The idea that the state ought to be neutral towards different conceptions of the good life has been an influential principle in liberal theory since the 1970s. It has, however, been subject to criticism by communitarians, multiculturalists and liberal perfectionists. Recently, Peter Balint has attempted to defend state neutrality against its liberal critics as the adequate interpretation of the liberal project by redefining it as a range concept. By arguing that neutrality always occurs within a specific range (...) of permissible conceptions of the good life, Balint provides a convincing rebuttal of neutrality’s critics. In this paper I argue that while neutrality as a range concept provides an adequate account of state neutrality, it also makes it vulnerable to a new line of critique. Since the range of neutrality cannot be deduced from the principle of neutrality itself, neutrality is subject to political developments beyond its own control. I will start by clarifying the notion of neutrality as a range concept. Secondly, I will demonstrate that Balint’s notion of the range concept finds ample support in the wider literature on neutrality. Thirdly, I will argue that, as a range concept, neutrality ultimately depends on politically constituted value judgments. (shrink)

Marx did not approach the state in answer to some such broad and abstract philosophical question as: What is the state? Nor did he offer a full sociological or historical or analytic account of state institutions and functions, and there are hence clear and substantial dangers in extrapolating to all or most conditions an account which is, in large part, specific to bourgeois society. Failing a comprehensive and formal treatise on politics and the state, Marx's own (...) discussion consists of a number of scattered and not altogether consistent general observations and some detailed investigation of the role and character of the state in particular historical situations. It seems sensible, then, to begin an elucidation of his account of the state with a comment on the nature of his interest in the subject. Why did he need a theory of the state? At what points does it become important to his explanatory and his revolutionary doctrines? (shrink)

This new edition reintroduces on the central texts of late nineteenth-century political thought. In addition to the fourth and final edition of the Philosophical Theory of the State, the editors have added a comprehensive selection of Bosanquet's most important essays on political theory and social policy. Also added is a detailed new introduction, a guide to further reading, and an index. Together they make clear the social and political background and implications of Bosanquet's political philosophy and allow (...) a more complete understanding of British idealism. (shrink)

After more than a decade teaching ancient Greek history and philosophy at University College, Oxford, British philosopher and political theorist Bernard Bosanquet resigned from his post to spend more time writing. He was particularly interested in contemporary social theory, and was involved with the Charity Organisation Society and the London Ethical Society. He saw himself as a radical in the Liberal Party, and at a theoretical level he was a 'collectivist', considering the individual to be a part of a (...) larger social organism. He thought the state should be in harmony with the general will, and that going beyond it would lead to repression. Bosanquet's political ideas are explained in this influential work, which was published in 1899 and ran to four editions by 1923. Bosanquet begins with the theory of state, and then addresses sociological and philosophical ideas about politics before examining the idea of 'will'. (shrink)

Concerning the need for a new conception of legal theory one question arises, above all, especially when external and internal observation as well as the critical reflexion on the premises and presuppositions of all dealings with the law permit a degree of distance, the question, namely, whether it is not an increasing application of scientific methods that is needed, in the sense that the development of a theory from the beginning involves the integration of a norm‐descriptive point of (...) view and intellectual standpoint with the norm‐ prescriptive theory of law, by way of complementing each other, as it were (multilevel approach to law). This, at least, appears to be the only way of also clarifying the relationship between legal theory and philosophy and the theory and sociology of law. The inevitable consequences of the development of a theory of norms and action also have to be drawn from this. (shrink)

Though Karl Marx never developed a systematic theory of the state, he did have much to say about state action. In recent times philosophers have made attempts to capture essential elements of Marx’s political theory in order to reconstruct a general understanding of his ideas about state action that is consistent with his theory of history. It has been my purpose in this paper to layout and synthesize recent developments in this area with ideas (...) developed in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of what Marx meant. The debate of nearly two decades past, between instrumentalists and structuralists, is developed here in the context of more recent theories of “abdication” and “class balance” to generate four basic principles of state action consistent with Marx’s statements about the state. (shrink)

Though Karl Marx never developed a systematic theory of the state, he did have much to say about state action. In recent times philosophers have made attempts to capture essential elements of Marx’s political theory in order to reconstruct a general understanding of his ideas about state action that is consistent with his theory of history. It has been my purpose in this paper to layout and synthesize recent developments in this area with ideas (...) developed in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of what Marx meant. The debate of nearly two decades past, between instrumentalists and structuralists, is developed here in the context of more recent theories of “abdication” and “class balance” to generate four basic principles of state action consistent with Marx’s statements about the state. (shrink)

“Functional finance” is an economic theory within the Post Keynesian school of thought. Especially in the form of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), it has begun to have two big but opposite effects on the debate over Universal Basic Income (UBI). Some people state MMT in an exaggerated way that implies the government can spend all it wants on UBI or anything else without ever raising taxes or borrowing money as if government spending had no limits of any (...) kind. Other people refer to MMT while arguing that any effort to maintain a livable level of UBI is unsustainable. This article discusses the functional finance implications for the cost and sustainability of UBI, arguing that neither of those exaggerated implications are correct. MMT doesn’t free us for the concern for how to support UBI with taxes, but neither does it give reason to believe UBI is any less sustainable. (shrink)

Marx did not approach the state in answer to some such broad and abstract philosophical question as: What is the state? Nor did he offer a full sociological or historical or analytic account of state institutions and functions, and there are hence clear and substantial dangers in extrapolating to all or most conditions an account which is, in large part, specific to bourgeois society. Failing a comprehensive and formal treatise on politics and the state, Marx's own (...) discussion consists of a number of scattered and not altogether consistent general observations and some detailed investigation of the role and character of the state in particular historical situations. It seems sensible, then, to begin an elucidation of his account of the state with a comment on the nature of his interest in the subject. Why did he need a theory of the state? At what points does it become important to his explanatory and his revolutionary doctrines? (shrink)

중국은 춘추 시대에 들어서면서 정복 전쟁이 일상화된다. 이에 따라 무사들이 지배를 하게 된다. 공자는 이를 비판하고, 군자(君子)라는 지식인 관료의 지배를 주장한다. 무사의 지배 대신 지식인의 지배는 역사의 발전에 해당된다. 공자와 맹자는 이와 더불어서 통치와 피치, 지배와 피지배를 엄격하게 나누는 2원론을 주장한다. 지배는 군자들이 하고, 백성은 그 지배의 대상일 뿐이다. 지배자가 “백성을 위하는, 백성이 근본인”(爲民·民本) 정치가 바로 그런 것이다. 이런 2원론의 결과, 맹자는 군주 천명론을 주장한다. 누군가 군주가 되는 이유는 그에게 군주가 되라고 ‘하늘이 명령’(天命)했기 때문이다. 그는 물론 “백성의 마음(民心)이 하늘의 마음”(天心)이라 (...) 하지만, 민심을 확인할 방법은 별로 없다. 따라서 군주는 백성과 상관없이 하늘이 임명한다. 권력은 위에서 아래로 내려온다. 이와 정반대는 묵자의 상동(尙同, 위와 같아짐) 이론이다. 태초에 사람들은 각자의 이익을 의로움(義)이라 주장한다. 그래서 서로 싸우고 모두가 손해를 본다. 이를 해결하기 위해서 현명한 자를 뽑아서 다툼을 중재하게 한다. 아래가 윗사람의 중재에 따름을 ‘위와 같아짐’(尙同)이라 한다. 백성이 위와 같아져야 하는 이유는 중재하는 윗사람이 겸애를 하기 때문이다. 분쟁의 조정에서 모두의 이익을 고려함, 이것을 ‘겸애(兼愛 전체를 사랑함)’이라 한다. 위가 겸애를 하기 때문에, 아래가 상동(尙同)을 한다. 묵자는 국가와 권력의 기원을 겸애와 상동의 교환으로 생각한다. 이는 아래에서 위로 권력이 올라감이다. 맹자와 정반대이다. 전국시대는 정복 전쟁의 절정기이다. 강한 나라가 약한 나라를 정복해서 멸망시키고 그 땅을 소유한다. 이는 가산(家産) 국가 개념이다. 국가는 군주의 재산이다. 정복해서 얻은 땅과 백성은 군주의 재산이다. 따라서 군주들은 정복에 열을 올렸다. 재산이 늘수록 군주의 권력은 커 갔다. 최종적으로 천하의 모든 나라를 정복한 진시황은 자신을 인간이 아니라, 신으로 자처한다. ‘皇帝’라는 말이 그것이다. ‘皇’이나 ‘帝’나 모두 ‘하느님’을 뜻한다. 이는 맹자의 군주 천명론, 묵자의 상동 이론 – 모두를 부정한 것이다. 진시황 이후 중국은 항상 전쟁을 통해서 왕조를 교체한다. 그렇게 세워진 것이 정복 국가이고, 가산 국가이다. 진시황 영정이 만든 황제 지배 체제는 현재까지도 이어져 내려온다. (shrink)

This study in English of Hegel's political philosophy presents an overall view of the development of Hegel's political thinking. The author has drawn on Hegel's philosophical works, his political tracts and his personal correspondence. Professor Avineri shows that although Hegel is primarily thought of as a philosopher of the state, he was much concerned with social problems and his concept of the state must be understood in this context.

This article sheds light on the relation between care for the soul and the political thought of Jan Patočka. Patočka often sketches a connection between care for the soul and a theory of the state, but he rarely elaborates this. The biographical fact of Patočka’s own political dissidence and his interpretation of care for the soul as a distancing from traditional structures of society have caused many to look at Patočka’s political thought mainly through the lens of political (...) resistance. Such interpretations are definitely warranted, but can overlook the moments in his work that point towards a theory of the state. While these are only indications, this article presents a way to develop these moments. It will do so on the basis of the idea that the theory of the state should not be based directly on care for the soul itself, but on its founding principle of problematicity. The stronger, perhaps more metaphysical, interpretation of problematicity that is argued for here both opens the space of the political and sets strict boundaries to it and as such should be the founding principle of any state that wishes to uphold this space. (shrink)

How David Hume and Adam Smith forged a new way of thinking about the modern state What is the modern state? Conspicuously undertheorized in recent political theory, this question persistently animated the best minds of the Enlightenment. Recovering David Hume and Adam Smith's long-underappreciated contributions to the history of political thought, The Opinion of Mankind considers how, following Thomas Hobbes's epochal intervention in the mid-seventeenth century, subsequent thinkers grappled with explaining how the state came into being, (...) what it fundamentally might be, and how it could claim rightful authority over those subject to its power. Hobbes has cast a long shadow over Western political thought, particularly regarding the theory of the state. This book shows how Hume and Smith, the two leading lights of the Scottish Enlightenment, forged an alternative way of thinking about the organization of modern politics. They did this in part by going back to the foundations: rejecting Hobbes's vision of human nature and his arguements about our capacity to form stable societies over time. In turn, this was harnessed to a deep reconceptualization of how to think philosophically about politics in a secular world. The result was an emphasis on the "opinion of mankind," the necessary psychological basis of all political organization. Demonstrating how Hume and Smith broke away from Hobbesian state theory, The Opinion of Mankind also suggests ways in which these thinkers might shape how we think about politics today, and in turn how we might construct better political theory. (shrink)

How David Hume and Adam Smith forged a new way of thinking about the modern state What is the modern state? Conspicuously undertheorized in recent political theory, this question persistently animated the best minds of the Enlightenment. Recovering David Hume and Adam Smith's long-underappreciated contributions to the history of political thought, The Opinion of Mankind considers how, following Thomas Hobbes's epochal intervention in the mid-seventeenth century, subsequent thinkers grappled with explaining how the state came into being, (...) what it fundamentally might be, and how it could claim rightful authority over those subject to its power. Hobbes has cast a long shadow over Western political thought, particularly regarding the theory of the state. This book shows how Hume and Smith, the two leading lights of the Scottish Enlightenment, forged an alternative way of thinking about the organization of modern politics. They did this in part by going back to the foundations: rejecting Hobbes's vision of human nature and his arguements about our capacity to form stable societies over time. In turn, this was harnessed to a deep reconceptualization of how to think philosophically about politics in a secular world. The result was an emphasis on the "opinion of mankind," the necessary psychological basis of all political organization. Demonstrating how Hume and Smith broke away from Hobbesian state theory, The Opinion of Mankind also suggests ways in which these thinkers might shape how we think about politics today, and in turn how we might construct better political theory. (shrink)

Marxist philosophers have always given great attention to theoretical questions concerning the historical role and significance of the state and to the processes by which the types and political forms of states have changed. As we know, historical materialism demands both concrete analysis of the political organization of the society of a given socioeconomic system and the discovery of certain general patterns that manifest themselves in the course of world history. Marx's thesis that reality can truly be understood only (...) on the basis of a theoretical study of history retains its full significance to this day for philosophical analysis of the complex and diverse problems of the theory of the state. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)