Policy Midterm 2

J.S Mill (Tyranny of the Majority)

A form of social oppression where popular opinion and custom force conformity on individuals. Examples: Laws against religious expression, laws for conformity, suppression of free speech.

J.S Mill (Harm Principle)

Individuals should possess absolute freedom of action, until those actions cause physical harm to others. Society should intervene in an individual’s liberty only to prevent harm to others.

J.S Mill (Social and Civil Liberties)

Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Feeling (absolute freedom of opinion on all subjects).

Liberty of Tastes and Pursuits (to pursue the lives we want, provided we don’t harm others in our pursuit)

Liberty of Association (The freedom to unite with other consenting individuals for any purpose not involving harm to others, Example: Peaceful Protests).

Thinks the liberty of expressing and publishing opinions should not be suppressed, as by doing so, we halt advancement and the pursuit of truth.

Isaiah Berlin (Positive Liberty)

Freedom to lead one prescribed form of life, concerns internal constraints. Coercing others for their own sake, in their, not my (an individuals’s) interest.

Examples: Involuntary Rehab committing.

Isaiah Berlin (Negative Liberty)

Freedom from interference, external obstacles. The wider the area of noninterference, the wider my freedom. Negative Liberty implies the absence of outside constraints

Examples: First Amendment Freedoms

Isaiah Berlin (Obedience and Coercion)

Argues Positive Liberty is twisted to justify coercion. By framing coercion as liberation, dictators or authority figures can argue that they don’t coerce individuals but forcing them to adhere to their own rational wills. Argues that the pursuit of a “perfect" ideological society” is used to justify the slaughter of anyone who doesn’t fit the perpetrators’ concept.

Examples: Nazi Germany (1935 Nuremberg Laws, stripped away negative liberty of specific groups, one of many policies that led to Holocaust), China (reeducation camps)

Pluralism (Berlin)

Ultimate values often clash, so a perfect society is impossible as there is always something subverting the ideal

Hayek (Invisible Hand)

Self interest drives the Free Market. Human beings sell their wares in order to make money, and end up benefitting society with what is needed for survival.

Hayek (Order)

Kosmos: Spontaneous, Grown Order (Comes about naturally). Examples: The Free Market, the Internet.

Taxis: Organization, Made Order (is planned). One central authority. Examples: Planned Economies.

Hayek (Planned Economy)

Is against it, argued that it is inefficient and threatens personal freedom. Favored a decentralized system. Believer of letting the market sort itself out naturally.

Hayek (Role of Government: Coercive and Service Functions)

Coercive: Has to enforce the rule of law,

Protection of Private property (Coercion needed for agreements of business to be honored),

Limited Monopoly (government monopoly of use of coercion to protect against private, arbitrary tyranny).

Financing Services: Pro-taxation but limited.

Service:

Public Services and Infrastructure (Roads, 1956 Highway Act)

Social Safety Net to prevent destitution (Guaranteed Minimal Income, opposses top down redistribution)

Limited Intervention (Doesn’t want the free market distorted).

Hayek (Rules: Legislation vs Laws)

Legislation: Government created and enacted.

Laws: Comes from the actual citizens, emerge organically from society (Propositions)

Friedman (Relationship between political freedom and economic freedom)

Economic freedom is both an end in itself and indispensable for achieving political freedom. Economic freedom serves as a check of government. In removing it from political control, it allows sustenance when people oppose the government.

Friedman (Capitalism and Conditions)

1. Transactions have to be voluntary and informed

2. Reciprocity (all parties must benefit)

The state has a role in preventing physical coercion of one individual by another and enforce contracts voluntarily entered into.

Friedman (Monopoly)

Inhibits freedom by denying individuals alternatives to the particular exchange.

Friedman (Four Functions of Government)

1. Providing for National Security

2. Preventing abuses of citizens by other citizens

3. Defining the rules of the game (the conditions and limits of private property)

4. The adjudication of disputes about the “rules of the game”

Nozick (System of Natural Rights)

Life, Liberty, and Private Property (We have the right to live as we have the right not to harm others unprovoked).

Nozick (State of Natural Thought)

Hobbes: War of all against all. No safety nor any advancement. Competition for resources, safety, and social standing drive people to be wild.

Locke: Humans have the indivisible rights, but have reason as a substitute for law. It is from the absence of it that the social contract is formed. There is right to punish. There is no overarching law, so its still insecure.

Rosseau: Humans are altruistic and concerned for others, but society corrupts that.

Nozick (The Ultraminimal State vs. The Minimal State)

The Minimal State is a nightwatchman, is more extensive and protects its citizens through tax funded services. The Ultraminimal state has a monopoly on safety, and only protects those who buy into it.

Nozick (Entitlement Theory of Justice (three components)

Justice in Appropriation: Governs how unowned natural resources can be legitimately owned for the first time. Ensures initial appropriation does not disadvantage others.

Justice in Transfer: Governs how holdings can be transferred from one person to another. If both parties voluntarily agree to transfer, it makes it just.

Rectification of Justice: Governs what should be done in case of robbery, fraud, damage, etc. Serves to correct violations of the first two.

Taylor (Objections to crude negative liberty)

Argues it is too rigid. There isn’t consideration for out of control circumstances, and is highly individualistic.

Taylor (Negative and Positive Freedom)

Negative: Independence from Others (Opportunity Concept)

Positive: Freedom through Collective Self-Government (Exercise Concept, Communities having their own laws separate from the state, etc)

Taylor (Opportunity-concept)

Having options, even though you may or may not act on them. Free to do what you want without interference.

Taylor (Exercise-concept)

Free to know what we want and ability to discriminate between your own desires.

Taylor (Discrimination between motivations (i.e., strong evaluation)

Distinguishing between motivations based on their qualitative worth rather than just their strength or desire.

Nussbaum (Capabilities Approach)

What is each person able to do and be, takes into account each person as an end, focused on choice or freedom, pluralist about value, concerned with entrenched social justice and inequality, ascribes an urgent task to government and public policy.

Nussbaum (“Substantial freedoms” as combined capabilities)

a set of (usually interrelated) opportunities to choose and to act…the freedoms or opportunities created by a combination of personal abilities and the political, social, and economic environment.” (20) combined capabilities.

Nussbaum (Internal capabilities vs. combined capabilities)

Internal: States of the person, “trained or developed traits and abilities,

developed, in most cases, in interaction with the social, economic, familial, and political environment.” (21) Distinct from innate equipment

Combined: the freedoms or opportunities created by a combination of personal abilities and the political, social, and economic environment.

Nussbaum (Basic capabilities)

the innate faculties of the person that make later development and training possible.

Nussbaum (Functionings and the freedom to choose)

active realization of one or more capabilities…Functionings are beings and doings that are the outgrowths or realizations of capabilities.

Nussbaum (Ten Central Capabilities)

Life, Bodily Health, Bodily Integrity, Senses, Imagination and Thought, Emotions, Practical Reason, Affiliation, Other Species, Play, Control over one’s environment

Totalitarianism

Rousseau (against: Berlin, Hayek, Friedman)

Classical liberalism

Friedman, Berlin (against, Taylor)

Liberal constitutionalism

Locke, Mill, Rawls, Hayek (against: Rousseau, Taylor)

Libertarianism (Liberty; Markets & Justice; Limited Government)

Nozick (against, Taylor)

Left-Libertarians vs. Right-Libertarians

Right: Nozick, support economic freedom and low interefence

Left: support shared resources, low interference (abolition of state)

Libertarians vs. Contemporary Liberals (where are the divisions?)

Differ on government control, social contract, collective rights

Libertarians vs. Anarchists (where are the divisions?

Libertarians: Minimal State, want private property.

Anarchists: Abolition of state, leans more towards collective

Anarcho-communism vs. Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-communism: Rejects private property, no hierachy.

Anarcho-capitalism: Absolute private property, free markets, opposes state hierarchy