Random, late night, political science quiz...Fun for the whole family

[Beearewhyain]

Well, maybe more theory but the rules are simple, I post a concept or quote and you name the proponent or explain. Wheee!

1) Life is "nasty, brutish and short".

2) "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"

3) Self interest rightly understood

4) Life, liberty, and property

5) The invisible hand

Bonus Question:
What was Rousseau's "city"?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. okay... not too bad

1. Hobbs

2. Mill? Definately libertarian, not my expertise

3. Duh. DeToqueville

4. Jefferson

5. The Prince of Darkness Himself, Adam Smith

Rousseau's City? Not Paris... Switzerland... ah... Geneva?

[jdots]

2. Rousseau the painter ?

sorry i am non funtionally illiterate #4 sounds like the credo of neocon's except liberty and property is just thier's.

[MatrixEscape]

3. A shot ...

1) Thomas Hobbes

2) John Stuart Mills

3) Tocqueville

4) John Locke

5) Adam Smith

BQ: Geneva?

[victim]

4. Too...easy

Hobbes
Mill
Tocqueville
Locke
smith

Chambery

[Beearewhyain]

5. To all...I am Impressed

I don't know if I could have as quickly come up with all the answers. Which brings me to a larger question; Considering how we know these creators of liberal thought, how do we change those who claim to knew but misunderstand the progression?

BTW 1: Smith was not all that bad, he was a product of his time and offered a drastic improvement to the previous paradigm

BTW 2: On the BQ I was looking for more of a debate/personal opinions because it is something that I think has many permutations possible and most of them (my opinion) could not be good.

[victim]

6. Since my Poli Sci prof would kick my ass if I didn't write you a novel

1. The Levaithan

Seventeenth century Philosopher Thomas Hobbs noted famously, "Life in an unregulated state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." It was precisely this fact, according to Hobbs, that caused humans to enter into social contracts, gladly accepting the moral constraints of civilization to its alternative, the law of nature. Morality, as an extension of that contract, is a way of protecting ourselves from the brutality of living in a world where people simply did what came naturally.

Since, living according to nature would easily justify all kinds of barbarism, how does it make sense to invoke the natural state of things to justify anything? Behavior that's "natural" is the very thing morality is meant to protect us from. Morality that counters one's natural inclinations rather than commends them is our only refuge from a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."


2. On Liberty

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

This is the first mention in On Liberty of the so-called Harm principle. The only limiting factor of liberty in Mill's view should be harm, although not just any harm, but specifically physical harm. If a person is harmed then their sovereignty over self no longer exists since sovereignty is after all the foundational position of power; this is Mill's justification of the Harm Principle.

3. Democracy In America

Montaigne said long ago: "Were I not to follow the straight road for its straightness, I should follow it for having found by experience that in the end it is commonly the happiest and most useful track."

4. Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government

...the radical view that government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. He (Locke) explained the principle of checks and balances to limit government power. He favored representative government and a rule of law. He denounced tyranny. He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel.

5. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

...every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

Sorry for the copy paste job, but I really am so vapid that I have no original thoughts to add to this whatsoever :)

EDIT

http://www.literarytraveler.com/europe/rousseau.htm

Rousseau and Chambery

[Beearewhyain]

7. Knowledge is never "vapid"

:)