Is the adversarial model, associated with the state of nature and the subsequent transition from asocial to social arrangements, still applicable once we move to consider civil societies? More importantly, perhaps, can we extend the notion of compromise, and that of “taking an insurance policy,” to cover the manner in which most of the human rights have been won? Can we construe other rights and social gains on analogy with how the basic rights, such as the right to life and property, have been secured in the course of the aforementioned transition? Is the model still applicable once we’re past that transition?
The answer to the first question must be an unequivocal yes. Although the state-of-nature construct represents perhaps the direst in asocial arrangements, we also know that the state of conflict never really disappears: the manner of its resolution may become more or less “civil” in the context of civil societies, but the interest in maintaining the status quo by means of the existing power structures and social hierarchy will never wane, of that we can be certain. Indeed, one way of understanding the development of human societies is in terms of a progression from the antagonistic to the more cooperative mode. And the main mechanism of this progression, from societies that are less civil to those that are more so, has been compromise.
The second set of questions requires a more measured response. Here we may start with the Bill of Rights, serving as a prototype if you like. Along with the right to life and property, one could lump all the rights enumerated therein as being fundamental and in that sense, inalienable. There is, besides, a historical reason for doing so, in that all of those rights may be said to define a political community and inaugurate its passage from a pre-social and pre-political stage to a full-fledged polity in every sense of the word. Just as a charter may be said to guarantee certain rights and privileges to all its present and would-be members, be it a group or a social club, in the same manner the Bill of Rights may be said to constitute the foundation of a political community – the United States. Guaranteeing those rights (again, it’s arguable) is tantamount to according them a certain innate, inalienable status – a status which predates the formation of the political community and cannot therefore be construed as though constituting the condition of membership. It’s the other way around, in fact, the Bill of Rights itself being the precondition of the political community, the main reason why the individuals in the state of nature would chose to enter a “social contract” and form a civil society, so they wouldn’t have to fend for themselves and their inalienable rights but be guaranteed adequate protection – by the state.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - jacksmith
AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!
It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and demand that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
God Bless You
Jacksmith " WORKING CLASS
2 - Ma rk
As is usual with Nowosielski articles, I find the tired presumptions concerning human nature and history presented here adequate and necessary only to support and justify the status quo.
(Rog, can't your thesis be presented in three sentences rather than three pages -- let alone three articles? How about a good graffito to communicate your conclusion?)
3 - roger nowosielski
Sorry, Mark. I think you're missing the point. I'm describing a model, not offering any presumption concerning human nature. As to offering conclusions, that would be rather irresponsible, don't you think? without arguing for them.
I have a distinct feeling you're not comfortable with the model, which prompts your criticism.
4 - m ark
You might as well own the model, Rog...perhaps. It is a the base of all of your pieces, thus far.
5 - Dr Dreadful
I do feel you're taking one heck of a long time to get to the point, Roger, but you do raise a very good question to those who oppose UHC by stating that it is not a right: why do they say this? how do they know?
Interested to see Part 3, all the same.
6 - roger nowosielski
Well, at least I am being consistent.
Shouldn't all writing proceed with certain conceptual scheme in mind? Unless of course the scheme is being questioned?
I am trying to make some relevant distinctions here, Mark, rather than merely spouting out a worn-out ideology. There are times when thinking must proceed incrementally, one step at a time.
I admit the style is too dense - it should have been the first draft. But the elements are all there (so far).
7 - m ar k
What good are distinctions made within a worn out ideology...it's like arguing with a doctrinaire Marxist.
8 - roger nowosielski
As I just replied to Mark (#5), this was difficult to conceptualize because of the many elements which go into the schema - rights, morality, social benefits and social obligation, not to mention the idea and means of human/societal progress.
I think it's possible to argue on behalf of healthcare from another angle - not necessarily that of "human rights" (because to do the latter obliterates certain distinctions). I think the notion of social/ societal obligation is the way to go - especially in the context of what Jordan spoke earlier as a "civilized (and therefore, sufficiently prosperous) society/world."
9 - roger nowosielski
I don't consider the concept of "rights" to be anyway near to going extinct. As a matter of fact, one could well argue it's the dominant concept in modern political theory - in a driver's seat, if you like.
Consequently, we've got to be clear about "rights," what kinds are there, and what may be the natural limits of the concept.
I have no idea what you mean by or refer to when you speak of a "worn out ideology." If you mean by that anything like the ideals of "liberal democracies," then I definitely disagree with you. The time hasn't come yet when we can safely say we've seen the best they've got to offer and so we should therefore discard them.
As far as I'm concerned, the ideals of "liberal democracies" still rule the day and will and should constitute the basis of remaking human societies for the better.
10 - mar k
I don't consider the concept of "rights" to be anyway near to going extinct. As a matter of fact, one could well argue it's the dominant concept in modern political theory - in a driver's seat, if you like.
I understand your point of view as I view the concept of 'class' similarly.
I imagine that the 'ideals of liberal democracy' through their present contrary to fact nature indeed will participate in the next 'evolution'.
11 - roger nowosielski
Well, at least we're clear as to what we really disagree about, and that's the first step.
I think the notion of class has been rendered outmoded, especially in the West, by virtue of material progress. To say it differently, because bourgeois values have been bought wholesale. Which isn't to say that a reversal is not possible, prompted by a severe worldwide crisis, at which time the idea of class may gain in currency. But I don't foresee that the capitalist societies would allow this to happen.
Which again, isn't to say that we shall not undergo a significant social evolution; but as you say, I don't see how the notion of rights would not figure as a centerpiece.
12 - Cindy
Roger,
I think the problem (the worn out ideology) begins with this statement: ...the adversarial model, associated with the state of nature...
It's a presumptuous model. It makes presumptions about human nature.
13 - Jeannie Danna
Roger, I believe I understand this sentence to imply It’s worth noting that the idea of voting as a right was never in question, only its application. What was originally construed by “the People,” to mean perhaps only the propertied class or some such, was extended in time to include more and more “citizens” Even though this country was founded and framed as a Republic and not a Democracy there was the allowance for change and growth through Amendments and that the United States today is truly for and by all the people,not just white male land-owners...:) Right?
14 - roger nowosielski
#12
We're operating within an adversarial model. Just look around you. It's not a prediction of what can be - only a description of how we've been operating thus far.
15 - Jeannie Danna
I believe we will have UHC soon
16 - roger nowosielski
Jeannie,
You're right insofar that in forming of the Union, there had to be a provision as to how we're going to be electing our representatives. Just like when you join a club, there must be some bylaws concerning the method by which certain officials, like the secretary, the treasure, and so forth, are going to be elected - and part of the process is that the members will vote.
Same with the USA. So the provision for voting had to be there. Of course, "the People" was rather ambiguous, originally including only the propertied class. But through struggle, the blacks, women and other minorities were included to count as "the People," given thus the right to vote.
How did the appointment go, BTW?
17 - Jeannie Danna
Jacksmith has a good plan!Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry.
18 - roger nowosielski
Do you have the link? There was rather disappointing news today about Obama caving in. I'll see if I can dig it up.
19 - Cindy
You're discussing 'the state of nature'. Capitalism is an adversarial model. What does Capitalism have to do with your 'state of nature' argument?
20 - Cindy
If I live in a Muslim culture, and I look around and I see Muslims everywhere--does that warrant suggesting that the state of nature is for people to be Muslims?
21 - roger nowosielski
But the followinglooks like good news.
Notice the hypocrisy and how the private insurers are squirming, about to pee in their pants.
22 - Jeannie Danna
Roger, President Obama did not cave in Did you watch his news conference?
23 - roger nowosielski
"State of nature" was also the most adversarial type of situation - every man for himself. And transitioning to "a civil society" didn't do away with the adversarial model, only put it somewhat in check, so that you can't just go and assault your neighbor without incurring (some) consequences. A civil society is "civil" but only compared to state-of-nature - which is the extreme in nastiness. And so it goes for civilization - which is a very thin veneer. When sanctions and social controls cease and are no longer operative, the brute that a human is comes to the forth.
24 - roger nowosielski
#23,
Jeannie, I just corrected myself. But earlier on, there was a report to the contrary. I just can't find it now.
25 - roger nowosielski
BTW, Jeannie, I submitted the piece you liked. Hope it will be here soon, just to show I'm capable of a more lyrical style.