Suchergebnisse

Explores Thomas Hobbes's ambiguous status in the intellectual history of economic thought, reviewing the last hundred years of pertinent scholarship & looking to account for the silence of economists & the discrepancy of opinion. Seeking clarification, it is contended that much of the uncertainty surrounding Hobbes's economic ideas centers on a failure to distinguish what he actually said about economics from the economic implications of his political philosophy. Further, a lack of consensus on the scope of economics, which narrowed during the course of the 20th century, contributed to this ambiguity. Hobbes's depiction of humans as given to self-interest & his subordination of economic liberty to political considerations adds to the vagueness of his position. Attention is given to C. B. MacPherson's writings on Hobbes's economic thought & criticisms of his work, indicating that this scholarly affaire Macpherson has been the only sustained scrutiny of Hobbes as economic thinker. In this light, the notion of referring to Hobbes as the "father of political economy" is considered. References. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractThomas Hobbes is often credited as the "founder of modern liberalism" for grounding his political theory in individualism, natural right, and the social contract. The irony, of course, is that upon this foundation he built an imposing edifice of absolutism. What has escaped most observers, however, is the extent to which Hobbes' absolutism is mitigated by his own principles, qualifications, and doctrines. Hence, "saving Hobbes from himself," is not simply a matter of correcting his errors, but requires drawing out the implications of his first principles and identifying the additional supports he provides for an essentially liberal order. In this way it is possible to "bind" Leviathan through a process of internal domestication, as opposed to looking backward to Aristotle or forward to Locke. The result is a "reformed" Hobbes who can be readily acknowledged as "the true ancestor of constitutional liberal democracy."

Ernest Barker is best remembered for his study of Plato and his Predecessors (1918), yet his early efforts to mine Greek political theory for relevant insights centred on Aristotle.While not as original as his teacher, Aristotle represents a significant advance in political science, first, by avoiding Plato's extremes, second, by forwarding a naturalistic and ethical vision of civic life, and finally, by adopting a pragmatic approach to improving 'deviant' regimes. Both thinkers serve as a foil for exposing the shortcomings of modern politics, particularly the atomistic individualism of Hobbes, Locke, and Bentham. Unlike Plato, Aristotle exhibits an 'English spirit' of compromise, moderation, and balance, although from a distinctly Burkean perspective. Barker's sympathies did not, however, blind him to the 'reactionary', 'primitive', and 'illiberal' aspects of Aristotle's teaching. His failure to reconcile these discordant elements—culminating in a quixotic call for an 'aristocratic democracy' — merely echoed the ambiguity and equivocation that marked his treatment of Plato. Barker maintained a grudging respect for Plato, but knew he was politically incorrigible. Aristotle showed farmore promise, but in the end could not be made to fit the mould of the Edwardian progressive.

The Essential Federalist presents a bold new approach to The Federalist Papers. By careful selection, reorganization, and annotation of the document's meaningful passages, this book showcases the 'essential' Federalist in a way that helps readers decipher the best of the commentary. Careful headings, notes, and indexing make this an excellent guide for anyone who seeks to understand this powerful resource