history of modern political philosophy (draft)

review/the-history-of-modern-political-philosophy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+# The History of Modern Political Philosophy
+
+The Modern in Modern Political Philosophy is not in the colloquial sense – meaning the opposite of ancient. Instead, it is a specific period of time and cultural norms that followed the renaissance. The time following the modern period is known as either postmodernity or contemporary. 
+
+The Modern era of political philosophy lasted from roughly the 17th to 20th century. The ranks of Philosophers from this time include some as early as Machiavelli (born 1469) and as late as Engels (born 1820). A wide range, for sure.
+
+Even wider than the range of time is its range of topics. Reading the political philosophers of this age, you’ll encounter ideas ranging from the ideal way for a prince to commit atrocities to consolidate power to arguments for feminism and communism.
+
+My purpose here is to briefly describe some of the big topics and show how they surface in the thoughts of a few modern political philosophers.
+
+## State of Nature
+
+Many of the big ideas of political philosophy are rooted in or explained by a “State of Nature” hypothesis. Our imperfect state of society naturally leads us to wonder: what came before? Was it better or worse? Importantly, could that pre-society period contain any insights we could learn from or warnings we should heed? Canonical political philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and even Marx used State of Nature hypotheses to explain and justify their ideas.
+
+### Hobbes
+
+Hobbes famously speculated life in a State of Nature was, “nasty, brutish, and short.” This view was possibly due to the English civil wars and the execution of King Charles I, where he glimpsed what anarchical society can devolve to. He feared our natural state was one of constant war between every man, leading him to propose a surprisingly liberal system led by a complete dictator he calls, “the sovereign.”
+
+Since anarchy was the worst outcome for Hobbes, he decided it would be best to give his sovereign complete control. The people still had to agree to anoint the sovereign with power but once this was done, the sovereign retained complete control in perpetuity. There can be no disagreeing with sovereign, no voting them out, and no resisting their orders.
+
+However, there was one and only one exception. Hobbes says you can resist if the sovereign attempts to take your life. Why? Because the sovereign’s job is to protect you. Taking your life means the sovereign is not fulfilling their end of the bargain, so you may resist.
+
+Since Hobbes saw the State of Nature entirely as a State of War, he sought to completely avoid regressing to it. This led him to the extreme position of granting total power to his sovereign. Let’s continue to a few other modern political philosophers to see how their view of nature influenced their philosophy.
+
+### Locke
+
+Not much later, but after a long enough period for society to stabilize a bit, came John Locke. Where Hobbes equated the State of Nature with a State of War, Locke saw two distinct states for humans to exist in. During those ideal periods, the State of Nature was one where humans worked well together and with nature. They existed cooperatively and did not use more resources than they needed. Except when they did use more than necessary, or when they began to work against each other – then, they entered a State of War. Locke claimed this state was rare and could swiftly end by the administration of justice. After all, in the state of nature, we have the right to defend ourselves. 
+
+However, it is exactly this justice that led Locke to believe we need an authority over us. You see, Locke thinks we are pretty terrible judges when it comes to our own cases. While we are capable of ending the State of War, we tend to end it far too decisively, punishing harsher than necessary. So, we need an authority over us that can help us decide these cases fairly – keeping us out of the State of War.
+
+And over what exactly do these disputes occur? Private property, according to Locke. He believed the state’s primary mission was to maintain private property and resolve disputes. According to Locke, this covered the most important parts of our lives because he believed private property encompassed much of what we care about. First, our bodies are the main private property we own. However, when we use our body’s labor and mix it with something else, say, nature, then we can create more private property. For example, when we use our labor to pick an apple, we have mixed our body (which is our private property) with the apple, transforming it into our property.
+
+Since private property encompasses both our body and the things we own, Locke believed the government should focus on maintaining our individual private property rights. This government did not enjoy the unlimited power of Hobbes’ sovereign – even though both must be created by the will of the people. Instead, this government enjoys only the right of (and only so long as it continues) protecting private property.
+
+While Hobbes saw the State of Nature as a horrible place, Locke saw it as both good and bad. So, instead of giving up total power to avoid ever reentering a nature-like position, he gives up only what is necessary to avoid the difficult parts of the State of Nature – disputes over private property.
+
+### Rousseau
+
+Hobbes and Locke wanted to improve the State of Nature by improving the State of Society based on Nature’s faults. Now, along comes Rousseau who seeks the opposite: to improve the State of Society by learning from the State of Nature. While the other philosophers saw the State of Nature as either a totally or partially problematic time, Rousseau saw it as the ideal. 
+
+In Rousseau’s nature, humans have pity for each other. This pity leads them to follow the Axiom of Nature which instructs each person to do what is best for them, while also doing as little harm as possible to others. Since these humans are simple, they are not specialized in any particular field, and instead know only what (and everything that) is necessary for survival. This means they do not depend on each other. 
+
+Since these humans only depend on nature and themselves, the only possible inequality is that which occurs naturally – the inequality of nature and chance. But when we enter a State of Society, Rousseau says we create a new type: social inequality. Social inequality only occurs between humans in society and is made of social status, reputation, and other unnatural notions.
+
+But remember, Rousseau is solving a problem of Society with a solution from Nature. He says we need to re-acquire our pity. He believes it is not our rationality that saves us (on the contrary, it is what hurts us) but our passions, particularly our compassion. This leads him to propose a government where the people think not of themselves but of the group as a whole. This government is run by the people who search for the general will – that which is good for the group, even if it may not be for the individual. The general will is then translated and enforced by an impartial government who seeks to apply the general will to the individual case.
+
+Hobbes and Locke believed the State of Nature was problematic, so we needed a society that could protect us from its problems. But, as you can see, Rousseau believed the State of Nature was better, so we need to change society to reacquire the parts we lost while leaving nature. He believed we need to reacquire our compassion.
+
+### Purposes
+
+The State of Nature hypothesis serves as a problem statement for each philosopher. What problem is their system solving? For Hobbes, it’s solving for the anarchy that ensues when a government loses control. For Locke, the disputes over ownership that naturally occur between people. Then it swaps for Rousseau, who begins solving not for a problem in the state of nature but in society: the lack of pity and related inequality. Similarly for Marx, who solves for the loss of the State of Nature’s simple communism by progressing society toward an advanced communism. 
+
+Each philosopher solves a problem in either the state of nature or the state of society by looking to the other for inspiration; either for what to strive toward or what to avoid.