Autor: Manent, Pierre

Buch: An Intellectual History of Liberalism

Titel: An Intellectual History of Liberalism

Stichwort: Locke 4; Aristoteles (Argumentation)- Hobbes, L. (unbestreitbare "Einsichten"); L.: indiv. Eigentum als Grundlage v. Recht -> Hayek (sozl. Gerechtigkeit ist sinnlos); liberale Gesellschaften: Dominanz d. Ökonomie; Hinwendung zu Natur (neutrale Grundlage)

Kurzinhalt: Since individual property is the basis of justice, and since property in its origin requires no relationship among men, justice cannot be the object of a genuine uncertainty, and hence of rational debate. Justice is always already realized, as long as ...

Textausschnitt: 46a I pointed out earlier the great difference separating Aristotle's approach from that of Hobbes. Aristotle reached his conclusion at the end of a long discussion that represents a refinement of political discussion such as it must have occurred spontaneously in the city-state. As for Hobbes, he aims at reaching a result that is not only true but also essentially incontestable, since it is based on something stronger than any discursive reasoning: fear of death. It is important to point out here that Locke's approach is just as "absolutist" as Hobbes's. The original right of each person is essentially above discursive reasoning, above any objection, because it is based on a solitary and silent activity: labor for consumption. In Locke's eyes, the meaning of justice can only be to guarantee property. It is absurd to doubt the justice of property rights, since the very idea of justice presupposes ownership. Those who object to this right, or who demand the consent of the body politic for this right to be a true one, are disdainfully dismissed as "quarrelers and quibblers"; they simply want to deprive others of the fruit of their labor. And Locke notes that it is certain that the world was not given to such people, but only to those who are "rational and industrious." (Fs) (notabene)

46b Hobbes had noted that civil war is often born from uncertainty and from conflict over what is "right" or "legitimate" or "just." The absolute sovereign neutralizes this conflict by identifying what is "just" with what is declared so by the sovereign. Locke neutralizes it in a more economic way. Since individual property is the basis of justice, and since property in its origin requires no relationship among men, justice cannot be the object of a genuine uncertainty, and hence of rational debate. Justice is always already realized, as long as property is guaranteed and protected. The only conceivable discussion of justice is identical with a debate fixing the rate of exchange of properties on the market, a debate whose outcome is always "just" since it is based on the consent of the two parties. It must be admitted that an author like Hayek is loyal to liberalism's original inspiration in claiming that the notion of "social justice" makes no sense. (Fs)

46c These remarks help us to understand why economic activity became the dominant activity in liberal societies, more precisely why the erection of the "sovereign state" above "civil society" corresponded to the liberation of economic activity and, soon, its dominant position in society. We have seen that the sovereign state, in having the means and the right to demand total obedience, tends to neutralize the secular as well as the religious motives that drive men to acquire power and influence over each other. But this sovereignty constitutes only the exterior framework of men's actions. Assuming that they obey, what else are they going to do in civil society? In what terms are they going to relate to each other? The same movement that brings the sovereign state to forbid men to exercise personal power over each other is going to lead the members of society to turn progressively away from each other, to avoid encounters in which they experience mortal dangers. They are going to seek a neutral ground for their actions, one where they do not meet their fellow men and where they do not encroach upon sovereignty. Up to the constitution of the sovereign state, the primary object of each person's action was the other man. Henceforth, that object will be nature. Men turn away from men and instead turn themselves toward nature so as to understand and control it. Science is neutral and its conclusions are imposed on everyone. It is above the particular interests and partisan passions of men, not unlike the sovereign, at least in principle. The economy, closely linked with science, tends to become the arena par excellence of human activity because, in its finality, the economy is directed toward nature and not toward other men. The development of absolute sovereignty within the framework of the state, and the development of science and economy within the framework of civil society, have the same motivating force. I have indicated how Locke's philosophical viewpoint prepared the "scientific" viewpoint of political economy. The fact remains, however, that Locke stopped well short of the latter. In his doctrine, the world of the economy alone is not sufficient, it needs the political institution for guaranteeing its existence. On this fundamental point, Locke remains within Hobbes's schema. (Fs)