Respond to this POST!!!!!Anthony Semprun
ThursdayDec 1 at 5:08pm
Discussion Thread 3: Lockean Liberalism and Nationhood
Yoram Hazony, the author of The Virtue of Nationalism, is an Israeli political theorist and advocate for nationalism. In his book, Hazony articulates his fundamental disagreement with John Locke’s theory about nationalism. John Locke, a political theorist, shared this vision in his writing of the Second Treatise of Government in 1689. However, in contrast to Hazony’s view, Locke’s enlightenment liberal views are not harmonious with a nationalistic base. Locke maintained that all humans are equal and are born with the right to life, liberty, and property. He vigorously promoted consent. Consent in this context means that an “individual becomes a member of a human collective only because he has agreed to it, and has obligations toward such collectives only if he has accepted them” (Yoram Hazony, 2018, pg 16). While consent is essential, the concept of individualism surpasses that of nationalism, failing to see a community’s communal significance and history. Consequently, Locke’s view widely ignores the impact of common collectives that help to reinforce patriotism, loyalty, family, and nationality.
Although Locke wrote about individual freedom, Hazony argued that Locke regarded individual consent over plural ties such as religious tradition, families, and nationhood. Hazony contends that Locke saw no value in these groups because it bound them unnecessarily to something of more importance. John Locke, Hazony claims, believes that property and self-preservation are the most important. Locke writes in his 1689 Treatises that “mankind are one community” within the confines of the law of nature (Locke & Laslett, 1689/2012). While this sounds reasonable, it does not most notably put limits on the boundaries of states. For this reason, according to Locke, maintaining individual freedom and supporting the heritage of religion, family, and other traditions is impossible.
In this author’s opinion, both make strong arguments for limited government. John Locke contends that universal rights are essential and given to every individual. He also points out that government should not force its will upon individuals. Locke’s opinion of self-determination is correct that individuals have rights, albeit, in this author’s opinion, they are God-given. These rights allow individuals to pursue life, liberty, and property without impediment. Furthermore, it allows citizens the autonomy to select the type and limit of government. Therefore, the determination of authority limits the opportunity for tyranny.
Contrarily, Hazony encourages religious tradition, families, and other groups to carry on seeking independence from other nations. Borders exist to encapsulate customs and inheritance in bounded existence to something more significant. These institutions are under assault and need defense. These motivations originate during biblical times and appear to be generationally diluted. Cato Institute writer Alberto Mingardi describes the liberal elite as “disdainful of the habits and affections of localism, and thus lack understanding of history and peoples” (Mingardi, 2018). A strong nation requires individual freedom however insists upon allowing inherited tradition to continue.
REspond to this post!!!!Michael Stutzman
FridayDec 2 at 11:28pm
Hazony starts his argument about Locke’s contractual obligation by first stating a broad overview of the Lockean theory that ties individuals to a collective group. Hazony says that Locke’s foundation for the Second Treatise of Government is based on the “assertion that all human individuals are born in “perfect freedom” and “perfect equality,” and the pursuit of life, liberty, and property in a world of transactions is based on consent” (Hazony, 2018). Based on Locke’s understanding of human nature and attempting to theorize how the first human society started, I feel that Hazony accurately described the core element of Locke’s overall contract theory. However, Hazony encounters a significant flaw in his argument when he tries to discredit Locke’s version of consent which is better described as a personal choice. Hazony states that Locke’s utopian idea of the collective group, which empowers the individual overlooks aspects of humanity that removes the element of choice. The primary example used in Hazony’s argument points to the idea that humans cannot decide which family we are born into or who are siblings are. To the extent of family lineage, Hazony seems to be correct. However, he fails to recognize that element of personal choice; despite being born into a family, individuals ultimately have the choice to remain connected to that family or tribe, which determines the trajectory of our loyalty.
Obligation to a nation also follows a similar trajectory; one cannot personally choose which nation we are born in, but an individual can decide loyalty to a particular nation. Hazony articulates the power of personal choice earlier in the book when discussing his two visions of the world. “The book of Exodus teaches that many Egyptians attached themselves to the Hebrew slaves in fleeing Egypt and that they received the Ten Commandments at Sinai with the rest of Israel” (Hazony, 2018). Hazony overlooks the importance of Locke’s presupposition of inalienable natural rights and the human power of choice within his overall social contract theory. Instead, Hazony seems to support the idea that humans are not primarily individuals; they are born into a social collective such as families, tribes, religious groups, and national identity. These groups bind the individual to the collective through traditions, language, beliefs, and customs, producing unity and mutual loyalty among collective members (Yaffe, 2021). For Hazony, self-interested consent conveyed by Locke lacks adequacy to bind individuals together in a political society; instead, he believes that loyalty binds individuals to their collective. “Then the loyalty that binds the individual to his tribe and nation will also bind him to the national government, so that he obeys its laws, pay taxes to it, and serves in its military when summoned” (Hazony, 2021). The alarming issue with Hazony’s loyalty presumption is that it creates an idea of a blinding unquestionable loyalty to an individual’s social collective, removing the responsibility of personal choice of actions and placing it at the altar of political society.
In my own personal view, Hazony’s argument for Lockean philosophy lacks credible evidence to support the idea that loyalty is the key that binds individuals to their social collective. In contrast, Locke’s perspective of consent and the power of personal choices seems more logical. We find within society that individuals pursue transactions based on consent to improve their own life; everyone within a capitalistic society strives to work not out of loyalty to the nation or company but rather to gain finances to prove their current condition through repetitive transactions. Although Hazony presented a well-thought-out argument using the Torah to prove binding loyalty, he failed to recognize that even in biblical times, loyalty had its limits. However, Hazony failed to mention that societal and biblical laws prevented such abuses of loyalty during biblical times. “Biblical law would punish patriarchal heads of families, clans or tribes who might somehow invoke loyalty to their sub-political communities in order to justify their residual (if morally blameworthy) habits of, for instance, injuring slaves, sacrificing children, or failing to investigate homicides on the outside fringes of their patriarchal jurisdiction” (Yaffe, 2021). Finally, Hazony fails to recognize the correlation between personal actions and personal choices. Every action conducted by individuals requires a justification for that action, this power to determine our actions is rooted in the divinely given right to choose. “If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the river or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh 24:15). However, there is a caveat for our choices we are all responsible for our life decisions despite how we ultimately justify them. God has given us the power and ability to make decisions that extend past the weight of loyalty. Human beings have the power to decide and consent to follow Jesus or not; why would God limit power when regarding human social groups? For this reason, I found that Locke’s argument better explained the formation of social groups and the inherent rights we all possess.
References
Barton, D., Cummings, B., & Wubbels, L. (2017). The founder’s Bible: The Origin of The Dream of Freedom. Shiloh Road Publishers.
Hazony, Y. (2018). The Virtue of Nationalism. Hachette. https://libertyonline.vitalsource.com/books/9781541645387Links to an external site.
Hazony, Y. (2021). Realism in Political Theory. Perspectives on Political Science, 50(1), 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2020.1842104Links to an external site.
Yaffe, M. D. (2021). Defending National Loyalty: Yoram Hazony on Nationalism. Perspectives on Political Science, 50(1), 10-14. https://doi.org!!!!!!!!!he student
must then post two replies of at least 200 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday of the assigned
Module: Week. In Module 8: Week 8 replies will be due on Friday. For each thread, students
must support their assertions with at least three scholarly citations in current APA format. Each
reply must incorporate at least one scholarly citation in current APA format. Any sources cited
must have been published within the last five years. Acceptable sources include the class reading
material, peer-reviewed sources, authoritative works, government data, and the Bible.
