Search

The article "Understanding the Democratic Peace: Spontaneous Order, Organization, and the Foundations of War and Peace" delves into the democratic peace hypothesis, which posits that liberal democracies do not go to war with each other. It explores how democracies, as spontaneous orders, contrast with traditional states as instrumental organizations. The text attributes the democratic peace to systemic dynamics within democracies, rather than individual intentions, and discusses international relations as a Hobbesian anarchy where states prioritize survival and self-interest. It emphasizes the self-organizing dynamics of democratic states and critiques realist explanations for peace, highlighting the transformative impact of democratic politics on society. [Extracted from the article]

This summary discusses the book "Toward a Hayekian Theory of Social Change," which explores the relevance of Hayek's ideas beyond economics. It delves into topics such as the interaction of culture with economics and government, liberal morality, common law, and unique applications of Hayek's work. The book also examines the concept of spontaneous order and its application to various phenomena, including science and the market. The text emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of these interactions and tensions in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of social change. The reviewer finds the book worth reading and praises some of the contributions while also offering constructive criticism. [Extracted from the article]

At first, individualist and evolutionary liberalism reinforced one another. Afterwards the social transformations liberalism initiated amplified their differences. Individualist liberal analysis assumed limited, relatively straightforward, relationships between people. Evolutionary liberalism emphasized relationships, which were growing ever stronger and more numerous. Evolutionary liberals' emphasis on individuals' immersion in complex relationships of culture, language, and environment could handle the increased complexity of impersonal human relations. Rooted in Hume, Smith, and Darwin, evolutionary liberalism linked liberal values with evolution, not individuals. While long delayed by Neo-Darwinism emphasizing competition, recent research demonstrated cooperation is more favored by evolution, creating a solid ethical foundation for evolutionary liberal values as well as greater support for its emphasis on relationships rather than individualist concepts of self-interest and rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While individualist liberalism suffers from a crisis in the grounding of its most basic concepts of rights and individuals, evolutionary liberalism does not. Two challenges arise to challenge its adequacy, however. First, can ethical insights be derived from facts? Hume is often read as denying this. Second, can evolutionary processes often described as competitive and even Hobbesian provide such a foundation. This paper argues the first problem reflects a misreading of Hume and the second a view of evolution that was never Darwin's and one that has been set aside by many contemporary biologists. Evolution is at its deepest level a cooperative process from bacteria to the most complex entities, and individuality itself arises from these processes. The isolated individual of individualist theory does not and never has existed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early liberal thought was rooted in John Locke, whose arguments emphasized individuals as God's creations, and so endowed with equal moral standing vis-àvis one another. While Locke's arguments for his theory of equal rights have been largely abandoned, his conclusions emphasizing individuals as society's fundamental moral units, possessing equal human rights, remain. Broadly speaking, these individualist, rights-based, deontological, and utilitarian approaches dominate contemporary liberal thinking in the U.S. David Hume and other Scots challenged Locke's Enlightenment rationalism, arguing societies developed in ways today we would describe as evolutionary. Customs and institutions arose through human actions, but usually not by deliberate design. This line of thought can be traced from the Scots to the Humboldt brothers to Charles Darwin, and has since been powerfully reinforced by modern evolutionary biology and F. A. Hayek. Rooted more in science than theology or philosophy, this evolutionary approach offered an alternative route to liberal principles. Whereas the social sciences often seek to emulate the natural sciences, in this case the influence was the other way around. From within either broad liberal tradition, equality under the law and freedom of cooperation facilitate the development of customs and practices most conducive to human well-being. However, when examining policies respecting liberal values, the two approaches point in very different directions. Similar tensions exist in biological evolutionary science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evolutionary liberal philosophy on environmental protection and deep ecological thought differ in that the first is centered on human society and the latter views nature independent of how humans use or regard it. Liberal concepts of economics and ethics appear to conflict with deep ecology, but they share an emphasis on humans being part of society which in turn makes them part of natural communities. Liberal principles regarding renewable resources, preservation of flora and fauna diversity, and biodegradable waste should be applied to change current concepts of property rights.

An ecologically informed view of ethics focuses upon individuals considered in relation to the communities within which they live. Such a view holds that ethics is rooted in the fundamental relationships characterizing particular types of communities. From this perspective, the different communities of the polity, family, and ecosystem superficially appear to have very different ethical systems. In fact, however, all are characterized by respect for community members. Respect is the fundamental ethical insight. This view suggests a way of harmonizing modern society's relationship with the natural world and of bringing ethical theory into closer harmony with humankind's most timeless insights.

Methodological individualism provides important insights into spontaneous orders abstracted from their environments, but cannot probe the depth of their impact upon individuals whose actions generate the system, comprehend learning across generations, or the mutual impact of different spontaneous orders. Systems theory suffers no such limitations. This paper integrates Paul Lewis's exploration of emergent qualities in complex orders with the author's exploration of interactions between multiple such orders. Such an approach enriches our understanding of social complexity by demonstrating how causality flows in both directions, from individuals to society and from society and back. There is no starting point. Secondly, it provides a foundation for understanding civil society as a higher order adaptive system than are spontaneous orders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Complex human societies are best understood as ecologies whose members exist in the realm of culture, broadly considered. When this connection is made, concepts fundamental to biological ecological science will be seen to have equivalents in human societies. However, there is a challenging disconnection between the two, because cultural ecologies change more rapidly than biological ecologies, but depend on them for their survival. This permanent issue within human, and some animal, societies is made more intractable by capitalism. Addressing it requires that market interactions with natural ecologies subordinate profit to sustainability. This paper closes with examples of such institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

States are organizations whereas democracies are spontaneous orders. Because successful organizations within spontaneous orders are vulnerable to displacement through competition, one attractive option for protecting themselves is using their resources to change the rules in their favor. This is true for political parties vulnerable electorally and businesses threatened by market competition. They frequently ally to subordinate spontaneous order processes within their respective systems to the most powerful organizations within them. The result is that a democratic spontaneous order can gradually be transformed into a state. This transformation is of more than scholarly interest because, among other things, it increases the likelihood of war. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Capitalism is a term widely used by critics and advocates alike, but with little coherence to its meaning. Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek, along with Chicago School economist Milton Friedman sought to turn it into a term of approval rather than criticism. Their different efforts to do so did not harmonize theoretically. When their respective ins ights and confusions are addressed a coherent theory of capitalism emerges, one that is critical, as was initially the case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Refutes the criticisms of Paul Piccone and Gary Ulmen on the author's essay titled `Federalism, Self-Organization, and the Dissolution of the State'. Arguments on the definition of democracy; Confusion over political and legal principles with social principles; Views on popular sovereignty.

Focuses on democratic self-governance within federalized states as an alternative to the unitary nation-state. Need for the dissolution of the nation-state due to its declining importance; Roots of modern nation-states in undemocratic principles; Tensions that ultimately brought on the American Civil War.