一本好的导论是为了让读者产生更多的问题

For a book written by an Englishman some 15 years ago, it seems incredible fair exceptionally pertaining to its discussion on democracy and human rights.

As an introductory material, the book raises more questions than it answers. Some notes I took when certain parts piqued my interests.

Chapter 1 - What Do We Need Political Philosophy?

What do we study political philosophy? Only answer is to examine our belief system and the values that we come to accept as universal truths in Western society: are the values of economic growth, employment, higher income, etc intrinsically good? Or are they only beneficial to society under certain conditions.

It is easy to get swept away by the political topics of the moment and lose sight of basic issues that underline politics, dating back centuries and millenniums.

One the debate about the value of democracy - even Rousseau thought it was only suitable for gods and not for men.

Chapter 2 - Political Authority

Political authority is a combination of authority proper with forced compliance.

A much quoted passage from The Leviathan regarding anarchy “In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

The “natural condition” is horrible. Hobbes argue that there need to be a condition under which people to cooperate, and that is trust, which can only be maintained through government enforcement. His real point is that the climate of fear in the absence of a higher authority will obliterate the better sides of our nature. So, the purpose of political authority is to give us the confidence to trust others to that people may cooperate and create things together.

The fairness argument states that complying with the law allows the opportunities to be available to you when you need it.

Civil disobedience stems - illegal but non-violent actions - to protest government policies demonstrates that government can survive not on universal compliance but on general compliance.

Chapter 3 - Democracy

The debate on the best form of government shifted from monarchy to aristocracy to constitutional democracy.

Democracy is based on two assumptions: each person enjoys equal political rights, and the interests of the people can best be safeguarded by making them the final repository of political authority.

First element: competency. Is the modern democracy “elective aristocracy”? In making political judgement, is the “elective aristocracy” really more informed and expert than the general public on certain matters?

Second element: preferences. In using democracy to determine political actions, how do we weight between the number of preferences and the strength of the preferences - a lukewarm majority versus a passionate minority.

Third element: political decision. Are the elected representatives “moral experts” to ensure the fairness of all legislation.

“Our word ‘idiot’ comes from the Greek idiotes which was the term used to describe someone who lived an entirely private existence and took no part in the public life of the city”

Two problems about majority rules: discounting the strengths of preference, and failing the constant minority. The intense minority and the persistent minority. Two solutions: constitutional courts and designating separate constituencies.

Chapter 4 - Freedom and the limits of government

Freedom has two elements: internal and external. Whether there are a number of doors open and whether one has the ability to freely choose which door to pass through.

Loss of freedom can occur through compulsion of which the individual concerns would rather not have. It can also occur when one is not able to examine his or her own belief and consciously reject the second-hand answers.

Is self-regarding behaviour - as John Stuart Mill puts it - that at most offend people but does not harm justified to be permitted?

Three things to consider about freedom: the matter of personal idiosyncrasy, how avoidable is the offence by which degree of action, the positive value versus the distress caused through the offence.

The society has evolved considerably since the time when John Stuart Mill wrote On Liberty. Individual actions now have greater social implications. Hence, many self-regarding behaviours now cary social elements, and consequently can no longer be considered “self-regarding”.

Chapter 5 - Justice

Justice is as much about the proper outcome as about the proper procedure.

One principle of justice is equality - to distribute justice equally among all unless one party has greater need. But how to we separate genuine needs from other demands?

Whether someone deserves rewards or punishments depend on responsibility. For rewards, it also depends on intention.

Apart from need and desert, the expectation on how to be treated impacts justice too.

Friedrich Hayek’s view on justice being individual action that cannot violate a general rule a society has put in place to allow its members to cooperate with one another.

Protecting social justice and promoting market economy are not mutually exclusive. Marxists and and anarchists believe justice to be only about equality and need.

Theory of Justice by John Rawls: giving most extensive set of liberties, social positions of greater advantages available to everyone with an equality of opportunity, inequalities justified when it can benefit the least advantaged members of society. To qualify the third principle: guaranteed social minimum with relation to current societal standards, inequalities of income proportionate to relative contributions.

Chapter 6 - Feminism and multiculturalism

Today, politics has less to do with government institutions and more to do with personal relations. Hence this discussion.

How has society failed to deliver freedom and equality - the pillars of modern western societies - to women and minorities?

Two arguments from feminists: women are less free in private sphere, and “self-regarding” behaviours can damage women’s interests. For the former, it appears that women are still large bound by social norms to perform a greater share of domestic chores, and to conform to prevailing social expectations about their career choices.

Complicating the matter is the debate about whether men and women are of different nature that explains the wide-range of differences. This will determine whether women are limited by external social norms or that they voluntarily made certain decisions. And since we can’t possibly know the answer, we should ensure the freedom of choice for women in order to be safe about their liberties.

Since in modern society, elected representatives have a large degree of freedom, they can’t adequately represent women’s interests. Hence, a balance of gender for elected representatives is necessary to ensure their interests.

Two way women and minorities challenge the status quo: domestic justice and positive discrimination. How to ensure a fair distribution of household work between men and women, taking into consideration the social norms about women’s primary domestic role. On affirmative action: the value seems to be unearthing genuine merits - not to directly increase the general standing of one group in relations to others. Essentially, it is about showing what minority members are capable of once they are given an initial boost.

Chapter 7 - Nations, states, and global justice

Problems with world government, or, supranational organisations in general: a lack of democratic engagement that causes political disenfranchisement; the risks of world government being tyrannical; addressing cultural diversity by an universalising culture or culture privatisation.

The three non-cosmopolitan alternatives.

First, globally accepts rules of interactions between nation-states.

Second, respecting and protecting basic human rights - rights that are necessary for people to live minimally decent lives. Basic human rights seem to transcend and override our concerns about fairness and reciprocity.

Third, the rights to self-determination, because people have a compelling need to feel that they are in control of their own destiny.

A “realistic utopia” in the author’s opinion is:

If global justice along these lines were achieved, the world would look something like this: political authority would rest primarily with nation-states, but they would collaborate to ensure that the costs and benefits of international cooperation were fairly distributed. Each political community would govern itself according to its own political traditions, and schemes of social justice would likewise vary somewhat from place to place. But everywhere human rights would be respected, and in cases where they were threatened, either by natural disasters such as drought or by oppressive regimes, other states would work together to ward off the threat. Some states would be richer than others: this would not be unjust provided that it resulted from political choices and cultural decisions rather than from economic exploitation. Some states would also be more democratic than others, but even those peoples who did not control their governors directly would identify with their government and feel that it represented their interests and values.

And finally, some parting thoughts by the author: “it is at precisely those moments when we feel that humanity’s future is slipping out of our control that we need to think about them long and hard, and then decide, together, what to do.”