Suchergebnisse

Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke each sought a new foundation for political order. This book serves as a reader's companion to Machiavelli's The Prince, Hobbes's Leviathan, and Locke's Second Treatise written for graduate students and scholars seeking a fuller understanding of these classic texts. How do these philosophers respond to perennial questions such as why anyone is ever obligated to obey a government and whether there are any limits to such an obligation. In this book, Bookman begins by sorting out the hermeneutical controversy between textualists and contextualists, offers a chapter-by-chapter commentary on the texts punctuated by questions for the reader's reflection, and finally suggests a firmer foundation for a theory of political obligation than Hobbes's and Locke's consent theories. Also included are bibliographical essays keyed to select bibliographies, providing readers with a wide-ranging, critical review of the secondary literature. Intended to be read alongside the primary work, the work is a full intellectual, critical, and bibliographical history, as well as a fresh examination of three classic texts in political theory and philosophy.

Demystifies some of the most pervasive myths about American politics.

IN BOOK III OF "POLITICS," ARISTOTLE ADVANCES A HANDFUL OF ARGUMENTS EXPLAINING WHY "THE MANY" SHOULD BE ACCORDED A ROLE IN GOVERNING. IN THIS PAPER, THE AUTHOR EXPLORES A NUMBER OF ARISTOTLE'S ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE MANY, INCLUDING THE ASSERTIONS THAT "A STATE IN WHICH MANY POOR MEN ARE EXCLUDED FROM OFFICE WILL NECESSARILY BE FULL OF ENEMIES" AND THAT THE COLLECTIVE JUDGMENT OF THE MANY MAY BE BETTER THAN THE JUDGMENT OF THE FEW GOOD.

Abstract. Examination of Locke's theory political obligation suggests some of the difficulties which beset any consent theory. Stress is placed on the need for the state of nature as a real alternative to civil society, if Locke is to maintain that people have consented. It is shown that Locke has precluded a decision to remain in the state of nature and, therefore, people have not consented. This conclusion inspires a reconstruction of Locke's theory wherein people consent hypothetically: they would consent to legitimate government, if they had the opportunity to found government anew. What would they consent to? What are the criteria of legitimate government? The provisions of the Lockeian contract set out and found wanting People, as Locke sees them and living under conditions which he describes, would not consent to his contract.