Political Philosophy
Very roughly speaking, there are four main kinds of political philosophy around today.
Libertarianism (also called "classical liberalism" or just "liberalism"): emphasizes ‘negative’ rights, i.e. the right not to have certain things done to you (be killed, robbed, etc.). The role of government is to protect us from outside invaders and domestic criminals who would otherwise violate our rights, but otherwise to leave us alone. This is a somewhat old-fashioned view, associated with the 17th century John Locke and the 19th century John Stuart Mill, but it has recently made a big comeback, especially because of Robert Nozick’s book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, perhaps the ultimate philosophical argument for small government. Philosopher John Hospers has even run for President for the Libertarian Party. The libertarianism described here is a pure or extreme version which does not necessarily conform precisely to the views of real-life libertarians, who are likely to make some concessions to the objections listed below.
Objections: 1. Libertarians would allow anything between consenting adults, at least in private, including drug use, prostitution, hard-core pornography, sodomy, flag burning, etc. etc. Is this too much liberty?
2. Libertarians would not interfere with the economy at all, so they would allow monopolies, for instance, and would totally scrap welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. Would this be good for society?
3. Libertarians regard society as just a mass of individuals in the same place under the same government, ignoring common traditions, culture, religion, etc. Does this ignore the value of patriotism, community, etc.?
4. In a libertarian society, some people would end up with much more wealth than others, perhaps just by inheriting it. Is this fair?
5. In reality libertarianism as an impartial ideal of maximum freedom and justice seems to be a kind of fantasy. We are all born into a world in which property is neither evenly distributed nor freely available. This situation came about through history, in which piracy, imperialism, genocide, slavery, etc. have all had an important part. No individual is free just to live their own life, since (for instance) there is no free land to farm. We all depend on others (especially if we are poor or handicapped by low social status, low intelligence, unpopular ethnicity, or disability, etc.). A government that adopts a completely laissez faire approach effectively sides with the pirates, slave-owners, etc. and their descendants.
Socialism: the exact opposite of libertarianism. Values ‘positive’ rights, such as the right to healthcare, food, shelter, work, etc., more than ‘negative’ rights. The economy would be run for the good of society as a whole. Very few people today are real socialists, but many agree with parts of this theory.
Objections: 1. Would this be efficient?
2. Is it fair to violate some people’s ‘negative’ rights to provide for the ‘positive’ rights of others?
3. Do so-called positive rights exist at all?
Liberalism (also called "modern liberalism"): a cross between libertarianism and socialism. Its most famous philosophical defender is John Rawls. Rawls equates justice with fairness. A fair distribution of rights and other goods, he says, is one that everyone would agree to from behind a veil of ignorance about their place in society. He calls this the original position. Rawls believes that in the original position people would support two fundamental principles of justice:
I. "Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others." [i.e. freedom and (negative) rights should be equal, and there should be as much freedom and opportunity as possible.]
II. "Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all." [i.e. all inequalities should be avoided if possible, unless they benefit everyone.]
In other words, he believes in the basic ideal of libertarianism BUT he also thinks people would prudently limit this, just in case they end up near the bottom of society, by adding some form of welfare. Inevitably some people will be worse off than others, but we should make them as well off as we can.
Objections: 1. Is the best way to decide what justice requires imagining what people would agree to in certain fictional, indeed impossible, circumstances?
2. Would such people in fact agree to precisely the combination of freedom and equality that Rawls comes up with?
3. Feminist philosopher Susan Moller Okin objects that Rawls says very little about gender issues. Women, though, must be included in any satisfactory theory of justice, she says. Current gender injustices seriously undermine equality of opportunity. Furthermore, the family is where we learn our basic values, so the family must be just if society is to be just.
Communitarianism: a new (although it can be traced back to Aristotle) alternative to liberalism and libertarianism. Some communitarians are just moderate socialists, but others are nationalists or patriots. Communitarians value tradition; ethnic, regional or national identity; and the common culture that comes from religion or shared moral values. They emphasize the importance of belonging to a certain community and sharing in its traditions, values and culture. They think that libertarians and liberals over-emphasize the importance of the individual and stress that "no man is an island" and "it takes a village to raise a child." Hegel can be thought of as a good example of this type of thinker.
Objections: 1. Even libertarians allow people the option of celebrating their heritage, culture, etc., but no-one should be forced to do so.
2. Emphasizing the community is often a cover for socialism or nationalism, which in turn lead to communism and fascism.
3. Communitarianism seems vague and more a reaction against libertarianism than a philosophy of its own.
A note on conservatism:
Conservatism generally means sticking to the old ways of doing or thinking about things. Conservatives tend to be skeptical about theories of the kind outlined above. Instead they value the wisdom inherent in tradition and whatever institutions have evolved or arisen to meet the demands of each particular culture. If something clearly needs to be changed, they would say, then by all means change it, but do so cautiously. And if it ain't broke, don't fix it just to fit the theory that some philosopher devised in his or her study. There is a similarity with communitarianism here, but in the USA the traditional political institutions, and the philosophical justifications given for them, embody rather libertarian ideals. The philosophical division of libertarian/liberal/communitarian does not neatly fit the ordinary division of liberal/conservative or Republican/Democrat. Basically almost everyone today is some kind of liberal, accepting some role for the state in providing goods such as education as well as protecting individual rights. Republicans tend to lean towards libertarianism, but most recognize that the theory has its flaws. That's why the Libertarian Party is its own organization. Democrats tend to lean more in the direction of socialism, but again most are really liberals, seeing that in practice pure socialism tends to produce inefficiency and misery. Contemporary "socialists" in Europe are not really socialists at all, on the whole.