In This Biography
Why Politics is Necessary
The concept of individual liberty as well as the significance of the notion of people.
By enacting laws that are publically ratified and have the same set of restrictions that are public and responsibilities, the “people as a sovereign entity is able to guard against the infringement of individual liberty and despotic powers. If no common body is in place, people are not protected. In these cases, people are bound to obey, without liberty, the ones in power are in a state of license. Theorists of Neoliberalism believe that any common personality along with the accompanying collection of public and unjustified restrictive and positive restrictions on liberty compromises the freedom of individuals. The neoliberal theory is only able to allow individual liberty restrictions. In contrast to these neoliberal theories, we argue that the rejection of freedoms that are restricted to the public is not a good thing for individual liberty. In fact, it creates conditions in which individuals who are free become servile, and political inequalities are enshrined in a society where citizens are divided between those who obey and those who obey. Analyzing the consequences of neoliberalism we suggest that unless we treat seriously the concept of people as a political group and the rights to equal and mutual coercion, liberty for all individuals is at risk. The article claims that neoliberalism will eventually lead to the complete elimination of certain citizens beneath the guise of liberty in full. In the absence of the will of the people comes the complete disappearance of certain citizens living in a symbiosis society as if stateless or lawless people. To understand the connections between the denial of the concept of the “people as well as the individual restrictions on liberty and the promotion of the”servile citizen,” this article examines the political philosophical theories that were developed by Hayek as well Nozick. It also examines some of the key concepts from Locke and Kant, theorists who, despite differences between their philosophical views and despite the fact they each provided a major source of the basis for Hayek’s economics and Nozick’s libertarianism, emphasized the importance of protecting the citizens in relation to liberty for individuals.
By means of laws that are publicly agreed upon and have the same set of public regulations that “people as a sovereign institution helps to safeguard against the infringement of liberty rights and despotic power (Locke 1679 (1960); Kant, 1793 (1977)). If no such entity exists, the individuals are not protected. In these cases, people are bound to obey, without liberty, and those who are in power must act in a state of permission, i.e., a freedom that is unrestricted. Neoliberal theorists argue that any common personality and the corresponding set of restrictions on public liberty impedes the individual’s liberty (Hayek 1976; Nozick, 1974). Thus, in addition to advocating the notion of private, isolated, individuals and disproving that there exists “the people” (Hayek, 1976; Nozick, 1974) Neoliberal theory only allows private limitations (positive as well as positive and negative) in liberty (Hayek 1976, Nozick 1975; Nozick, 1974).
In opposition to this neoliberal assumption (Hayek 1976, and Nozick 1974) We will claim that the idea of the people being the sole defenders of the common people and the liberties that are public while keeping legality in general, its protection role, and coercive institutions as well as instruments to enforce neoliberal law pose serious danger to liberty for individuals and could reduce the majority of free people to servile – and in certain cases, lawless.
The literature has revealed the incompatibility of Neoliberalism and the idea of individuals as a category of political power and reality (Brown 2015. Dean 2008). The negative impact of neoliberalism’s exclusion of the populace and its dependence on the notion of publicity that is not public participation has been proven. In addition, research has also addressed the ways in which neoliberalism promotes the development of a disciplined, docile citizenry (Foucault 2008). Nonetheless, the political consequences of the exclusion of the people and the protective role it plays in the preservation of the political state–namely the transformation of free individuals into servile, and ultimately lawless, persons–have yet to be addressed, in particular from a political-philosophical point of view.
The significance of this topic is evident. It has been a lot of emphasis on the economic aspect of neoliberalism and has failed to recognize the fact that, far more than just an economic perspective, neoliberalism is a political view and the actuality (Bruff 2014). While neoliberalism is now heavily entangled with the study of economics. This is because its conceptual understanding that the government as an institution of political power is constructed by analogy to the economic market, which leads to a subsequent political redefined of the latter’s goals and range (Foucault 2008). Thus, without neglecting the significance of neoliberal economic analysis, in shifting the focus to neoliberalism’s political character we aim to disclose its political-philosophical foundations and to translate its allegedly purely economic aspects to the political sphere. We will discover that the implementation of fiscal equilibrium and fiscal consolidation, the reductions in social security benefits, the privatization and reorganization of government property, expansion of collective bargaining, as well as the diminution of pensions are not just linked to the rising levels of inequality and poverty, as well as the transformation of citizens who are free to servile and dependent people.
The philosophical foundations developed in Hayek’s political economics and political philosophy, as well as in legal theory and in Nozick’s libertarianism have been incorporated into the political realm. Even though, as studies often show, there is the possibility of a disconnect between the theoretical declarations and actual practice These principles have now provided both at the global and national levels the substantive substance of the law.
We don’t intend to analyze what we consider to be the “exegetical” value of Hayek’s and Nozick’s philosophical ideas. However, we can’t here examine the fundamental material foundations of neoliberal ideology. This includes specific neoliberal processes, and activities as well as the powerful neoliberal socio-economic and political forces like multinational corporations. We instead aim to establish the philosophical foundations that underlie Hayek’s political economy as well as Nozick’s libertarianism help us understand the relationship between the exclusion of the populace as a political concept and the promotion of a servile public.
To understand the connection This paper will explore this connection in the Lockean and Kantian notions of the common man. Although there are differences between the Lockean and Kantian political philosophy (Gray 1989 and Williams 1994) In both cases, the role of the people is to protect individual liberty from the rule of law, a situation that is often described as a “political obligation” under liberty. Hayek as well as Nozick explicitly references the Lockean and Kantian principles that underlie their beliefs such as their Kantian universalization test to establish the truthfulness of the political rules and abstract laws of the system (Hayek 1976). Nozick’s usage of the Kantian concept of the individual as a means to justify his opposition to fundamental notions of justice (Nozick 1974) gives another reason to examine Locke’s and Kant’s views of the person in more detail.
There are, of course, significant distinctions between our present technological, social and political environment, which is defined by globalization as well as Locke and Kant’s nation-states of the modern age. It is also important to think about the distinctions between the way we view the concept of the person, e.g., whether we view people as a group of people who share a common sense (Miller 2000) or if we need to focus on the importance of democracy in generating the sense of belonging in politics (Habermas and a.s.,). Also important is the fact that, in contrast to the neoliberal view, Locke’s liberality is based on homo politicus and legalus rather than homo economicus which creates tensions that are significant between his rights-based perspective as well modern-day views founded on interests (Foucault (2008)). We also do not want not to ignore Locke’s or Kant’s controversial views and practices such as Kant’s decision to exclude non-property owners from their social contracts (Kersting 1992) and the limitations of Kant’s and Locke’s theoretic theories of the political personality (Badiou in 2016). The shortcomings of previous democracies, such as the exclusion of women from the right to equal citizenship as well as the prevalence of slavery, as well as the contemporary democratic perversions by the populists are not reasons to suggest that we have to abdicate the ideals of democratic power, however. Negative aspects of Kant’s and Locke’s political philosophy should not be erased from their commitment, from a liberal perspective to the importance of the concept of people in protecting the liberty of the individual.
In addition, we don’t want to ignore the past beliefs of the populace like Greco-Roman notions and republican notions (Cicero 1999, Habermas 2000 Rousseau 1762 (1964)), Marxist concepts (Badiou 2016, 2016) as well as other contemporary alternatives. Although they differ in their respective approaches, they share some features that are common to liberal approaches that include an important role for the people. In light of the political implications of neoliberalism’s eradication of the people, we need to consider appealing toward that which Rawls (1993) describes as an overlapping consensus, i.e. the agreement of the political role of the people in a category on a variety of reasons.
The document is organized in the following manner. Section 1 offers a brief outline of the major ideas and neoliberalism’s opposition to the public restriction of liberty as well as the right to coercion that is equal and reciprocal. In the next section, we demonstrate that contrary to the neoliberal assumption of not fostering freedom of individuals, an exclusive private limitation of liberty implies the existence of a distinction in society between those who follow and those who control. Also, it creates a separation of citizens into those who follow and those who rule and receive unequal protection from the government, and therefore an unbalanced share of state coercive authority. Additionally, it is an introduction to two well-known political concepts, first used in the neoliberal social order such as self-serfdom, on one hand, and invisibly citizens with no voice on the contrary. In the final section of this article, we give an outline of the protection role played by the public as a body with respect to individual liberty. We argue that by guaranteeing reciprocal and equal rights in coercion the public as a collective protects individual liberty.
In the context of a vague and unclear idea, there isn’t one “pure” form of neoliberalism. There are a variety of forms of expression that constitute an extremely messy blend of neoliberal concepts and policies across multiple locations (Latin America Europe, China; Harvey 2005) and at different scales (national international, transnational international; Brown, 2015; Hall 2011, (2011); Klein 2007, 2007; and Overbeek 1993) and within the various versions of the welfare system (Kus 2006). In addition, as per England as well as Ward’s (2016) taxonomy the term neoliberalism could be considered a type of statecraft that promotes the reduction of government expenditure as well as advancing economic efficiency (Mudge 2008) or as a kind of governance that encompasses economic, cultural, and social practices that create new spaces and new subjects (Foucault (2008)). Neoliberalism may also be considered a response to the discontent identified as a result of the disenchantment portrayed by Weber, (1978) following the increase in bureaucracy. Neoliberalism represents a type of re-enchantment for the individual rational person that claims an inalienable freedom space against an administrative “iron cage”. While some view neoliberalism as a re-invention of the bureaucratic and economic despotism (Lorenz 2012) or as a globalized bureaucracy that is totalizing (Hickel Hickel, 2016) The re-enchantment may be the reason for the enthusiastic support of neoliberal concepts by a variety of ideological and political forces including members of the Labour party under Blair in Great Britain, the SPD under Schroder in Germany and the followers of Pinochet from Chile.
Then, neoliberalism has been viewed as a way of thinking about the world as a “total view of reality” (Ramey 2015, page. 3) and is designed to apply to the realm of politics as well as the entire lives. It is integrated into common sense. the main concepts of neoliberalism stem from the daily experience of selling and buying commodities in the marketplace and a model which is later transferred to society. In a holistic perception of reality neoliberalism is “a new understanding of human nature and social existence [and] the way in which human beings make themselves and are made subjects” (Read 2009, page. 28; also Foucault in 2008).
While we acknowledge the various methods of defining and evaluating neoliberal theory and practice we insist it is the case that neoliberalism has a political philosophy and is a fact (Bruff 2014) that has developed in part in line with Hayek’s theories of Hayek’s, (1976) political economy and Nozick’s (1974) philosophy of libertarianism. In particular, neoliberal theoretic principles are now providing, on an international and national level substantive elements to constitutions of political parties (McCluskey 2003) as well as the creation of executive laws (Foucault 2008; Read, 2009) and the rewriting of laws that govern citizens. They also affect our perception of the world as well as ourselves (for example, the shift from the person who is a citizen to a businessperson; Peters, 2016). Therefore, even though there isn’t an essentially Neoliberalism, it is a phenomenon that develops within different societies in different manners (see Harvey, 2005)–neoliberal political theory helps us understand the political assumptions behind the different models of Neoliberalism.
To preserve the state of politics the neoliberal individualistic assumptions don’t take into account the concept of the populace, i.e. that is, members of a particular political community or unitary group of people (demos also known as Populus) that is, as an ultimate sovereign or lawmaker (Locke 1679 (1960)). The notion of the people is a criterion for political considerations that refers to the principal act of people’s sovereignty, which is the giving of laws to themselves through duties and rights (Locke 1679 (1960); Kant, 1793 (1977); Rousseau, 1762 (1964) and Sieyes 1789 (1989). In putting aside the connection between the political (Dahl 1998, Rawls 1999, Sieyes 1789, 1989) as well as ethnic (Habermas 2000 and 2008) criteria This act brings together people of different races, cultures, and traditions of linguistics. The result of this law is social, political, and civic human rights that have historically been the primary contents of the laws of the people.
It is true that slaves and women were historically excluded from the realm of the population. There is no doubt that this exclusion hasn’t been eliminated completely and that new forms of exclusion have been created like ageism and digital exclusion. There are significant political divisions among people across the axes of class (Badiou 2016,) gender (Elstain 1981) as well as race (Wilson 2012) and citizenship are still. But the substance of the laws of the people has created political standards to denounce and reduce or eliminate the exclusions (e.g. for instance, the case of South Africa with the end of Apartheid).
Despite the complex relationship between state power and the sovereign rights of the populace (Habermas (2008)) the criterion of political sovereignty insists on the subordination of states to sovereign citizens. It also suggests the reformulation of the power of the states, “specifying that their legislators must not make certain laws, or must advance certain objectives” (Pyke 2001, page. 205-205). In other words instead of solely safeguarding peace or ensuring economic or efficient financial performance, the states must ensure the health of their residents. Without such limitations, overestimating the economic goals of states (such as high inflation rates, elimination of trade barriers, the control of foreign currencies, as well as limited regulation of the labor market) could result in degrading of the welfare system at the national level (Brodie 2007) as well as international levels (Beck 2002).
Some believe that nation states serve as a criterion to determine the political affiliation of a person (Miller 2000). But the criterion of political belonging is based on the notion that one’s relationship to a specific nation-state must be based on common law, not cultural or ethnic differences. Rawls’s (1999) liberal perspective on international relations argues against universal principles of justice which are ignorant of differences in the structure of social (and moral) distinctions between different peoples such as the distinction between people who are liberal and decent in that the former has its roots in an individualist tradition, while the latter is based on a ‘corporate tradition. Despite the dangers of extending sovereign authority over the world order (e.g. populism) and the inability of people to comprehend the significance of political and economic factors, This order must be based on the sovereignty of the people. It is neoliberalism’s “global policy of boundary removal” (Beck 2002, p. 80) that interferes with our sovereignty as a populace (Beck 2002; Overbeek 1993). In fact, the expansion of international law has a direct impact on national legal systems, which limits the choices made by lawmakers and electors and ensures that competition in global markets is not allowing nations or states to control their workplaces and industries. In the words of Hickel in this regard, for instance, financial liberalization has created conditions where “investors can conduct moment-by-moment referendums on decisions made by voters and governments around the world, bestowing their favor on countries that facilitate profit maximization while punishing those that prioritize other concerns, like decent wages” (Hickel 2016, page. 140).
People are the primary actors in the global and international arena. Their sovereignty, as well as their constitutional rights, can’t be averse to common law. Despite the vital issue of having mechanisms to enforce these laws Human rights like the right to be free from serfdom and slavery mass murder and genocide are able to provide their substance (Rawls 1999). Though the political influence of the law by nation-hegemonic rules (Beck 2002) and the issue of enforcement (Lane, et . al. 2006) should be considered the human rights perspective applies to both Locke’s as well as Kant’s notions of the people. There is a distinction between the national order that is underlying Kant’s and Locke’s views of sovereign rights of individuals and our current international and global order. the human rights approach can help create on a local, international, and global scale, a sense of political identity (Habermas (2008); Lane and others. 2006; Rawls, 1999). As a political criterion are not applicable to the resolution of ongoing political disputes in the context of national or ethnic factors such as that which is common with nationalists and populism.
In light of this complex conceptual framework, along with how complex is the concept of a sovereign nation (Butler 2016, 2016. Morgan 1988, Morris 2000) we emphasize that, regardless of its significance the sovereign person plays an important role in protecting the rights of citizens generally and against the despotic power specifically (Locke 1679 (1960); Kant, 1793 (1977)). Locke, (1679 (1960)) and Kant, (1793 ([1977)) believe that the sovereignty of the people ensures freedom to individuals in every human interaction. Both thinkers agree that human organizations (or societies) composed of free individuals are able to accept the facts that govern power, obey, and commands (Locke 1679 ([1960); Kant, 1793 (1977)) and that under nature (rather than political) circumstances, liberty for individuals is unlimited. In the context of nature, it is possible for one person to obey indefinitely with only duties and the other is commanded unconditionally, with only rights, the unequivocally obeying does not have any protection from any power that is unrestricted, at least in relation to their rights to live (Locke 1679 ([1960); Kant, 1793 (1977)). From this angle, i.e., from the viewpoint of individual liberties, the real (as opposed to the theoretical) problem is in the conception of an alliance among individuals that doesn’t compromise the individual liberties of each. The concept of the people as a political body embodies this exact alliance an inter-protective construct that replaces the status quo of complete obedience and command.
In accordance with an unpopular model of contract law (Gough 2005), the individuals give the power of the state their unlimited freedom of choice. The transfer makes them “one people, one body politic” (Locke 1679 (1960) II, page. 90). As citizens they all agree to limiting their freedom under the political system and to keeping an equal amount of coercive power that stops the reduction of them to servants and, more importantly, keeps anyone in their group from becoming a despotic Lord (Locke 1679 (1960); Kant, 1793 (1977)). This is why they have public law, a set of rules that govern a group of people, i.e., a group of human beings or an amalgamation of people (Kant 1793 (1977 ))–which allows them to live in a legally-sound government.
Enacting public law, i.e. laws that are based on the will of the people provide each person a specific set of rights and liberties in relation to the usage of products and imposes upon each individual a set of specific restrictions. When it comes to their personal well-being as citizens of the world they are not able to ignore the common set of rights and limitations. When it comes to their well-being people are, but not only obliged to abide by rules which are independent of individual interests.
KNOWLEDGE is POWERFUL. Please kindly share the Newstime Worldwide website and videos with all your family and friends and contacts Worldwide, thanks. Almighty GOD continues to bless you always.
Please kindly also visit Newstime Worldwide on
Newstime Worldwide is not responsible for external websites’ content.
IF YOU LIKE WHAT YOU ARE READING AT NEWSTIME..,
PLEASE KINDLY LET US KNOW, IF THERE IS SOMETHING WE COULD BE DOING BETTER, WE WILL LIKE TO KNOW THAT TOO.
PLEASE KINDLY SEND US YOUR COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME AND TROUBLE TO READ NEWSTIME WORLDWIDE.
NEWSTIME STAFF AND MANAGEMENT.