Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this article is to analyse Hobbes's understanding of democracy. The first part of the article analyses the role of democracy in the social contract. It aims to show how there exists a democratic element at the beginning of the process of social contract, in which the multitude is transformed into a people. However, after the first social contract is made, Hobbes aims to reduce the power of the people by leading the process of social contract on to another level, on which the power of the people is assigned to a representative of the sovereign power, for example a monarch. The second part of the article aims to explain the practical reasons, provided by Hobbes in different parts of his political theory, for his aversion to a democratic form of government. Main reason for this, it is argued, is that democratic government is closest to the unwanted multitude. Thus, in his political theory Hobbes uses democracy to build sovereign power, but does not trust it as a form of government. ; El propósito de este artículo es analizar la comprensión de Hobbes de la democracia. La primera parte del artículo analiza el papel de la democracia en el contrato social. Su objetivo es mostrar cómo existe un elemento democrático al comienzo del proceso de contrato social, en el que la multitud se transforma en pueblo. Sin embargo, después de que se realiza el primer contrato social, Hobbes pretende reducir el poder del pueblo dirigiendo el proceso del contrato social a otro nivel, en el cual el poder del pueblo se asigna a un representante del poder soberano, por ejemplo un monarca. La segunda parte del artículo pretende explicar las razones prácticas, proporcionadas por Hobbes en diferentes partes de su teoría política, para su aversión a una forma democrática de gobierno. La principal razón de esto, se argumenta, es que el gobierno democrático es el más cercano a la indeseada multitud. Así, en su teoría política, Hobbes utiliza la democracia para construir el poder soberano, pero no confía en él como forma de gobierno.

The purpose of this article is to analyse Hobbes's understanding of democracy. The first part of the article analyses the role of democracy in the social contract. It aims to show how there exists a democratic element at the beginning of the process of social contract, in which the multitude is transformed into a people. However, after the first social contract is made, Hobbes aims to reduce the power of the people by leading the process of social contract on to another level, on which the power of the people is assigned to a representative of the sovereign power, for example a monarch. The second part of the article aims to explain the practical reasons, provided by Hobbes in different parts of his political theory, for his aversion to a democratic form of government. Main reason for this, it is argued, is that democratic government is closest to the unwanted multitude. Thus, in his political theory Hobbes uses democracy to build sovereign power, but does not trust it as a form of government. ; peerReviewed

Thomas Hobbesia (1588-1679) pidetään usein yhtenä "kapitalismin isistä". Näkökulma on kuitenkin sinänsä ongelmallinen, että Hobbes ei juurikaan kirjoittanut pääomista tai tuotannosta. Hänen poliittinen ajattelunsa oli vastakkaista Englannin nousevan porvariston pyrkimyksille toteuttaa vero- ja kauppavapaus. Hobbes piti aikansa Alankomaita huonona esimerkkinä pääoman ja vapauden liitosta.Kysymys omistuksesta löytyy kuitenkin Hobbesin yhteiskuntateorian perustasta. Kuuluisassa "luonnontilassa" ei voi Hobbesin mukaan olla omistusta, koska vain oikeusjärjestelmä yhdessä väkivallan monopolin kanssa kykenee takaamaan sen. Hobbes kannustaa ihmisiä tuottavaan elämään ja näkee valtion tehtävänä sellaisten puitteiden luomisen, joissa tuottava elämä on mahdollista.Hobbesin suhtautumisen työhön, omistukseen ja markkinoihin tekee erityisen mielenkiintoiseksi hänen näkemyksensä, jonka mukaan yhtään merkittävää valtiota ei ole koskaan rakennettu muulle perustalle kuin pelolle. Tällä hän tarkoittaa erityisesti luonnontilassa vallitsevaa keskinäistä pelkoa, joka tekee yksityisomistuksen mahdottomaksi. Tämän lisäksi Hobbes esittää, että myös yhteiskunnassa pelko on keskeinen hallintaväline. Järjestäytyneessä yhteiskunnassa pelko ei kuitenkaan kohdistu toisia kansalaisia kohtaan, vaan suvereenia hallitsijaa kohtaan. Omistamiseen liittyen Hobbes esittääkin, että suvereenilla on tarvittaessa oikeus viedä kansalaisen omaisuus, jos tarve niin vaatii.Tarkastelen tässä artikkelissa Hobbesin näkemyksiä omistusoikeudesta, työstä ja tuotannosta. Jäsentävänä näkökulmana toimii Hobbesin teoria tunteista ja erityisesti pelosta. Tästä perspektiivistä käsin huomataan, että Hobbesin talouspoliittinen teoria ei itsestään selvästi sovellu liberaalin tai uusliberaalin kapitalismin perustaksi.

Chapter 1: Benjamin Bourcier and Mikko Jakonen: Introduction -- Part I: Early Modern British International Thought -- Chapter 2: Carlos Eduardo Suprinyak: Grotius Among the English Merchants: Mare Liberum and Anglo-Dutch Rivalry in the Early Seventeenth Century -- Chapter 3: Mikko Jakonen: Hobbes and the Problem of International Trade -- Chapter 4: Daniel Layman: Locke's Conflicted Cosmopolitanism: Individualism and Empire -- Part II: The Scottish School of Political Economy within International Thought -- Chapter 5: Erik W. Matson: "To Keep Industry Alive": Hume on Freer International Trade as Moral Improvement -- Chapter 6: Edwin van de Haar: Human Nature as the Foundation of Adam Smith's International Theory -- Chapter 7: Benoît Walraevens: Colonization, Commerce and Global History: Adam Smith and Raynal's Histoire des Deux Indes -- Chapter 8: Laurie Bréban & Jean Dellemotte: Remote Encounters of a Distant Kind: Natives and Westerners in Adam Smith's International Thought -- Part III: Bentham's Political Economy and International Theory -- Chapter 9: Nathalie Sigot: One Conclusion and Two Explanations: Bentham's Economic Analysis of International Trade -- Chapter 10: Michael Quinn: Bentham via Dumont on the Balance of Trade -- Chapter 11: Benjamin Bourcier: Jeremy Bentham's Politics of Global Commerce as a Limit-Case -- Chapter 12: Eileen M. Hunt: Women's Misery and Women's Rights in International Law and Literature: Wollstonecraft, Malthus, Bentham, and Shelley.

This article analyzes the current feelings of Finnish low-income working lone mothers and their views on what it means to be poor in the welfare state of Finland. This is done by analyzing written accounts of lone mothers through a qualitative content analysis. The data was collected in 2015 and 2021. The analysis reveals that mothers' feelings of poverty have similarities to those described in data collected in a different context over 20 years ago. The article is inspired by an article published in Affilia in the year 2003 by Lynn McIntyre, Suzanne Officer, and Lynne M. Robinson. In their paper, McIntyre et al. analyzed the feelings of poor Canadian lone mothers. While the welfare regime and services influence how life is organized, it is evident that self-sacrifice for the children caused by poverty is very much a part of the written accounts of Finnish mothers. We show that while there are a few cultural differences in the feelings that lone mothers undergo on account of their low-income status, feelings such as loneliness are persistent and often shared regardless of time or geographical location. Therefore, we suggest that low-income mothers should be given greater support by society and governments to be able to feel hopeful and empowered rather than poor and alone.