It advocates a worker-oriented system of production and organization in the workplace that in some aspects radically departs from neoclassical economics in favor of democratic cooperatives or common ownership of the means of production socialism. Libertarian socialists are strongly critical of coercive institutions, which often leads them to reject the legitimacy of the state in favor of anarchism. Libertarian socialism tends to deny the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, viewing capitalist property relation as a form of domination that is antagonistic to individual freedom.
Ethical Foundations Political philosophy has its beginnings in ethics: Since people are by nature sociable — there being few proper anchorites who turn from society to live alone — the question follows as to what kind of life is proper for a person amongst people.
The philosophical discourses concerning politics thus develop, broaden and flow from their ethical underpinnings.
To take a few examples: Accordingly, in the political realm, the utilitarian will support the erection of those institutions whose purpose is to secure the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In contrast, an ethical deontologist, who claims that the highest good is served by our application of duties to the right or to otherswill acknowledge the justification of those institutions that best serve the employment of duties.
In turn an ethical relativist will advocate a plurality of institutions within a nation or around the worldwhereas an ethical objectivist will condemn those that are seen to be lacking a universally morally proper purpose for example, those that support certain inalienable rights.
As ethics is also underpinned by metaphysical and epistemological theories, so too can political philosophy be related to such underlying theories: The greatest and most persistent ethical-political issue that divides philosophers into a host of schools of thought is that concerning the status of the individual: Although the variety and subtleties of this area of thought cannot be examined here, suffice it to say that philosophers divide between those who deem the individual person as sacrosanct that is, ethically and thus politically so and those who consider the individual to be a member of a group and accordingly for whom the group takes on a sacred status.
Others consider political institutions to be sacred in their own right but this is hardly a tenable position: The key question that divides political philosophers returns to whether it is the group or the individual that should be the political unit of analysis.
The language used by the opposing thinkers to describe the political primacy of their entity that is, individual or group alters throughout history depending on other competing or complementing concepts; but today the division is best characterized by the "rights of the individual" versus the "rights of the group.
In political theory courses, the debate proceeds today between communitarians and liberals who debate the middle ground of rights and obligations as they stretch between groups and individuals.
This caricature of extremes enables us to consider the differences and the points of agreement between the several schools of political philosophy in a better light.
But as with generalizations made of historical events, the details are much more complicated and subtle. Methodological Issues In pursuing a philosophical examination of political activity, philosophers also divide between those who are methodological individualists and those who are methodological holists.
Methodological individualists seek to explain social actions and behavior in terms of individual action — and politically are known as individualists, whereas holists seek to explain behavior by considering the nature of the group.
The bifurcation results from a metaphysical division on the appropriate unit of study. In contrast to methodological individualists, who claim that a society or culture, people, nation is no more than the sum of its living members, holists argue that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, which in the political realm is translated into the state being greater than the citizenry, or the race, folk, or people being greater than the individual; politically, holism translates into the general theory known as "collectivism," and all collectivist theories deny or lessen the value and authority of the individual in relation to the higher status accorded a collective entity.
Simmering in the background, it must also be noted, are theological-political philosophies that deny any primacy to the individual or to the group in favor of the supreme status of the divine realm.
Yet these too must also split between individualist and holist conceptions of the individual or of the soul and for our purposes here can be said to follow the same dialogue as secular oriented political philosophers.
Once theologians admit to having to have some kind of government or rule for the living on earth, the general debate of political philosophy can be admitted and expounded upon to define the good life for people amongst people.
A second important methodological issue that relates both to epistemology as well as to ethics is the role that reason plays in social affairs. The extreme positions may be characterized as rationalism and irrationalism, but the descriptions are not necessarily logical opposites.
A rationalist may declare his belief in rationalism to be ultimately irrational for example, Karl Popperand an irrationalist may act rationally. Political rationalism emphasizes the employment of reason in social affairs: Rationalists argue that reason unifies humanity politically and hence is a conducive vehicle to peace.
Irrationalists, on the other hand, downplay the efficacy of reason in our human affairs or more particularly in our social affairs.Vedic anarchism is the “spiritual recognition” of our ultimately unprivileged position in the world, the acknowledgement of the fact that we are systematically ignorant of the crucial forces that the fabric of social life depends on, and to embrace this dynamism of life is to live happily and freely.
Anarchism is a political theory, which is skeptical of the justification of authority and power, especially political power. Anarchism is usually grounded in moral claims about the importance of individual liberty. This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably.
Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding or removing subheadings. (June ). The libertarian who is happily engaged expounding his political philosophy in the full glory of his convictions is almost sure to be brought short by one unfailing gambit of the statist.
In its classical usage, left-libertarianism is a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics, i.e. libertarian socialism, which includes anarchism and libertarian Marxism, among others. Logical positivism insists there is a truth, which can be communicated and shared.
However, scholars specializing in the philosophy of science and the rhetoric of science have challenged the positivists by suggesting that insisting there is a truth is also a leap of faith.