John Stuart Mill (1806-73)

Libertarianism (also known as "laissez-faire" liberalism or classical liberalism): According to J. S. Mill, it is important to distinguish between the public areas of our lives that involve others or the common good and those private areas of our lives that are not the legitimate concern of others.  Even if the majority of a society believe that certain private actions should or should not be done, that does not mean that the will of the individual should be ignored in favor of the general (public) will.  Contrary to what Rousseau claims, I do not become more fully human by merging my private will with the general will except in regard to those areas of my life that are properly public.

In the past, liberty meant protection against the tyranny of political rulers by means either of appeal to rights or constitutional checks. Today, the greatest threat to freedom does not come from rulers and other individuals but from a "tyranny of the majority," where the majority of a people try to impose their will on the minority.  The way to counteract this threat is to insist that government has a right to limit individual liberties only when harm to others is involved.  Such insistence should be seen as a guideline that restricts social tyranny and protects individuals from the whims of the majority.

Mill refers to this guideline as the "principle of liberty."  According to the principle, individuals can justifiably be coerced in society only to protect the health and welfare of others who will be harmed by an action.  No one can be justly coerced to improve himself or protect himself (though we may try to persuade him or her).  Law is appropriate where harm to others is concerned; social pressure is appropriate where people are offended but not hurt by an action; and persuasion is appropriate where we would like a person to develop his or her own sense of right and wrong (conscience).  But against the view that says that the government should make us better and perhaps even happier people (i.e., state paternalism), Mill insists that the state has no right to make people choose what is best for them.  Liberty of thought and freedom of expression require that the society respect the rights of the individual not to be harassed by do-gooders intent on improving their personal lives.

In other words, if someone is inconsiderate (annoying) without being harmful, we are justified in trying to change his or her opinion, but we cannot use the law to modify such behavior.  If no one is either offended or harmed by the action--i.e., where it is simply a matter of taste--no interference is justified.  Of course, each person who benefits from being in a society has an obligation to defend the society from injury, and state intervention is justified to improve general living conditions in a society (e.g., protection of the environment, support of the arts), but it cannot force individuals to take advantage of those improvements.

Objections:

• Mill's principle is too vague to be useful.  It gives no clear indication about where one draws the line between harm, offense, and private beliefs about decency and good manners.  In particular, it fails to distinguish clearly between what is private and what is public.  This might be due to the fact that everything we do affects others in some way or other.

• People do not always act in rationally self-interested ways; they sometimes act irrationally, relying on customs, tastes, superstitions, and ignorance.  Government needs to intervene in people's lives (despite what they may want) to educate them and to control the economy and flow of information so that citizens are protected from their own short-sightedness (e.g., in exploiting natural resources).  Only an educated public can develop wise policies that aim at the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Summary: The Political Spectrum

Because people often use terms (e.g., "liberal," "conservative") without knowing  what those terms mean, it is important to understand the concepts underlying different political philosophies.  By spelling out the characteristics of these concepts, we are able to situate the thinkers we have studied.

Regarding personal matters (e.g., sexual activity or drug use): the classical liberal says that people should be allowed to do what they want because they can generally be trusted to do the right thing.  The conservative assumes that people cannot be trusted to act properly and must be told what to do.

Regarding economic or governmental matters: the authoritarian says that decisions about what is best for everyone must be made by the government.  By contrast, the civil libertarian says that individuals should be allowed to pursue their own interests without interference: the least government is the best government.

Plato is a conservative-authoritarian because he does not trust most people to make informed, impartial decisions; such decisions should be made by the rulers.  Hobbes is a liberal-authoritarian: people in the state of nature make a rational decision to place all decision-making power in the hands of the sovereign.  Locke is a liberal-libertarian: people can be trusted to choose the kind of government that best protects their property, and if those in government fail to uphold their end of the social contract, the people have a right to replace them.  In regard to the natural state of human beings, Rousseau is a liberal-libertarian, but he is a conservative-libertarian in regard to people once they are under the influence of society.

For Rousseau, individuals become fully human insofar as they unite their particular wills to the general will.  By contrast, Mill highlights the difference between the public and the private.  Though he agrees with Rousseau's libertarianism, Mill is more liberal regarding private, personal matters, and conservative regarding public matters.

(It should be noted that in the 20th Century, both liberals and conservatives have increasingly collapsed what was previously considered private into the domain of the public.)
 

Social Philosophy: kinds of questions raised:

• What is justice?
• What role should government play in distributing goods and services in society?

1. Fascism: the state alone is responsible for the distribution of goods and services, and it alone determines the legitimacy of citizens' claims; the State, not the individual, is real

• Edmund Burke (1729-97): the social union of people is not based on a contract (which could easily be rejected at any time).  Rather, the loyalty, honor, reverence and love of nation is based on how each person has meaning or purpose as part of the whole.  Sacrifice for the good of the state is not for personal advantage but for that in terms of which the self is intelligible

• Benito Mussolini (1883-1945): totalitarianism: the State (government) is the conscience and will of mankind in history.  The people as a totality is expressed in the State: nothing human or spiritual exists or has value apart from the State.  The nation is created by the State, which gives the people its moral unity and effective will

3. Communism: Karl Marx (1818-85)

Historical materialism: history is the story of the conflict of the material conditions of existence.  Socio-economic structures of power determine the nature of individuals.  Individuals are not (as liberal social contract theorists claim) "naturally" one way or the other, for the very notion of individuality is itself a creation of a capitalist mentality.  However, human beings are naturally creative, productive, and social beings.  Indeed, they fulfill themselves in their creations, so that what they make is an expression of what they are.  In an unjust socio-economic system, the products of our labor are not our own: we have to sell those products to survive (forced labor).  So what is natural for us (i.e., work, labor) becomes unnatural, and our essence--our love for producing (labor)--is alienated; only in leisure do we feel "at home."

• Theory of human nature: human beings are productive creatures who find fulfillment in the free exercise of their natural powers.  Capitalism thwarts that exercise, causing alienation from the product of their labor, from labor itself (that is, people begin to resent working), from their human nature as workers, and from one another (because we see others as competitors for jobs).  The result is misery in not being able to do what fulfills us

• Social organization: the foundation (material, economic base) of human activity includes raw materials (means of production), technology and knowledge (forces of production), and social relationships of production (division of labor).  When one class of people controls the means, forces, and relationships of production, they control the structures of thought, law, religion, art, and the state.  Even government (the state) is an element in the superstructure used by the ruling class (bourgeoisie) to maintain its domination over the rest of society (proletariat).  In a just society production would be socially owned and democratically controlled.

By manipulating the foundations of social production, those in power create false needs or products that fail to satisfy real needs (e.g., through planned obsolescence) to guarantee profits for the privileged.  A just society would identify and fulfill only real needs (e.g., food, clothing, medical care, love, education)
 

• Social change, historical development, revolution: as technology develops, shifts occur in the material base (including how individuals are defined as "specialists").  Out of such shifts emerges a new class of workers who resent their characterization simply as workers by capitalists.  Their demands and new-found power result in the society taking control of the means of production in such a way that no one any longer owns the raw materials needed for survival.  So there is no longer any need of the state to protect them from exploitation by the ruling class.  When the State truly represents the whole of society, it is no longer needed to protect the property of the privileged.  True self-consciousness (or individuality) comes only when the needs of the individual are seen as identical with the needs of society

• What if people are not as naturally social and naturally inclined to work as Marx assumes?  Marx's reply: we view people through the eyes of an already alienated perspective.

• What if working and creating are not that important for being naturally human?  Why not think that playing, thinking, or doing whatever is central?  Marx's reply: all of these are functions of making, and all should be available.

• Why should the working class epitomize the goal of humanity?  Marx's reply: the working class exemplifies the social being of humanity; capitalist individuality does not.

• Why should the interests of the individual be the same as those of the community?  Marx's reply: even asking the question raises a dichotomy unimagined in a communal mentality.

• Why resist democracy until after the revolution?  Marx's answer: before the revolution people buy into the false consciousness of alienated individuality.  Until people stop thinking of themselves, there will have to be a dictatorship of the proletariat.  When the communal mentality becomes commonplace, this dictatorship will simply dissolve.