According to Marx, the people must make political decisions
collectively in order for the society to be just. This is the way that laws are made in Marx’s
theory of communism. The idea of communism
that comes to mind (former Soviet Union, Cuba, Mao China) is not actually the
proper application of communism at all. Historically,
these systems were unjust because the powerful government, and not society as a
whole, made all of the laws and decisions that governed the society. In our America today, we do not have a true
democracy; instead we have a representative democracy. This means that government does not operate by choices of the individual. If we had a true democracy and people always
voted in the interest of the collective society, could Marx approve of this
system of government?
Would Nozick approve of representative democracy or would he
be more in favor of a true democracy?
Because Nozick believes that in a just state we make our own individual
choices, he would probably promote a true democracy. In a representative democracy we elect representatives to make choices for
us. By allowing them to make laws and
decisions for us, have we forfeited too much of our freedom? Nozick says that moral obligations cannot be
justly dictated by the law. One could
argue that by electing the representatives and having them make decisions on
our behalf, our system oversteps boundaries that attempt to dictate our moral
obligations. Definitive laws regarding
social issues such as the right to marriage, the right to one’s own body, and the
right to privacy would not be in the hands of the representatives. The representatives would only have the power
to make decisions concerning minimal and necessary laws. However, one could also argue that because
free, rational, and autonomous individuals elected the representatives, our
choice to vote and comply with the system makes the representative democracy
completely just.
Would Marx, Rawls, or Nozick approve of our current
political system? I think that as a
whole system, none of these philosophers would approve. However, certain
aspects within our government exemplify parts of each philosopher’s idea of
justice. Marx would approve of public transportation, Rawls would approve of
laws that make things accessible to the handicapped, and Nozick would agree
with our system of supply and demand. Above, I noted
that our current political system is a representative democracy.
Do you think this is accurate or do other political systems or
ideologies dominate over our system of representative democracy?
To answer the first question, I would think that Marx would be supportive of an educated proletariat that determined their own fate. Capitalism by definition supports a minority, I would think that he would be in favor of a system that supports a majority with out a form of monetary supported partisan bias.
ReplyDeleteNozick would probably be down for the pure democracy also, but the problem is, we do not really live in a free society. Our representatives are bound by parties and some are re-elected indefinitely. So that argument is invalid. We are forced to choose "black or white" instead of a rational, objective answer to a social problem. It creates destructive debate and hinders dialogical progress in politics. I agree. I think our founding father's would notice that our country went astray from how they planned it.
I think our founding father's would be okay with a type of social-democracy, and they would think that we really screwed up with the national banking system.
Accurate.
Nice post!
Hillary, I think you raise some very compelling questions. To address your first question, I think Marx would approve of a true democracy, if people voted for the good of the collective whole. I think Marx’s biggest problem with our government is capitalism. Therefore, if in the society, the true democracy operated with people voting for the collective whole, sans capitalism, Marx would approve. However, is the idea of government feasible? Do you think there could exist a true democracy where people vote for the good of the collective whole? I am not sure this would work, because even if we had a true democracy today, I believe people would still vote for their own interests.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I believe Nozick would be in favor of a true democracy. I think that electing representatives for our voice would be too much government for Nozick. Nozick feels you should be able to do whatever you want with your property and no form of body should be able to tell you what you can and cannot do with the property you have justly acquired. Thus, I think he believes in a minimal government to look over the state, a body that is seen not heard. Therefore, I would think that we would be very pro true democracy, because it would be people deciding what they want to do with their property, everyday citizens deciding about laws governing the states. I think the mere thought of representatives would be “too much” government for Nozick, like you stated I think he would believe we were giving up some of our freedom, and that in itself would be unjust.
Finally, I think you have captured our system of government well. I, too, believe that none of the philosophers would be happy with our system as a whole, however we have aspects that each philosopher would agree with. I think that is part of the reason we are not a true democracy, our society has taken bits and pieces of philosophies and ideas and formed a “representative democracy”. America is considered a melting pot and I think the same analogy can be applied to our system of government: we have a little bit of everything.