Topic: 1

,, It follows, plainly, from the explanation given above, of the foundation of

state, the ultimate aim of government is not to rule, or restrain, by fear, nor to exact
obedience, but contrariwise, to free every man from fear, that he may live in all
possible security; in other words, the strengthen his natural right to exist and work,
without injury to himself and others. "
Spinoza- ,, Theological-Political Treatise"

Abstract : In 1978, Salvador Dali was finishing one of his surrealist paintings- Dream
of Freedom- portraing a man surrounded by all kind of symbols- a fish, butterflies,
the sketch of a nude woman. But why does it have to be a dream? The answer to
this question lies, of course, in Dali's personal objections against human freedom- if
countries founder, it happens because of the excess of liberty. So, for oneself, being
governed by another has to be perceived as a blessing. Spinoza approaches this
issue slightly different: for him, the main concern of a government should be to
assure each and every individual that is part of the state that their natural rights are
protected by laws and regulations-hence, they should feel secure given the fact that
the role of the government should be to provide a clear framework that protects the
safety and well-being of its citizens. So, basically, Spinoza is in favour of a
government that is not focused on ruling people, seeking for blind obedience or
fear-imposed attitudes, but rather on the individual's personal well-being, as long as
one's desires are not conflicting someone else's freedom. Kafka's castle is, on the
other hand, an example of how the individual in unable of finding the meaning of
the social dimension of the human existence. According to Kafka, the social
existence in itself is very hard to be understood by our limited power of perception,
for we cannot see the reasons behind the decision-making process, nor the
intelligible truth that lies inside the forbiden walls of the castle. In this situation, we
must ask ourselves: Why does a government exist and is it necessary at all?
In the following philosophical essay my aim is to examine the main political
/cognitive mechanisms that drives an individual to be a part of the statehood, using
the common methodology of political philosophy.Now, the fragment from
,,Theological- Political Treatise" raises a number of philosophical issues: the freedom
of the individual in a political framework, the legitimate atributions of a government,
purposes of the existence of a state, in the first place. On this note, I formule the
following interrogations for which I'm going to bring substantial arguments and,
hopefully, I will be persuasive enough to support my own personal thesis:
The individual should have preeminence in front of the society regarded as a
unity of individual wills and opinions and the main purpose of the legislator has to

be finding a way to harmonise those divergent tendencies- for the individual to

pursue his personal ambitions( the subjective good) and for the society to seek for
the greater good( the objective good).
1. Is the individual better off without a state?
2. Why do we need political freedom and don't just take for granted the
decissions of our representatives?
3. Under which form of government can Spinoza's claim be accomplished
better?
Part 1: In a natural state, we are free and murderous
Let us consider the natural state as a sort of mind experiment, rather than a
historical situation. Under this state, the oneself is not part of a society, he/ she is
only concerned with survival( preserving his/ her life). There are no laws and
regulations that bind people to act in a certain way or, more corectly put, to
interdict some actions that have a permanent effect over others. The status- quo is
modelated by the principle of scarcity- there are not enough resources to satisfy
everyone in the desired cantity, but there are enough resources to satisfy the basic
needs of everyone. Given the fact that a government does not exist, therefore there
is no one able to control the distribution of these resources, we are inclined to
presume that individuals will do whatever they can in order to get and protect these
goods. This is exactly what Thomas Hobbes describes in ,,Leviathan", where the
human being becomes the biblic monster- murderous in his natural state. Hobbes
describes the status- quo like this- ''homo homini lupus est", meaning that the man
becomes wolf for every other man. This is the state in which everyone is fighting
everyone. Basically, the most pressing feeling for the individual in this situation is
the need for security, and this need can be satisfied only by making sure that the
other one will be unable to atack you first. Other contractualists conceived this
natural state somehow different. Rousseau, for example, tought that the natural
human being is peacefull in essence, having to main characteristics- mercy and selflove. Now, we can interpret those two as being somehow conflicting in their
meaning- the self-love would drive an individual to be able to commit non-moral
acts( even tough he does not have the notion of morality), manifesting itself as the
need for security in the hobbesian world, while mercy would make the individual
vulnerable and week. Mercy can also be considered as an embrionary form of our
rational morality, and we leave from the premise that the natural human being is
not able of reasoning. Therefore, I arrive at the conclusion that the hobbesian
perspective is a lot more plausible than Rousseau's perspective, considering the
selfish tedencies that we all manifest at some point.
Part 2: The statehood as a means to create moral citizens
The basic idea of the social contract seems simple: in some way, the consent

of all individuals subject to collectively enforced social arrangements shows that

those arrangements have some normative property ( they are legitimate). In this
argument, I'm going to analyze the reasoning that leads to the agreement,
considering both the hobbesian theory of the natural state and John Rawls's
perspective from ''A Theory of Justice".
If we are to consider the hobbesian perspective, the need for security
incentivises people to give up their natural state and agree upon some common
social norms in what we call a social contract. The reasoning behind this decission is
this decission is this: I can provide myself security only up to a certain point; beyond
that, there is no certainty that I will be safe all the time and that my existence will
not be endangered by someone stronger or smarter than me- hence, individuals
come to the conclusion that, giving up their natural freedom for a conventional one
is a fair and advantageous trade situation. After they approve the social contract,
individuals will no longer have reasons to act in bad-faith, considering that he/she is
protected by laws and regulations, as well as everybody else. This need for security
represents the main argument in favour of the statehood; we can agree that the
social dimension of one's existence is rather appealing compared to the natural one,
under which everyone is permanently endangered.
On the other hand, for John Rawls this social contract must be conceived in a
different manner. He argues that the hobbesian natural state, if any natural state
proposed by the previous contractualists, should not be taken into consideration
when analyzing different political systems and that it should definitely not be
considered as a status-quo. Rawls argues that any rational individual that has to
choose between chaos and the statehood would choose the statehood as the better
option. In ,,A Theory of Justice", Rawls proposes the original position as a viable
status-quo in the making of the contract. His aim in designing the original position is
to describe an agreement situation that is fair among all the parties to the
hypothetical social contract. He assumes that if the parties to the social contract are
fairly situated and take all relevant informations into account, then the principles
they would agree to are also fair.
Conclusion 1:
The whole point of this inquiry of the main mechanisms of the making of a
state is to underline the way in which the moral status of the subjects in changing
as they become part of a society. Even if one might consider Hobbes's, Rousseau's
or Rawl's theory of the social contract and its means as a more relevant or
substantial argumentation in favour of the statehood, it is justified to believe that
we are not capable of making a moral judgement in a hypothetical natural state.
Therefore, the answer I give to my first interrogation is that the individual can find
more advantages when he lives in a society and he chooses to obbey( not blindly) a
just set of rules that apply in the same way for everyone. Given the fact that the
legitimate statehood acts as a neutral framework ( at least in theory), we are

inclined to affirm that the state is desirable, if not necessary, and reject the
hypothesy that the individual is better off without a state.
Part 3: Earning our Freedom
Throughout the history, the philosophical or the commonsensical approach of
freedom has largely varried from one historical territory to another. Benjamin
Constant makes a clear distinction between two different ways in which we
perceived freedom, from the ancient times to the modern period. The ancient
greeks perceived freedom as some sort of direct implication into politics, a sine-quanon condition of their social existence. For them, freedom meant the unrestricted
right to express the sovereignty directly, by taking part in public debates in the
public square on the subjects regarding war and peace, alliance treaties,
condemning corrupt legislators etc. On the other hand, their freedom was in many
ways restricted or, more correctly put, it was not accesible to everyone in the citystate: the slaves, the women, the foreigners, for example,had no political right and,
therefore, a limited freedom, if that could be called freedom at all.
The other kind of freedom Constant identifies is the freedom of the moderns.
This transition was made possible ,in the first place, by the radical chance of
paradigm that we owe to the French Revolution and its historical background,
including the enlightment. Immanuel Kant describes in his book about the revolution
in France the importance of this event to the entire international community. He
predicted that, given the magnitude of this revolutionary act, history will be
tempted to repeat it under different circumstances. He was right, as the modern
and recent history proved it.
In the following part of this essay I am going to analyse two concepts of
liberty, in the manner in which Isaiah Berlin presented them. First of all, it feels
necessary to mention that Berlin, Leszek Kolakowski and Judith Shklar were
preeminent figures after the World War II and the rise of fascist movements
throughout Europe. Given the fact that individual's fundamental rights were
constantly broken during this period, it felt like the problematic of freedom in a
political context suddenly became a pressing philosophical issue. Isaiah Berlin
observes that political freedom can be divided into two distinct parts: the negative
freedom and the positive one, each being fundamental for a democratic rule. The
negative concept of freedom consists in giving an answer to the following question:
What is the area within which the subject is or should be left to do or be what he is
able to do or be, without interference by other persons? Restrictions on negative
liberty are imposed by a person, not by natural causes or incapacity. For the
psychoanalyst and philosopher Erich Fromm, negative freedom marks the beginning
of humanity as a species conscious of its own existence free from basic instincts. On
the other hand, positive freedom may be understood, as Berlin says, as selfmastery, and includes one's having a role in choosing who governs the society of
which one is a part. Berlin traced positive freedom from Aristotle's definition of

citizenship- the liberty in choosing their government granted to citizens, and

extolled by Pericles. Berlin granted that both concepts of liberty represent valid
human ideals, and that both forms of liberty are necessary in any free and civilised
society.
Part 4: A third concept of liberty?
Even though Berlin's two concepts of freedom seem to describe quite
accurate the distinction that we have to make between the different ways in which
we can understand the political freedom, the 21st century western society can be
better analysed from a third point of view: Skinner's neo-Roman liberty. He
remained closer to the negative conception of freedom but have attempted to go
beyond it, saying that freedom is not merely the enjoyment of a sphere of noninterference but the enjoyment of certain conditions is which such non-interference
is guaranteed. These conditions may include the presence of a democratic
constitution and a series of safeguards against a government wielding power
arbitrarily, including the exercise of civic virtues on the part of citizens. As Berlin
admits, on the negative view of freedom, I am free even if I live in a dictatorship just
as long as the dictator happens, on a whim, not to interfere with me. Therefore,
there is no connection between negative freedom and any particular form of
government. On the alternative view sketching here, I am free only if I live in a
society with the kinds of political institutions that guarantee the independence of
each citizen from exercises of arbitrary power. Even if a slave enjoys noninterference, he/she is 'dominated', because the slave is permanently subject to the
arbitrary power of its owner. In the contemporary society we can analyse this
concept over the situation that exists in Saudi Arabia, more precisely, on the
situation of the women under the Sharia Law. Even if any woman has a theoretic
freedom, the Sharia Law is restraining the sphere of non-interference- hence, we
can no longer talk about republican freedom.
Conclusion 2
I conclude that human freedom is essential in today's political framework and
the fact that especially in the Middle East there is a lack of transparency and
respect for human rights can be seen as a failure of the international political
mechanisms. Moreover, in what concernes the philosophical aspect of this
problematic, I do believe that Skinner's perspective upon human freedom is more
realistic and related to pragmatic premises. Although Berlin's distinction between
positive and negative liberty can be perceived as necessary and well argumented, I
believe that we have to take into consideration the status-quo when we make a
philosophical judgement- hence, Skinner's decission to consider both the political
regime and the ways in which the individual freedom can be expressed is justified
from a pragmatic point of view.
Part 5: The ultimate aim of government and Plato's Ship Analogy

In the ''Republic" Plato compares the state to an elaborate and expensive

ship. A ship, to accomplish a safe and successful journey, needs an expert navigator
at the helm, a captain who knows the capacities of the vessel, geography,
meteorology, water currents, navigational astronomy, supplies management, and
other related matters. An ignorant and untrained person at the helm of a ship would
endanger vessel, cargo, crew, and passengers alike. Similarly, Plato suggests, the
ship of state needs expert governors at the helm, governors who are well informed
about such things as law, economics, sociology, military strategy, history, and other
relevant subjects. Ignorant and incompetent governors can be and have been
disasters for citizens and states. Democratic self-government does not work,
according to Plato, because ordinary people have not learned how to run the ship of
state. They are not familiar enough with such things as economics, military
strategy, conditions in other countries, or the confusing intricacies of law and ethics.
They are also not inclined to acquire such knowledge. The effort and self-discipline
required for serious study is not something most people enjoy. In their ignorance
they tend to vote for politicians who beguile them with appearances and nebulous
talk, and they inevitably find themselves at the mercy of administrations and
conditions over which they have no control because they do not understand what is
happening around them. They are guided by unreliable emotions more than by
careful analysis, and they are lured into adventurous wars and victimized by costly
defeats that could have been entirely avoided.
This might have been true and relevant to the ancient greek city-state.
However, in today's society, education is no longer a matter of social status.
Therefore, it is legitimate to affirm that individuals have learned to run the ship of
state. Spinoza's claim- that the ultimate aim of government is to uphold the natural
rights of the individuals- can be better achieved in a legal, constitutional democracy.
Karl Popper's open society is a perfect example- the civil society has a very strong
influence upon the political decision. The government is open to improvement and it
can be perceived as the voice of the general will. In an open democratic society, we
can pursue the objective good, understood as the greater good, meaning that action
that would affect positive a maximum number of individuals- but also their own
good- the subjective good- due to the fact that the state is not directly implicated in
the decision-making process regarding one's ideals, but it is rather acting as a
neutral agent, meant to protect each and every individual.
Final conclusions
1. It is justified to say that political liberty is a sine-qua-non condition for a
democratic rule to function. As Isaiah Berlin said, both positive and negative
freedom exist and are necessary- they are not mutually exclusive. The Republican
freedom is a more reliable way of approaching the relationship that exists between
the political mechanism and oneself.
2. In Jonathan Swift's book, namely ''The travels of Gulliver", the writer presents a

perfectly rational society- the society of yahoo's- where the political consensus is
something not only desirable, but even achievable. In the Blackwell political
dictionary, this kind of society is described as a non-political mechanism, due to the
fact that politics become necessary where a general agreement is imposible to
reach at once. Therefore, we can say that opposition is a fundamental dimension of
politics and that a democracy without a responsive opposition is only a utopian
dream. This is why, throughout this essay, I supported Popper's idea of an open
society that is able to debate every subject and reach a general consensus.
3. I can conclude that the statehood is a more appealling status for the individual,
comparing to the natural state, considering both the hobbesian perspective and
Rawls's theory.
4. In a modern democracy, Spinoza's aim can be put into practice. Modern
democratic constitutions guarantee individual rights and provide a stable
fundament in protecting one's natural rights. Even more, one can pursue his/ her
happiness in whatever ways considered socialy acceptable. My personal thesis- that
the individual should be able to pursue his own interest but, at the same time, to
take into consideration the general well-being- can become a matter of political
concern only in a viable democratic framework.
Epilogue
The orwellian society adds some distinct shades and features to this
problematic of the most reliable way of governing the people, so as they can feel
secure in pursuing their happiness. In a world in which the Big Brother is
permanently watching your every move, there is no freedom, no sense of justice
whatsoever. In this scenario ( the orwellian nightmare) the Inner Party persecutes
individualism and independent thinking as "toughtcrimes". This is a specific case
that would definitely contradict Spinoza's request that a government would
prioritize the well-being of the citizen.
When king Ludovic the XVIth, or Louis Capet on his civilian name, was
behaded in today's Place de la Concorde, the history was about to change forever.
Fighting in the name of freedom, equality and brotherhood was a historical event
that changed to way in which we perceive the modern liberty and the separation
between the public and private sphere. After a while, it became necessary for the
citizens of a nation to be able to say with honesty:
Big Brother is not watching me...

Keywords
[1] The statehood, from a classical approach, can be defined as the specific political
status under which a clearly defined teritory becomes the corespondent of a state.

For a political body to work as a state it is necessary to hold a positive degree of

independence, sovereignty, a teritory and a population. Under my interpretation,
the statehood is used in order to show the antithesis of the natural state of an
individual, meaning the distinction performed by the contractualists. If we are to
consider Derrida's deconstruction over political mechanisms, we can arrive at the
conclusion that the statehood was understood in different manners in time, starting
with the egyptians and the greeks, until the modern west-europeans
democracies.The different practices have a clear fundament in the way in which the
society evolved.
[2] The Republican freedom or Skinner's neo-Roman liberty are only understood in
close relationship with the political framework. This concept of freedom cannot exist
outside a democracy- a democratic republic, a democratic monarchy, etc.
[3] Political opposition
[4] The open society
[5] A modern state