political philosophers

[W in 2004]

I just got John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government.  I became interested in John Locke when I had to read excerpts of his writings for my political science class.  I have found his writings to be fascinating.  I usually agree with Locke.  I especially like The Second Treatise on Civil Government.  Has anyone else read Locke’s writings?  What do you think of them? 
Who are some of everyone else’s favorite political philosophers?  Another one of my favorites is Adam Smith, who wrote Wealth of Nations.

[W in 2004]

I have found myself liking Woodrow Wilson!  I have agreed with some of quotes of him that I have read.  I previously disliked him because I thought he wanted one world government, but from reading about the League of Nations, it seems as if the league would not have included all of the countries in the world and would have been very weak.  I do not know if Wilson would have wanted a powerful world government or not.  Unlike some modern liberals, Wilson believed in the power of democracy.  He believed that democracy should be spread around the world because democratic nations are less likely to fight each other.  I want to read more about Woodrow Wilson. 

Here is a speech that Woodrow Wilson gave on the subject of immigration.  He certainly does not sound like a modern Democrat.

Speaker: Woodrow Wilson
Title: “Americanism and the Foreign-Born”
Date: May 10, 1915
Occasion: Wilson delivered this speech to a group of naturalized Americans in Philadelphia.

You have just taken an oath of allegiance to the United States.  Of allegiance to whom?  Of allegiance to no one, unless it be God.  Certainly not of allegiance to those who temporarily represent this great Government.  You have taken an oath of allegiance to a great ideal, to a great body of principles, to a great hope of the human race.  You have said, “We are going to America,” not only to earn a living, not only to seek the things which it was more difficult to obtain where you were born, but to help forward the great enterprises of the human spirit – to let man know that everywhere in the world there are men who will cross strange oceans and go where a speech is spoken which is alien to them, knowing that, whatever the speech, there is but one longing and utterance of the human heart, and that is for liberty and justice. 
And while you bring all countries with you, you come with a purpose of leaving all other countries behind you – bringing what is best of their spirit, but not looking over your shoulders and seeking to perpetuate what you intended to leave in them.  I certainly would not be one even to suggest that a man ceases to love the home of his birth and the nation of his origin – these things are very sacred and ought not to be put out of our hearts – but it is one thing to love the place where you were born and it is another thing to dedicate yourself to the place to which you go.  You cannot dedicate yourself to America unless you become in every respect and with every purpose of your will thorough Americans.  You cannot become thorough Americans if you think of yourselves in groups.  America does not consist of groups.  A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America, has not yet become an American, and the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son to live under the Stars and Stripes.

[W in 2004]

Do any of you know of a good biography of Woodrow Wilson?

[W in 2004]

Do any of you know of a good biography of Woodrow Wilson?

Not sure about biographies.  His "The Study of Administration" was good; revolutionary for its time.

I'm partial to Machiavelli as a political philosopher myself.

I disagree with Machiavelli’s view of human nature.  I do not think all people are as evil and selfish as he portrays them to be.  Machiavelli believed that leaders should lie and be ruthless, selfish monsters.  He believed that because people are fickle, it is better to be feared than loved.  He thought that he had come up with the formula for rulers to attain and maintain power, but look at some of our presidents.  George Washington and Abraham Lincoln certainly did not put their personal political interests above what they believed was right and noble, and they are two of our most revered leaders.

[W in 2004]

Some political philosophers that I dislike are Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Karl Marx.

[W in 2004]

Locke could have been much better if he hadn't been too afraid to take his ideas to their logical conclusion.

And what's that?

That a monopoly on the use of force is an infrigment on property rights, and thus a state is immoral.

Well, the state does not have a monopoly on the use of force.

Yes it does.

If someone breaks into my house and I kill them, the government was not the only thing with force.

The state is just an organized way for the people to use force.

But the state could take that right away from you, if it'd be willing to.

The state would be forsaking one of its main purposes for existing, the protection of private property.  Then, according to Locke, we would have the right to overthrow that government.     

[W in 2004]

Hobbes, because the man is so dead on. To think that people are naturally good is silly and childish. That's why I detest Locke and most of the other enlightenment writers. I believe in free-market and democratic ideals, but do not wear rose-tinted glasses when looking at humanity.

Hobbes portrayed people in the state of nature as being evil, violent, and bloodthirsty.  This view differs from that of Rousseau, who believed that people are good, but societies are bad.  According to my understanding, both followers of Hobbes and Rousseau would call for a strong government that would restrict freedom.  The followers of Hobbes would say that the purpose of government is to bring people out of the state of nature and impose upon them the civilizing effects society.  The followers of Rousseau would claim that the purpose of government is to correct the wrongs caused by society against individuals.  The way that both of these men look at human nature and chart a course of governmental action based on that view is fundamentally flawed.  How can a government like the followers of Hobbes might call for be so much more virtuous than the best of its people?  If, as you claim, all people are really so evil, how can you expect a totalitarian government to turn us into little angels?  Whether people are good or evil or both, freedom is definitely should be left in the hands of the people.  I would rather trust in the ability of those who must live their lives and pay the consequences for how their lives are lived to run their lives than a tyrannical, power hungry government.  In my view the problem with both of these philosophers is that they believe that individuals cannot be trusted with the freedom to run their own lives.  For one the reason is the evil of human nature, and for the other the reason is the goodness of human nature.  I MAY NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT I MEAN BY FREEDOM.  I DO NOT MEAN LAWLESSNESS.  I WILL QUOTE FROM LOCKE’S SECOND TREATISE ON CIVIL GOVERNMENT TO EXPLAIN.

“… however it may be mistaken, the end of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom: For in all the states of created beings capable of Laws, where there is no Law, there is no Freedom.  For Liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others which cannot be, where there is no Law: But Freedom is not, as we are told, A Liberty for every Man to do what he lists: (For who could be free, when every other Man’s Humour might domineer over him?) But a liberty to dispose, and order, as he lists, his Person, Actions, Possessions, and his whole Property, within the Allowance of those Laws under which he is; and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary Will of another, but freely follow his own.”

 I would ask you to look at countries with more freedom and compare them to countries with less freedom.  In which countries would you rather live?  U.S. history has defied people like Hobbes, Rousseau, and Marx and justified John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson.