Political philosophy

"Political Theory" redirects here. For the academic journal, see Political Theory (journal).
Plato (left) and Aristotle (right), from a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics secured the two Greek philosophers as two of the most influential political philosophers.

Political philosophy is the study of topics such as politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law, and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what, if anything, makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown, if ever.

In a vernacular sense, the term "political philosophy" often refers to a general view, or specific ethic, political belief or attitude, about politics, synonymous to the term "political ideology".

Political philosophy is considered by some to be a sub-discipline of political science; however, the name generally attributed to this form of political enquiry is political theory, a discipline which has a closer methodology to the theoretical fields in the social sciences - like economic theory - than to philosophical argumentation - like that of moral philosophy or aesthetics.

History

Further information: History of political thought

Ancient Philosophies

Ancient China

Chinese political philosophy dates back to the Spring and Autumn Period, specifically with Confucius in the 6th century BC. Chinese political philosophy was developed as a response to the social and political breakdown of the country characteristic of the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States period. The major philosophies during the period, Confucianism, Legalism, Mohism, Agrarianism and Taoism, each had a political aspect to their philosophical schools. Philosophers such as Confucius, Mencius, and Mozi, focused on political unity and political stability as the basis of their political philosophies. Confucianism advocated a hierarchical, meritocratic government based on empathy, loyalty, and interpersonal relationships. Legalism advocated a highly authoritarian government based on draconian punishments and laws. Mohism advocated a communal, decentralized government centered on frugality and ascetism. The Agrarians advocated a peasant utopian communalism and egalitarianism.[1] Taoism advocated a proto-anarchism. Legalism was the dominant political philosophy of the Qin Dynasty, but was replaced by State Confucianism in the Han Dynasty. Prior to China's adoption of communism, State Confucianism remained the dominant political philosophy of China up to the 20th century.[2]

Ancient Greece

Western political philosophy originates in the philosophy of ancient Greece, where political philosophy dates back to at least Plato.[3] Ancient Greece was dominated by city-states, which experimented with various forms of political organization, grouped by Plato into four categories: timocracy, tyranny, democracy and oligarchy. One of the first, extremely important classical works of political philosophy is Plato's Republic,[3] which was followed by Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and Politics.[4] Roman political philosophy was influenced by the Stoics, including the Roman statesman Cicero.[5]

Ancient India

Indian political philosophy evolved in ancient times and demarcated a clear distinction between (1) nation and state (2) religion and state. The constitutions of Hindu states evolved over time and were based on political and legal treatises and prevalent social institutions. The institutions of state were broadly divided into governance, administration, defense, law and order. Mantranga, the principal governing body of these states, consisted of the King, Prime Minister, Commander in chief of army, Chief Priest of the King. The Prime Minister headed the committee of ministers along with head of executive (Maha Amatya).

Chanakya, 4th Century BC Indian political philosopher. The Arthashastra provides an account of the science of politics for a wise ruler, policies for foreign affairs and wars, the system of a spy state and surveillance and economic stability of the state.[6] Chanakya quotes several authorities including Bruhaspati, Ushanas, Prachetasa Manu, Parasara, and Ambi, and described himself as a descendant of a lineage of political philosophers, with his father Chanaka being his immediate predecessor.[7] Another influential extant Indian treatise on political philosophy is the Sukra Neeti.[8][9] An example of a code of law in ancient India is the Manusmṛti or Laws of Manu.[10]

Medieval Christianity

Saint Augustine

The early Christian philosophy of Augustine of Hippo was heavily influenced by Plato. A key change brought about by Christian thought was the moderatation of the Stoicism and theory of justice of the Roman world, as well emphasis on the role of the state in applying mercy as a moral example. Augustine also preached that one was not a member of his or her city, but was either a citizen of the City of God (Civitas Dei) or the City of Man (Civitas Terrena). Augustine's City of God is an influential work of this period that attacked the thesis, held by many Christian Romans, that the Christian view could be realized on Earth.[11]

St. Thomas Aquinas

Main article: Treatise on Law

Thomas Aquinas meticulously dealt with the varieties of law. According to Aquinas, there are four kinds of law:

  1. Eternal law ("the divine government of everything")
  2. Divine positive law (having been "posited" by God; external to human nature)
  3. Natural law (the right way of living discoverable by natural reason; what cannot-not be known; internal to human nature)
  4. Human law (what we commonly call "law"—including customary law; the law of the Communitas Perfecta)

Aquinas never discusses the nature or categorization of canon law. There is scholarly debate surrounding the place of canon law within the Thomistic jurisprudential framework.

Aquinas was an incredibly influential thinker in the Natural Law tradition.

Islamic Golden Age

Mutazilite vs. Asharite

The rise of Islam, based on both the Qur'an and Muhammad strongly altered the power balances and perceptions of origin of power in the Mediterranean region. Early Islamic philosophy emphasized an inexorable link between science and religion, and the process of ijtihad to find truth—in effect all philosophy was "political" as it had real implications for governance. This view was challenged by the "rationalist" Mutazilite philosophers, who held a more Hellenic view, reason above revelation, and as such are known to modern scholars as the first speculative theologians of Islam; they were supported by a secular aristocracy who sought freedom of action independent of the Caliphate. By the late ancient period, however, the "traditionalist" Asharite view of Islam had in general triumphed. According to the Asharites, reason must be subordinate to the Quran and the Sunna.[12]

Islamic political philosophy, was, indeed, rooted in the very sources of Islam—i.e., the Qur'an and the Sunnah, the words and practices of Muhammad—thus making it essentially theocratic. However, in the Western thought, it is generally supposed that it was a specific area peculiar merely to the great philosophers of Islam: al-Kindi (Alkindus), al-Farabi (Abunaser), İbn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Bajjah (Avempace), Ibn Rushd (Averroes), and Ibn Khaldun. The political conceptions of Islam such as kudrah (power), sultan, ummah, cemaa (obligation)-and even the "core" terms of the Qur'an—i.e., ibadah (worship), din (religion), rab (master) and ilah (deity)—is taken as the basis of an analysis. Hence, not only the ideas of the Muslim political philosophers but also many other jurists and ulama posed political ideas and theories. For example, the ideas of the Khawarij in the very early years of Islamic history on Khilafa and Ummah, or that of Shia Islam on the concept of Imamah are considered proofs of political thought. The clashes between the Ehl-i Sunna and Shia in the 7th and 8th centuries had a genuine political character.

Ibn Khaldun

The 14th century Arab scholar Ibn Khaldun is considered one of the greatest political theorists. The British philosopher-anthropologist Ernest Gellner considered Ibn Khaldun's definition of government, "...an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself," the best in the history of political theory. For Ibn Khaldun, government should be restrained to a minimum for as a necessary evil, it is the constraint of men by other men.[13]

Medieval Europe

Medieval political philosophy in Europe was heavily influenced by Christian thinking. It had much in common with the Mutazalite Islamic thinking in that the Roman Catholics though subordinating philosophy to theology did not subject reason to revelation but in the case of contradictions, subordinated reason to faith as the Asharite of Islam. The Scholastics by combining the philosophy of Aristotle with the Christianity of St. Augustine emphasized the potential harmony inherent in reason and revelation.[14] Perhaps the most influential political philosopher of medieval Europe was St. Thomas Aquinas who helped reintroduce Aristotle's works, which had only been transmitted to Catholic Europe through Muslim Spain, along with the commentaries of Averroes. Aquinas's use of them set the agenda, for scholastic political philosophy dominated European thought for centuries even unto the Renaissance.[15]

Medieval political philosophers, such as Aquinas in Summa Theologica, developed the idea that a king who is a tyrant is no king at all and could be overthrown.

Magna Carta, viewed by many as a cornerstone of Anglo-American political liberty, explicitly proposes the right to revolt against the ruler for justice sake. Other documents similar to Magna Carta are found in other European countries such as Spain and Hungary.[16]

European Renaissance

During the Renaissance secular political philosophy began to emerge after about a century of theological political thought in Europe. While the Middle Ages did see secular politics in practice under the rule of the Holy Roman Empire, the academic field was wholly scholastic and therefore Christian in nature.

Niccolò Machiavelli

One of the most influential works during this burgeoning period was Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince, written between 1511–12 and published in 1532, after Machiavelli's death. That work, as well as The Discourses, a rigorous analysis of the classical period, did much to influence modern political thought in the West. A minority (including Jean-Jacques Rousseau) interpreted The Prince as a satire meant to be given to the Medici after their recapture of Florence and their subsequent expulsion of Machiavelli from Florence.[17] Though the work was written for the di Medici family in order to perhaps influence them to free him from exile, Machiavelli supported the Republic of Florence rather than the oligarchy of the di Medici family. At any rate, Machiavelli presents a pragmatic and somewhat consequentialist view of politics, whereby good and evil are mere means used to bring about an end—i.e., the secure and powerful state. Thomas Hobbes, well known for his theory of the social contract, goes on to expand this view at the start of the 17th century during the English Renaissance. Although neither Machiavelli nor Hobbes believed in the divine right of kings, they both believed in the inherent selfishness of the individual. It was necessarily this belief that led them to adopt a strong central power as the only means of preventing the disintegration of the social order.[18]

European Enlightenment

Eugène Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People (1830, Louvre), a painting created at a time when old and modern political philosophies came into violent conflict.

During the Enlightenment period, new theories about what the human was and is and about the definition of reality and the way it was perceived, along with the discovery of other societies in the Americas, and the changing needs of political societies (especially in the wake of the English Civil War, the American Revolution and the French Revolution) led to new questions and insights by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

These theorists were driven by two basic questions: one, by what right or need do people form states; and two, what the best form for a state could be. These fundamental questions involved a conceptual distinction between the concepts of "state" and "government." It was decided that "state" would refer to a set of enduring institutions through which power would be distributed and its use justified. The term "government" would refer to a specific group of people who occupied the institutions of the state, and create the laws and ordinances by which the people, themselves included, would be bound. This conceptual distinction continues to operate in political science, although some political scientists, philosophers, historians and cultural anthropologists have argued that most political action in any given society occurs outside of its state, and that there are societies that are not organized into states that nevertheless must be considered in political terms. As long as the concept of natural order was not introduced, the social sciences could not evolve independently of theistic thinking. Since the cultural revolution of the 17th century in England, which spread to France and the rest of Europe, society has been considered subject to natural laws akin to the physical world.[19]

Political and economic relations were drastically influenced by these theories as the concept of the guild was subordinated to the theory of free trade, and Roman Catholic dominance of theology was increasingly challenged by Protestant churches subordinate to each nation-state, which also (in a fashion the Roman Catholic Church often decried angrily) preached in the vulgar or native language of each region. However, the enlightenment was an outright attack on religion, particularly Christianity. The most outspoken critic of the church in France was François Marie Arouet de Voltaire, a representative figure of the enlightenment. After Voltaire, religion would never be the same again in France.[20]

In the Ottoman Empire, these ideological reforms did not take place and these views did not integrate into common thought until much later. As well, there was no spread of this doctrine within the New World and the advanced civilizations of the Aztec, Maya, Inca, Mohican, Delaware, Huron and especially the Iroquois. The Iroquois philosophy in particular gave much to Christian thought of the time and in many cases actually inspired some of the institutions adopted in the United States: for example, Benjamin Franklin was a great admirer of some of the methods of the Iroquois Confederacy, and much of early American literature emphasized the political philosophy of the natives.[21]

John Locke

John Locke in particular exemplified this new age of political theory with his work Two Treatises of Government. In it Locke proposes a state of nature theory that directly complements his conception of how political development occurs and how it can be founded through contractual obligation. Locke stood to refute Sir Robert Filmer's paternally founded political theory in favor of a natural system based on nature in a particular given system. The theory of the divine right of kings became a passing fancy, exposed to the type of ridicule with which John Locke treated it. Unlike Machiavelli and Hobbes but like Aquinas, Locke would accept Aristotle's dictum that man seeks to be happy in a state of social harmony as a social animal. Unlike Aquinas's preponderant view on the salvation of the soul from original sin, Locke believes man's mind comes into this world as tabula rasa. For Locke, knowledge is neither innate, revealed nor based on authority but subject to uncertainty tempered by reason, tolerance and moderation. According to Locke, an absolute ruler as proposed by Hobbes is unnecessary, for natural law is based on reason and seeking peace and survival for man.

Industrialization and the Modern Era

The Marxist critique of capitalism — developed with Friedrich Engels — was, alongside liberalism and fascism, one of the defining ideological movements of the Twentieth Century. The industrial revolution produced a parallel revolution in political thought. Urbanization and capitalism greatly reshaped society. During this same period, the socialist movement began to form. In the mid-19th century, Marxism was developed, and socialism in general gained increasing popular support, mostly from the urban working class. Without breaking entirely from the past, Marx established principles that would be used by future revolutionaries of the 20th century namely Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, and Fidel Castro. Though Hegel's philosophy of history is similar to Immanuel Kant's, and Karl Marx's theory of revolution towards the common good is partly based on Kant's view of history—Marx declared that he was turning Hegel's dialectic, which was "standing on its head", "the right side up again".[22] Unlike Marx who believed in historical materialism, Hegel believed in the Phenomenology of Spirit.[23] By the late 19th century, socialism and trade unions were established members of the political landscape. In addition, the various branches of anarchism, with thinkers such as Mikhail Bakunin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon or Peter Kropotkin, and syndicalism also gained some prominence. In the Anglo-American world, anti-imperialism and pluralism began gaining currency at the turn of the 20th century.

World War I was a watershed event in human history, changing views of governments and politics. The Russian Revolution of 1917 (and similar, albeit less successful, revolutions in many other European countries) brought communism - and in particular the political theory of Leninism, but also on a smaller level Luxemburgism (gradually) - on the world stage. At the same time, social democratic parties won elections and formed governments for the first time, often as a result of the introduction of universal suffrage.[24] However, a group of central European economists led by Austrian School economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek identified the collectivist underpinnings to the various new socialist and fascist doctrines of government power as being different brands of political totalitarianism.[25][26]

Contemporary political philosophy

From the end of World War II until 1971, when John Rawls published A Theory of Justice, political philosophy declined in the Anglo-American academic world, as analytic philosophers expressed skepticism about the possibility that normative judgments had cognitive content, and political science turned toward statistical methods and behavioralism. In continental Europe, on the other hand, the postwar decades saw a huge blossoming of political philosophy, with Marxism dominating the field. This was the time of Jean-Paul Sartre and Louis Althusser, and the victories of Mao Zedong in China and Fidel Castro in Cuba, as well as the events of May 1968 led to increased interest in revolutionary ideology, especially by the New Left. A number of continental European émigrés to Britain and the United States—including Hannah Arendt, Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek, Leo Strauss, Isaiah Berlin, Eric Voegelin and Judith Shklar—encouraged continued study in political philosophy in the Anglo-American world, but in the 1950s and 1960s they and their students remained at odds with the analytic establishment.

Communism remained an important focus especially during the 1950s and 1960s. Colonialism and racism were important issues that arose. In general, there was a marked trend towards a pragmatic approach to political issues, rather than a philosophical one. Much academic debate regarded one or both of two pragmatic topics: how (or whether) to apply utilitarianism to problems of political policy, or how (or whether) to apply economic models (such as rational choice theory) to political issues. The rise of feminism, LGBT social movements and the end of colonial rule and of the political exclusion of such minorities as African Americans and sexual minorities in the developed world has led to feminist, postcolonial, and multicultural thought becoming significant. This led to a challenge to the social contract by philosophers Charles W. Mills in his book The Racial Contract and Carole Patemen in her book The Sexual Contract that the social contract excluded persons of colour and women respectively.

In Anglo-American academic political philosophy, the publication of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice in 1971 is considered a milestone. Rawls used a thought experiment, the original position, in which representative parties choose principles of justice for the basic structure of society from behind a veil of ignorance. Rawls also offered a criticism of utilitarian approaches to questions of political justice. Robert Nozick's 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which won a National Book Award, responded to Rawls from a libertarian perspective and gained academic respectability for libertarian viewpoints.[27]

Contemporaneously with the rise of analytic ethics in Anglo-American thought, in Europe several new lines of philosophy directed at critique of existing societies arose between the 1950s and 1980s. Most of these took elements of Marxist economic analysis, but combined them with a more cultural or ideological emphasis. Out of the Frankfurt School, thinkers like Herbert Marcuse, Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Jürgen Habermas combined Marxian and Freudian perspectives. Along somewhat different lines, a number of other continental thinkers—still largely influenced by Marxism—put new emphases on structuralism and on a "return to Hegel". Within the (post-) structuralist line (though mostly not taking that label) are thinkers such as Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault, Claude Lefort, and Jean Baudrillard. The Situationists were more influenced by Hegel; Guy Debord, in particular, moved a Marxist analysis of commodity fetishism to the realm of consumption, and looked at the relation between consumerism and dominant ideology formation.

Another debate developed around the (distinct) criticisms of liberal political theory made by Michael Walzer, Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor. The liberal-communitarian debate is often considered valuable for generating a new set of philosophical problems, rather than a profound and illuminating clash of perspective.These and other communitarians (such as Alasdair MacIntyre and Daniel A. Bell) argue that, contra liberalism, communities are prior to individuals and therefore should be the center of political focus. Communitarians tend to support greater local control as well as economic and social policies which encourage the growth of social capital.

A pair of overlapping political perspectives arising toward the end of the 20th century are republicanism (or neo- or civic-republicanism) and the capability approach. The resurgent republican movement aims to provide an alternate definition of liberty from Isaiah Berlin's positive and negative forms of liberty, namely "liberty as non-domination." Unlike liberals who understand liberty as "non-interference," "non-domination" entails individuals not being subject to the arbitrary will of anyother person. To a liberal, a slave who is not interfered with may be free, yet to a republican the mere status as a slave, regardless of how that slave is treated, is objectionable. Prominent republicans include historian Quentin Skinner, jurist Cass Sunstein, and political philosopher Philip Pettit. The capability approach, pioneered by economists Mahbub ul Haq and Amartya Sen and further developed by legal scholar Martha Nussbaum, understands freedom under allied lines: the real-world ability to act. Both the capability approach and republicanism treat choice as something which must be resourced. In other words, it is not enough to be legally able to do something, but to have the real option of doing it.

Current emphasis on "commoditization of the everyday" has been decried by many contemporary theorists, some of them arguing the full brunt of it would be felt in ten years' time. "Pricing" such ethical categories like personal relations or sex, though always present, pushed by media agenda, is thus seen as crossing boundaries and having adverse societal and philosophical consequences.

Fruitful interaction exists between political philosophers and international relations. The rise of globalization has created the need for an international normative framework, and political theory has moved to fill the gap, with actual politics sadly regressing.

One of the most prominent subjects in recent political philosophy has been the theory of deliberative democracy. The seminal work is by Jurgen Habermas in Germany but the most extensive literature has been in English, led by theorists such as Jane Mansbridge, Joshua Cohen, Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson.[28]

Influential political philosophers

A larger list of political philosophers is intended to be closer to exhaustive. Listed below are some of the most canonical or important thinkers, and especially philosophers whose central focus was in political philosophy and/or who are good representatives of a particular school of thought.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Deutsch, Eliot; Ronald Bontekoei (1999). A companion to world philosophies. Wiley Blackwell. p. 183.
  2. ↑ Hsü, Leonard Shihlien (2005). The political philosophy of Confucianism. Routledge. pp. xvii–xx. ISBN 978-0-415-36154-5. The importance of a scientific study of Confucian political philosophy could hardly be overstated.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Sahakian, Mabel Lewis (1993). Ideas of the great philosophers. Barnes & Noble Publishing. p. 59. ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2. ... Western philosophical tradition can be traced back as early as Plato (427–347 B.C.).
  4. ↑ Kraut, Richard (2002). Aristotle: political philosophy. Oxford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-19-878200-1. To understand and assess Aristotle's contributions to political thought ...
  5. ↑ Radford, Robert T. (2002). Cicero: a study in the origins of republican philosophy. Rodopi. p. 1. ISBN 978-90-420-1467-1. His most lasting political contribution is in his work on political philosophy.
  6. ↑ Boesche, Roger (2002). The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra. Lexington Books. p. 7. ISBN 0-7391-0401-2.
  7. ↑ Rangarajan, L N (2000). The ARTHASHASTRA. Penguin UK,. p. 95. ISBN 9788184750119.
  8. ↑ Brown, D. Mackenzie (1982). The White Umbrella: Indian Political Thought from Manu to Gandhi. Greenwood Press. p. 64. ISBN 978-0313232107.
  9. ↑ Sankhdher, Madan Mohan; Kaur, Gurdeep (2005). Politics in India : Ancient India, Politics of Change, Modern India. Deep and Deep Publications,. p. 95. ISBN 9788176296557.
  10. ↑ Manu ((Lawgiver)); Kullūkabhaṭṭa (1796). Institutes of Hindu Law: Or, The Ordinances of Menu, According to the Gloss of Cullúca. Calcutta, Printed by order of the government, London reprinted, for J. Sewell ...; and J. Debrett.
  11. ↑ Schall, James V. (1998). At the Limits of Political Philosophy. CUA Press. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-8132-0922-7. In political philosophy, St. Augustine was a follower of Plato ...
  12. ↑ Aslan, Reza (2005). No god but God. Random House Inc. p. 153. ISBN 978-1-58836-445-6. By the ninth and tenth centuries...
  13. ↑ Gellner, Ernest (1992). Plough, Sword, and Book. University of Chicago Press. p. 239. ISBN 978-0-226-28702-7. (Ibn Khaldun's definition of government probably remains the best: ...)
  14. ↑ Koetsier, L. S. (2004). Natural Law and Calvinist Political Theory. Trafford Publishing. p. 19. ISBN 978-1-4122-1440-7. ...the Medieval Scholastics revived the concept of natural law.
  15. ↑ Copleston, Frederick (1999). A history of philosophy 3. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 346. ISBN 978-0-86012-296-8. There was, however, at least one department of thought ...
  16. ↑ Valente, Claire (2003). The theory and practice of revolt in medieval England. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-7546-0901-8. The two starting points of most medieval discussions ...
  17. ↑ Johnston, Ian (February 2002). "Lecture on Machiavelli's The Prince". Malaspina University College. Retrieved 2007-02-20.
  18. ↑ Copleston, Frederick (1999). A history of philosophy 3. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 310–312. ISBN 978-0-86012-296-8. ...we witness the growth of political absolutism ...
  19. ↑ Barens, Ingo; Caspari, Volker; Schefold, Bertram (2004). Barens, Ingo, ed. Political events and economic ideas. Volker Caspari ed., Bertram Schefold ed. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 206–207. ISBN 978-1-84542-152-6. Economic theory as political philosophy: the example of the French Enlightenment
  20. ↑ Byrne, James M. (1997). Religion and the Enlightenment. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-664-25760-6. ... there emerged groups of freethinkers intent on grounding knowledge on the exercise of critical reason, as opposed to ... established religion ...
  21. ↑ Johansen, Bruce Elliott (1996). Native American political systems and the evolution of democracy. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-313-30010-3. ... the three-tier system of federalism ... is an inheritance of Iroquois inspiration
  22. ↑ Marx, Karl. "Capital Volume One, Afterword to the Second German Edition". Retrieved 24 September 2013.
  23. ↑ Kain, Philip J. (1993). Marx and modern political theory. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 1–4. ISBN 978-0-8476-7866-2. Some of his texts, especially the Communist Manifesto made him seem like a sort of communist Descartes ...
  24. ↑ Aspalter, Christian (2001). Importance of Christian and Social Democratic movements in welfare politics. Nova Publishers. p. 70. ISBN 978-1-56072-975-4. The pressing need for universal suffrage ...
  25. ↑ What is Austrian Economics?, Ludwig Von Mises Institute.
  26. ↑ Richard M. Ebeling (2003). Austrian economics and the political economy of freedom. Edward Elgar Pub. ISBN 978-1-84064-940-6.
  27. ↑ David Lewis Schaefer, Robert Nozick and the Coast of Utopia, The New York Sun, April 30, 2008.
  28. ↑ Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement (Princeton University Press, 1996). Also see Gutmann and Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton University Press, 2002).

Further reading

External links