Conservatism Notes- Ideologies

Who encapsulates the idea of traditonal conservatism?

How did his ideas come about?

Edmund Burke

Through the French Revolution. Whereby he claimed that the rebel’s attempt to revolutionise society based on abstract principles was wrong as human nature is flawed and so utopian projects may have negative impacts.

What is one nation conservatism?

Basically traditional conservatism around saving tradition and the need for a state to intervene to protect this etc

• Oakeshott and Burke

What is New Right Conservatism?

Some market intervention etc but not state, only expect for the protection of rights

• Ayn Rand

• Robert Nozick

What does Burke say about moral imperfection? (human nature)

Burke starting point is that there is a naturally destructive and immoral dimension to human nature that simply cannot be reasoned away therefore it is not a product of a lack of education, but rather stems from original sin.

Evidence to back Burke view on moral imperfection?

Human beings have ‘A dark side of our sentiments’ and wwe cannot be simply ‘argued out of our vices’

So we have tendacies towards self-interest, pride, greed etc

Also the solution to this human moral weakness cannot be a rational argument or education, as thse tools only address the intellectual dimension of human behaviour

A consequence of Burke view on moral imperfection?

Because humans are morally imperfect, Burke is calling for the preservation of tradition, customs and established institutions as the primary means of maintaining social order. Political change must work with human nature rather than against it, so that change should be designed around the reality of human nature. He also believes gradual reform guided by inhertied wisdom is best as it has been tested anf refined over centuries, already accounting for human imperfection

What does Hobbes say about psychological imperfection? (human nature)

Hobbes’ argument is purely psychological meaning it is about what humans want and how they behave rather than whether they are good or evil. His starting point is that survival is the single thing overriding human drive, meaning everything humans do is ultimately traceable back to the need to preserve themself. Survival is the precondition for everything else a human might want or do.

Evidence to back Hobbes’ view on psychological imperfection?

Hobbes said that to live is to be in constant motion, meaning humans are never at rest but always seeking to pursue their position, therefore they are constantly clashing with and becoming suspicious of others who are doing the exact same, compounded by vainglory, which is excessive pride and desire for recogntion. Therefore human nature is not just defensively self-preserving but actively power seeking, with ‘power after power’ as the primary human urge. In the state of nature, this produces a ‘war of all against all’ where life is ‘poor, solitary, nasty, brutish and short’ meaning without security and trust human cannot build anything of lasting value

A consequence of Hobbes’ view on psychological imperfection?

Led Hobbes to distinguish that the same rationality that makes humans dangerous is also the same rationality that saves them. Because rational individuals recognise that permanent conflict is against their own survical interests, they form a covenant meaning each person simultaneously transfers their power to a sovreign authority in exchange for peace and security, making the Leviathan state (an all powerful government) not on imposition on human nature but its logical and inevitable product.

What does Oakeshott say about intellctual imperfection? (human nature)

Oakeshott believes that humans make mistakes and get things wrong but are not inherently dangerous, and this is because we don’t have the mental capacity to fully understand the world around us, because it is inherently complex and unpredictable.

Evidence to back Oakeshott’s view on intellectual imperfection?

Oakeshott explicitly said that humans are ‘fallible, not terrible’ and ‘imperfect, but not immoral’. Also talked about how people who propose changes in society based on ideological and abstract principle and not practical knowledge will fail.

A consequence of Oakeshott’s view on intellectual imperfection?

Oakeshott is calling for pragmatic experience-based decision making gudied by tradition and custom as that is proven to have worked. Change should create continuity with the present rather than attempting to build something entrirely new because what has survived the test of time carries a practical wisdom that abstract reasoning cannot replicate.

What does Rand believe about human imperfection? (human nature)

Rand rejects the whole conservative framework pf human imperfection. She believed that humans are defined not by weakness or limitation but by their capacity for rational achievement and the pursuit of happiness, and the word happiness shows humans should be something celebrated, rather than feared, therefore the conservative preoccupation with managing human imperfection misundersatnds what humans are.

Evidence to back Rand’s view on human imperfection?

Rand describes selfishness as a virtue in her publication, arguing that equating selfishness with evil has actively prevented the progress of mankind, therefore what conservatives see as a dangerous human flaw is actually the very quality that drives human achievement. Rand argues that ‘rationality is man’s basic virtue and the source of all his other virtues’ meaning reasoning is not just one dimension of human nature, but the most important and defining one and humans should use a process of logical thought to decide their goals and actions, therefore humans are fully capable of governing themselves through reason rather than needing tradition or authority to restrain their imperfect nature.

A consequence of Rand’s view on human imperfection?

Rand is calling for the liberation of individual rationality and self-interest from the constraints of tradition and collective norms. Rather than preserving inherited structures to manage human imperfection, society should embrace each individual’s capacity to pursue their own happiness in their own way, removing the traditional and institutional barriers that stifle human potential and achievement

What does Burke believe about individualism? (human nature)

Burke prioritises social liberty over the natural righrs of individuals.

Evidence to back Burke on individualism?

Burke believes that genuine liberty is social freedom, meaning ‘equality of restraint’ which can only be achieved through ‘wise laws’ and secured by well-constructued institutions, meaning real freedom isn’t the absence of constraint but the presence of the right kind of constraints. For example a world with no traffic laws might offer more individual freedom becuase you can drive however you want, but in reality without those restraints the road becomes more dangerous and chaotic, meaning nobody can freely travel. Therefore institutions and laws do not limit freedom bt are the very conditions that make it possible

A consequence on Burke view of individualism?

Therefore tradition and custom must serve as a guide to practice rather than individual will. Burke captures this in his famous statement that ‘society is but a living contract between the dead, the living and those yet to be born’ meaning society is not just a collection of currently existing individuals but a partnership across generations, so individuals have an obligation to those before them and also to those who come after them.

What does Hobbes say about individualism? (human nature)

Hobbes says that we are rational individuals who have natural rights and that we have the right to priortise ourselves and our own needs

Evidence to back Hobbes on individualism?

Hobbes believed that in the state on nature the individual is sovereign which as a result means the social contract cannot exist

A consequence of Hobbes view on individualism?

So instead a covenant is required in which each individual joins a covenant with eachother and then transfers power to a sovereign body.

What does Nozick say about individualism? (human nature)

Nozick’s starting point is the seperateness of persons, meaning each individual is a distinct being seeking their own good in their own chosen way, therefore individuals cannot be sacrificed or used as a means to achieve collective ends, because doing so violates the fundamental seperatness that defines what is means to be an individual human being.

Evidence to back Nozick’s view on individualism?

Individuals have natural rights which exist in the state of nature and that everyone should be free do as they wish as long as they don’t infringe on these rights.

A consequence of Nozick’s view on individualism?

This leads to Nozick’s conception of the minimal state, meaning a state whose role is purely the protections of our natural rights. If the state exceeds this power to pursure social good, it is inevitably violating individual rights by forcing some people to serve the ends of others

What does Oakeshott say about individualism? (human nature)

Oakeshott argues that the aim of the state is to enable individuals to pursure their chosen activities, meaning the state exists not to impose collective goals, but to create the conditions under which individuals can freely pursue whatever they have chosen for themselves, therefore the state is not a director of human activity but a facillitator of it.

Evidence to back Oakeshott on individualism?

Oakeshott describes this as a civil association meaning an organisations in which there are shared ideas about conduct which all adhere to, guiding the practiice of individuals rather than telling them exactly what to do, for example, freedom of speeech, the civil association doesn’t tell you what to say, it simply sets out the conditions under which freedom of speech can operate, meaning you can do as you wish as long as you don’t incite violence. Therefore civil associations provide a framework of rules that individuals operate within rather than a set of goals they are directed toward, meaning individual freedom is preserved within a structure of shared norms.

A consequence of Oakeshott view on individualism?

Oakeshott contrats this with what he calls the enterprise state, meaning a state that pursues specific collective goals, and directs its citizens toward achieving them, therefore for Oakeshott the legitmacy of the state rests entirely on its ability to enable rather than direct individual activity

What does Hobbes say about natural rights? (human nature)

Hobbes believes that each person has an absolute and unlimited right to do whatever is necssary to preserve themselves.

Evidence to back Hobbes view on natural rights?

In the state of nature, every individual has the natural right to ‘use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature’

However this issue with the view is that it creates a fundamental tension, becuase every individual possesses this same unlimited right simultaneously, so everyones right to self-preserve constantly clashes with everyone else’s, for example in the state of nature two people will both act in their on interets and will therefore fight for resources, meaning one person’s excercise of their natural right directly threatens anothers survivial, meaning a right that everyone holds without a limit effectively means no one’s rights are secure, therfore natural rights in the state of nature do not produce freedom byt conflict.

A consequence of Hobbes view on natural rights?

So instead a covenant is required in which each individual joins a covenant with eachother and then transfers power to a sovereign body.

What does Burke say about natural rights? (human nature)

Burke believes that rights cannot be abstract and that they must be rooted in social and historical context., or they won’t lead to genuine liberty.

Evidence to back Burke’s view on natural rights?

Liberty must not be ‘solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish liberty’, at this ignores human moral imperfection and removes the instiutuional mechanisms needed to enforce rights

A consequence of Burke’s view on natural rights?

Genuine liberty for Burke is ‘equality of restraint’ which can only be achieved through ‘wise laws and secured by well-constructed institutions’ meaning real freedom is not the absence of constraint, but the presence of the right kind of restraint that allows humans to live together harmoniusoly.

What does Rand think about natural rights? (human nature)

Rand grounds natural rights purely in human rationality, therefore rights exists not because of a covenant but because human beings are rational creatures whose nature requires freedom to think, judge and act according to their own reasoning.

Evidence to back Rand’s view on natural rights?

Rand believes rights are not about survival but about the conditions necessary for humans to live as rational, productive and heroic, meaning human beings are capable of extraordinary achievements through their own rational capacity, therefore any interference with individual rational judgement, whether by state, by tradition or by collective norms, is a violation of what human nature fundamentally requires

A consequence of Rand’s view on natural rights?

Led her to believe that inherited collective norms about how people should live, does not protect rights but suppress them by imposing external constraints on individual rational judgement, therefore genuine rights require liberation from tradition rather than its preservation

What does Burke say about social order and hierachy? (society)

Burke believes that that hierachy is not an imposition on society, but a natural feature of it that emerges organically from the different capacities and upbringing of its members

Evidence to back Burke’s view on social order and hierachy

Burke argued that elevated position through education, leadership qualities and opportunities that aristocrats possess, means that their upbringing uniquely equips them to serve as instrucutors and reconcillers withn society. Therefore their pre-eminence, is a genuine relection of genuine capacity for leadership and stewardship that benefits the whole of society. Burke even expands further arguing that without a natural aristocracy ‘there is no nation’ meaning hierachy is not just desireable but essential to the very existence of a functioning society. Poor people have no wisdom to resolve conflicts due to their lack of education

A consequence of Burke’s view on social order and hierachy

Burke is calling for the preservation of the natural aristocracy and the hierarchal social structure it produces. Change must be gradual and must work within the exisitng social order rather than disrupting it, because the hierachy that has emerged organically over centuries reflects genuine natural differences in capacity and embodies the accumulated wisdom needed to hold society together

What does Nozick think about social order and hierachy? (society)

Nozick believes that any soical order imposed on individuals from above through hierachy or collective authority violates their natural rights by treating them as means rather than ends in themselves.

Evidence to back Nozick’s view on social order and hierachy?

However he doesn’t reject organisation entirely, he acknowledges that humans are ‘freedom loving pack animals’ meaning whilst individuals prize liberty, they also naturally want to form communites with others, therefore social order is not inherently illegitimae but must emerge from voluntary association rather than imposition.

A consequence of Nozick’s view on social order and hierachy?

The state should protect the liberty of individuals to enter and exit communities as they choose, meaning the minimal state provides the framework within which voluntary social organisations can flourish without directly or imposing any particular form of social order on individuals, therefore legitmate social order for Nozick is always the product of individual choice rather than natural hierachy or collective authority.

What does Rand think about social order and hierachy? (society)

Rand believes that any hierachy or social order justified by appeals to the needs or interests of society as a whole is based on fiction, as society is not an organism that makes up people and their needs and wants, but rather just a number of individuals.

Evidence to back Rand’s view on social order and hierachy?

For example in a situation where a soldier is ordered to die for his country, he is expected to sacrifie his life for the collective good, yet the authority issuing that order is not held to the same moral standard, exisiting outside the moral law it imposes on individuals. This is what Rand is trying to shed light on.

A consequence of Rand’s view on social order and hierachy?

Led to Rand celebrating the American founding as the most revolutionary achievement in human history precisely because it subordinated society to moral law rather than just the individual to society, meaning for the first time man’s life was by his right rather than being subject to the demands of social hierachy. Therefore the only legitimate form of social organisation is one that protects individual rights rather than using hierachy and social order to subordinate individuals to collective purpose. This means Rand does not recognise the kind of organic natural hierachy Burke describes as legitimate at all, because any hierachy that palces some above others and uses that position to direct or constrain individual behaviour is simply another form of the subordination of the individual to collective ends that she rejects entirely

What does Burke say about origins of society? (society)

Society is a partnership across generations, so essentially it is received as an inheritance from those who came before you, so you are obliged to preserve it.

Evidence to back Burke’s view on origins of society?

Burke reinforces this by arguing that ‘ we must all obey the great law of change’ maning change is this change must be guided bu the natural and eternal principles embedded on tradition rather than by the artificial and untested ideas any particular society happens to devise.

A consequence of Burke’s view on origins of society?

Change is legitimate when it evolves naturally but is dangerous when it is artificially imposed.

What does Hobbes believe about origins of society? (society)

Society did not exists prior to the state of nature.

Evidence to back Hobbes view on origins of society?

Hobbes’ believed that genuine social life is impossible wihtout an external authority to impose order. In this natural condition life is ‘poor, solitary, nasty brutish and short’, meaning there is no accumulated wealth or comfort, no genuine social bonds and constant violence and threat

A consequence of Hobbes’ view on the origins of society?

Therefore society orignates from a rational calculation by self-interested individuals to surrender their natural freedom to a sovreign as the only way to escape the violence and insecurity of the state of nature.

What does Nozick think about origins of society? (society)

Sociability is a genuine human tendancy, as humans are naturally ‘freedom loving pack animals’ but one that must always be expressed through voluntary choice rather than imposition

Evidence to back Nozick’s view on origins of society?

So society originates from the natural human desire to form communities wth others who share similar values and can help individuals achieve their own objectives, therefore the origin of society is rooted in individual choice and self-interest rather than inherited bonds or rational fear. Communities are free to recruit members in what Nozick describes as a marketplace of communities, meaning diffrent communities can compete to attract different individuals. Therefore social order is a diverse and evolving landscape of voluntary associations that individuals can freely enter or exit as their values and interest change.

A consequence of Nozick’s view on origins of society?

The minimal state provides the framework within which this voluntay social organisation can flourish, meaning its role is not to direct or shape society but purely to protect the liberty of individuals to associate freely, therefore for Nozick society is always the product of individual choice rather than tradition

What does Burke think about liberty? (human nature)

Liberty is not simply the absence of constraint, because this conception of liberty ignores moral imperfection which is a natural tendacy towards vice.

Evidence to back Burke’s view on liberty?

Burke argues that the passions of individuals should be subjected, society requires that individual desires and impulses must be restrained and controlled rather than acted upon freely, because unconstrained human passions are naturally selfish and destructive and will undermine the social order that makes genuine freedom possible for everyone. Genuine liberty requires that human passions and desires be acitvely constrained rather than given free reign, therefore freedom isn’t about doing what you want but about living within moral and social order that channels human behaviour is ways that will allow socirty to function harmoniously.

A consequence of Burke’s view on liberty?

Liberty is only possible as part of the eternal and moral order which is the permanent and unchanging moral framework. The best way to achieve this is through tradition, is what Burke argued. This is what helps humans flourish, wisdom accumulated over years. Tradtion isn’t an enemy of liberty but infact it is its guardian

What does Rand believe about liberty? (human nature)

Rand argued that liberty is based on man’s individual rights, therefore it is about the absolute freedom of each individual to live their own life according to their own rational judgement without interference from others or society as a whole.

Evidence to back Rand’s view on liberty?

Rand argues strongly against the idea that society has an power to limit freedom, insisting rhat what forbids certain actions like killing, is not society’s rules but ‘the inalienable individual right of another man to right’ meaning the only legitimate constraints on individual liberty come from the equal rights of other individuals eatherthan from any collective social authority. Therefore society has no legitimate claim to restrict your liberty for collective social purpose, only to protect the equivalent individual rights of others

A consequence of Rand’s view on liberty?

Leads her to believe that the only political system that genuinely protects individual liberty is capalitalims, because it is the only system that organises society around individual rights and voluntary exchange rather than collective authority and state direction, therefore genuine liberty requires not just limited government but the complete subordination of collective claims to individual rights.

What does Oakeshott believe about liberty? (human nature)

Argues that liberty is actiing within a framework of establsihed laws which does not impose a collective purpose or common goal on individuals

Evidence to back Oakeshott’s view on liberty?

Oakeshott here is talking about the civil association whereby the law acts like a set of procedural rules, like the rules of a game. They tell you what you what you can’t do, but they dont tell you what to do with your life or what goal to pursue. The state stays neutral on what the ‘good life’ looks like. You are free to pursue your own purposes, whatever it may be. This idea directly contrasts to the enterprise association where the state organises people around a shared goal such as economic equality and etc, Everyone is conscripted in a sense, into serving that collective purpose. This is where Oakeshott sees the real threat to liberty.

A consequence of Oakeshott’s view on liberty?

This view leads to limited and restrained governments. The state’s role is to maintain procedures and enforce fair rules. It does not guide moral, economic or social ends.

What does Nozick think about the origins of the state? (state)

Nozick disagrees with the general idea that the state was formed via social contract, as this is just simply historically and theoretically implausible, as in reality no individual sat down and agreed to the contract.

Evidence to back Nozick’s view on origins of the state?

Nozick argues the state emerges naturally from individuals shopping for their own rights protections in a competitive market, meaning rational self-interested individuals seek out agencues, private organisations that can protect their rights against potential violators, therefore rights protection begins not as a collective poltical decision but as an individual market transaction. These competing suppliers of rights protections gradually join agreements to define the boundaries of their clients and to set up mechanisms to resolve disputes between them. This is refered to as the dominant protective association

A consequence of Nozick’s view on the origns of the state?

Therefore the state emerges not from a conscious collective decision but from the natural logic of market competition in rights protecton. Crucically, the minimal state has no sovreignty, no legislative body and no elections, simply a board of directors, shareholdsers and clients, meaning its more like a private company than a traditonal state, therefore its legitimacy rests entirely on its function of protecting individual righrs rather than on any democratic mandate or social contract

What does Burke think about origin of the state? (state)

Burke starts with the rejection of the abstract rationalist account of the state’s origns, which means the state was deliberately designed and created through a rational contract by individuals, because this misunderstands both human nature and the complexity of society, therefore the state cannot be understood as a human invention but something that has grown organically through centuries of accumulated experience and wisdom

Evidence to back Burke’s view on origin of the state?

Burke states that government is not made in virtue of natural rights but is a ‘contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants’ meaning the state did not originate from individuals asserting their natural rights and designing a political system to protect them, but from the practical necessity of managing complex and unpredictable realities of human life, therefore the state’s legitimacy comes not from abstract rights or ratiional contract but from its proven ability to meet genuine human needs over time

A conseqeunce of Burke’s view on origin of the state?

This leads to a stable, ordered society whereby the state are seen as trustworthy because they are refined over generations.

Citizens owe loyalty not because of a formal contract but because they are part of an integenerational paternership.

What does Oakeshott believe about origins of the state? (state)

It emerged from practical necessity, Because humans are intellectually limited and the world too complex to predict, no one could have engineered the state from abstract principles. Instead, it evolved organically as a pragmatic mechanism to maintain social cohesion and allow individuals to pursue their own lives without interference.

Evidence to back Oakeshott’s view on origins of the state?

Oakeshott scepticism of rationalism is the foundation here. Rationalists assume humans can reason their way to correct political solutions but Oakeshott rejects this- humans understanding is simply too limited and the word too complex for that to be reliable. Inherited wisdom and practical experience, accumulated over time through social life are therefore far more trustworthy than any logically constructed blueprint. The state exists because it works, not because someone sat down and designed it.

A conseqeunce of Oakeshott’s view on origins of the state?

If the state’s origins are pragmatic rather than ideological, then state state must stay pragmatic, it has no mandate to pursue grand social goals or enforce abstract ideals. Its only legitimte role is to maintain the conditions under which soical life can function, adapting to shifting realities without overstepping public acceptance, This leaves out large-scale social engineering, makining Oakeshott’s state inherently conservative and modest in its ambitions

What does Burke believe about democracy and representation? (society)

Burke rejects the delegate model of representation, and argues that representatives must act as trustees who use independent judgement rather than obeying shifting public opinion.

Evidence to back Burke’s view on democracy and representation?

Burke thoguht that ths independent judgement was best secured through property: property owners were economically stable and so had a stake in society, therefore they would make sound political judgements which are tied to long-term national interests

A consequence of Burke’s view on democracy and representation?

This produces a politics that is cautious, sceptial of radical reform, and resistant to sudden democratic impulses

What does Nozick think about democracy and representation? (society)

The state does not derive its legitmacy from democratic consent but from its function as a rights protector, therefore democracy is not intrinsically valubale but best a useful mechanism for organising that protection

Evidence of Nozick’s view on democracy and represenatation?

Nozick’s minimal state has no sovereignty, no legislative body and no elections, simply a board of directiors, shareholdsers and clients meaning it operates more like a private company than a democratic institution, therefore democratic participation is not a necessary feature of a legitimate political authority. He also believed rights were inalienable, so the will of the majority is not a legitimate basis for overriding individual rights.

A consequence of Nozick’s view on democracy and representation?

There is a danger of unlimited democracy, and it is majorities using democratic powers to violate individual rights in pursuit of collective social goals, therefore democracy without the constraint of individual rights becomes majority tyranny rather than genuine legitimate governance.

What does Oakeshott think about democracy and representation? (society)

Oakeshott’s concern with democracy is about the tempation democracy gives governments to pursure ambitious projects of social transformation based on abstract ideological principles, which means fundamenatally changing how society is organised and how people live, using ideas derived from reason and not tradition.

Evidence to back Oakeshott’s view on democracy and representation?

Governing is a ‘specific and limited activity’ meaning democratic mandates can be dangerously misued when governments interpret them as permission to pursure the politics of fiath, meaning getting involved in projects of social trannsformation they have little understanding or control of. Oakeshott criticises the Atlee on nationilising the NHS, as his government only had a limited understand as to what they were doing. The democratic mandate they received did not give them the wisdom needed to successfully direct such complex social transformations.

A consequence of Oakeshott’s view on democracy and representation?

Governments should be umpires rather than palyers, because the office of governments is merely to rule, and maintain social harmony rather than pursure ideological programmes however large their democratic mandate. The state must be pragmatic, doing what is necessary to keep the ship of the state afloat rather than sterring it toward any particular destination.

How does Hobbes view the purpose of the state and give evidence backing his view? (state)

• Hobbes views the purpose of the Leviathan as something needed to preserve peace for all people as in the state of natute, people are forced into a position of war vs all

• Through provisions of law by a single sovreign power, you can avoid the state of nature, hence contracts can be maintained between people so peace and order is kept

A consequence of Hobbes’ view on the purpose of the state?

Strong justification for authotarian rule. His theory can be used to defend authoritarain or absolute regimes, as stability is valued above liberty or participation

How does Oakeshott view the purpose of the state, give evidence as well (state)

-He argued that the state’s role is not to direct us towards the attainment of some utopia with social progress but that it is merely ‘to keep the ship afloat ‘

- so the state should act in a pragmatic way doing what is need to maintain society rather than sticking to dogmatic principles as what to the state should achieve and so social cohesion is maintained.

As a result of this who did Oakeshott criticise?

He criticised politicians for sticking to the politics of faith and getting involved in projects in which they had little understanding or control eg. the actions of Atlee’s post war labour government (Nationalisation, NHS etc) and so he thought that the state should just act as referee

How did Rand view the purpose of the state, and give evidence?

-Rand argues that ‘the only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights’ as individuals are the possessors of individual rights

- and that by overstepping this role eg. Regulating the economy they would be violating individual freedom.

What does Burke think about private property, and give evidence? (economy)

• Burke argues that the power of holding property in our families is one of the most valuable rights in society because it links people across generations and encourages a long-term sense of stewardship for maintaining what they have inherited, rather than impulsive political behaviour.

• The stability nourishes the network of local institutions e.g churhces that shape citizens’ characters via the little platoons

A consequence of Burke’s view on private property?

A stable social order whereby people are vested in the future.

What does Nozick’s think about private property? (economy)

Property arises through justly acquiring it and voluntary exchange, and redistributuon without consent violates self-ownership

Evidence backing Nozick’s view on private property?

For Nozick if you have legally acquired private property you have the right to decide what to do with it and other people’s intereference is immoral.

Nozick argues that each individual owns property in of themselves, so if anyone takes away the fruits of someone elses labour that is wrong

A consequence of Nozick on private property?

Since legitimate ownership grants absolute rights over property, the state has no justifiation to redistribute it- even for socially beneficial ends like reducing poverty or funding public services.

What does Rand think about private property? (economy)

Private property is essential for freedom and human flourshing

Evidence to back Rand’s view on private property?

In her publication, she argues that to live and act rationally, a person must produce value, and therefore must have the right to gain, use and dispose of what they create.

She says that ‘without property rights, no other rights are possible’ meaning that freedom of speech, movement or association cannot exist if one lacks control over the physical spaces and tools to excercise them

A consequence of Rand’s view on private property?

Since property must be protected from collective interference, the welfare state is not merely inefficient but morally illegitimate.

How does Burke view tax and redistribution? (state)

He rejected extensive state-led redistribution because he believed society is an organic hierach in which inequalities naturally reflect different roles

Evidence to back Burke’s view on tax and redistribution?

For Burke, the state attempting to impose equality would be dangerously rationalistic and destabilising.

A consequence of Burke’s view on tax and redistribution?

He supported a paternalistic approach rooted in noblesse oblige to provide commerical liberties- the belief that those with wealth and social status have a moral duty to care for the less fortunate.

What does Nozick believe about tax and redistribution? (economy)

He argued that redistribution is morally illegitimate. Central to his libertarian philosophy is the doctrine of self-ownership: individuals own their own bodies, labour and the proeprty they acquire

Evidence to back Nozick’s view on tax and redistribution?

From this Nozick develops his entitlement theory, which argues that any redistribution of gods is just it it arises from free transfers and just initial acquisition.

A consequence of Nozick’s view on tax and redistibution?

Any redistributive measure must be rejected as an illegitimate seizure of legitmately acquired property.