Private government, USSR, American Dream and questions about Locke

 Private government 


Anderson in her lecture on private government states that when one works under a private government they do not have any republican freedom, which is understood as freedom from anyone’s arbitrary will. And in a society where one has to work to make a living there is no possibility of not being under republican freedom with the way firms are set up right now. For that to happen, in Anderson’s view, the firms must change and become more of public governments. 


Anderson at one point makes a comparison between this system to the former Soviet Union. One can emigrate from one place to another, however, that change is only possible within the USSR. Therefore, even if someone thinks that they gained more freedom or they have fully gotten it back, they are wrong as there is still the same kind of dominance exercised by the USSR. 


However, under the USSR some people managed to emigrate beyond the soviet state. With people emigrating to the USA to fulfil their American Dream or to Great Britain or any other country beyond the Iron Curtain. They have escaped the dominance of the USSR and found themselves in the paradise of the West, where freedom was glorified. This gain of freedom was possible even with the USSR still existing. But is such immigration possible with our present system? 


I think that Anderson would say no because for that we have to change all of the firms and make them more of public governments. I obviously want to say yes because not all firms are private governments and even if they are in Anderson’s eyes, they might not be in reality. 


Article on Locke


The question that I want to pose is not so much about Anderson’s interpretation of Locke but more of an inquiry about if we should use Locke as a basis for our understanding of the world. Much of Locke is based on the idea of God. He uses God to justify why labour is the foundation of all other property rights or to give an explanation why the earth was created and what we are supposed to be doing on it. 


Philosophy is a discipline which is based on premises which have to be true to form an argument. As far as I know, philosophers have not definitely agreed on the existence of God. Therefore, I am wondering to what extent should we use Locke whose arguments are derived from the teachings of a higher being, of which we do not even fully know that it exists?


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does the social reality imply a natural reality?

I’m very interested in understanding where the boundary between what we might consider the (or a) ‘natural’ reality and our ‘social’ reality occurs. Professor Toole offers a compelling account of how the ideology of the ruling class shapes the body of knowledge and the conceptual tools available to understand social reality. Professor Toole’s account seems to imply the impossibility of social structures as being ‘natural.’ That is, the term natural social structure or formation would be an oxymoron. She writes, “social structures are…constituted by our choices and actions,” (4) which seems to indicate that social structures are the result of human choices and actions, and so they cannot exist in the absence of them. This also seems to suggest a division between our ‘social’ reality exclusively defined by and dependent on human action and choice and a ‘natural’ reality of things not affected by humans, say the ocean and uranium. I am interested in the boundary and relationship between t...
Read more

Is cancel culture democratic (with a small "d" even though it is also Democratic with a big "D")?

Regarding Kara's Post: I want to try and tease out how Kara's blog post fits the college into Anderson's image of a private government. It seems like Kara's suggesting that the college itself is the private government. The professors are the governors and the students are the governed. The college constitutes a government because a government "exists wherever some have the authority to issue orders to others, backed by sanctions" (Anderson 42). Professors can issue orders by assigning tasks students must perform, and professors can sanction students who fail to complete these tasks or fail to do them successfully by giving them poor or failing grades in courses. The college is a private government because the "governed are kept out of decision-making" (45). The students do not, for the most part, come up with their own assignments or come up with grading rubrics for those assignments.  I agree with Kara, based on the image of the college as a private...
Read more

Better Model?

     On page 54, Beitz says that human rights are like natural rights in that they are "critical standards" not determined by legal rules, but unlike natural rights in that they do not presuppose one view about their justification. He seems to be basing this off of Maritain's conclusion that human rights are a common ground for action despite different reasons for justification for different people. He uses this to say that human rights are not "out there" as natural rights are and continues the argument on 57. He argues that there seems to be no good reason for why we should  conceive of human rights as natural ones.      Beitz points to natural rights theorists like Locke, conceived of natural rights " formulate constraints on the use of a government’s coercive power in circumstances of religious and moral diversity" (57). While I suspect that Locke would argue that he had other reasons for posing these as natural rigthts and this was a just a desira...
Read more