably the best known example of this. In as much as it rejects positive rights theories in general, it is also opposed to Hegel and Hegelians (including Marx and socialists in general).

The object of this theory is to develope a consistent theory of politics which both acknowledges individual rights, as well as individual duties towards society. This second part is important: While most everyone on this forum accepts rights as important, there seems to be a large disagreement in terms of what constitutes individual duties, and indeed if an individual actually HAS duties towards society.

This will be a brief introduction, I will flesh it out more comprehensively later.

Probably the first thing we must look at is the civic republican's idea of freedom versus slavery. To begin with, we need to go back to the traditional liberal/libertarian idea of freedom.
In short, Liberal/libertarian freedom means that an individual is free when:
individual x is free from human obstruction to do/not do be/not be a something he wants to be or do. Freedom then is simply the non-interference of others in my life.

The example I want to draw here is that of a given individual. This individual is a slave: that is to say, another actor could interfere in any of his actions at any time. However, this 'owner' choose not to interfere: as such, the slave is able to do anything he wants to do. However, this slave also knows that at any time, his preferred actions may be interfered with.

Let us compare this to another individual who is not a slave. This person, like the slave, can do anything he pleases without anyone actually interfering with him. However, unlike the slaves, he knows he will never be interfered with, because he has no owner.

The liberal/libertarian definition of liberty would tell us these two actors are equally free: neither experiences intereference with his prefered action. The slave can do whatever he wants, so he is as free as the master.

A civic republican, on the other hand, does not see the 'slave' as free at all: the slave belives he could be interfered with, and as such he is NOT free. We are not free unless we believe ourselves to be free. To clarify, imagine you are living under the third reich, and all your neighbours are being savagely oppressed. However, for whatever reason, the Nazis are leaving you alone- they are not interfering with your life. Liberals would have to say you are free: No one is obstructing your actions. Civic republicans would say you are not free, because you don't BELIEVE yourself to be safe from obstruction.

This leads us to the next point: freedom versus the law. We know that liberals/libertarians say we are naturally free: outside of a legal framework, we are free to do or be however we want to be. This is evident in all liberal philosophy. Think of any theorist you like; they all subscribe to a natural rights theory of some kind.

However, this is not true for the civic republican. He realizes that outside of a legal framework, each actor realizes he could be interfered with at any time. His freedom of action is not guaranteed: he is deeply vunerable to the actions of others. So, in effect, he is in the same place as the slave: able to do what he pleases, but knowing he could be interfered with at any time.

So how does the civic republican become 'free'? He enters into a legal and civil society that guarantees this freedom. He is not free outside of a society that guarantees his freedom. We should contrast this to the liberal idea of freedom: laws, for the liberal, necessarily REDUCE individual freedom (because they tend to obstruct action).

We then conclude that an individual is not only more free in society, but that society actually CREATES this freedom through law and a society which recognizes this law.

I will continue on this in further posts.

As much as it pains me to say it, I'm afraid I'm with Locke on this one. Essentially you're saying that because of the inate unpredicitability of the actions of others which may infringe upon your own actions, you are not free because you believe your freedom can be infringed upon by these others? Because of the freedom of others, you are not free? Only in a society where the interaction between people is governed by law can you be considered to be free? Therefore, for there to be freedom for any one person, the actions of others must be restricted by the framework of the law? Seems contradictory to me. Well, contradictory to call it "freedom" at least. Possibly we are being drawn between to different types of freedom.


Would be interested to hear more though, because I'm always drawn between Marxism (possibly more Pashukanis) and rights theory...


What is Communitaurianism though? Never heard of it. Could you direct me to writings about it? Also, I fail to see how this is derived from Arendt, thougt I've not read many of her articles, I suppose.

The resolution has a lot of great theory and some of it, because I am a centralist, I agree with. However, at the risk of sounding like a hypocrit (for my last statement), I think it is time that we stop using political labels for sake of theory. This is because the terms republican and liberal have no international credit. For instance: In the United States what is considered Democratic (liberal) is actually considered further right than the Conservative Party of Canada. Also European Liberalism is further left than northamerican liberalism. The Communist Party of Italy's policy is actualy what would be considered left of centre in Canada, excapt that they throw a lot more anti-capitalist rhetioric in the package. Typically right-winged parties are actually renowned to hurt free-market economies (ie. USA's and Canada's current Conservative parties).
I think in terms of political social and economic ideology we can leave political labeling at the door and tie the theory to the theorist (ie. Marxism, Smithism). That way we can internationaly undestand theory by refering to the author's political views.
-Chris