What do you think?
Rate this book
An Introduction to Political Philosophy
What would life be like without the state? What justifies the state? Who should rule? How much liberty should the citizen enjoy? How should property be justly distributed? This book examines the central problems involved in political philosophy and the past attempts to respond to these
problems. Jonathan Wolff looks at the works of Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Marx, and Rawls (among others), examining how the debates between philosophers have developed, and searching for possible answers to these provocative questions. His final chapter looks at more recent issues,
particularly feminist political theory.
problems. Jonathan Wolff looks at the works of Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Marx, and Rawls (among others), examining how the debates between philosophers have developed, and searching for possible answers to these provocative questions. His final chapter looks at more recent issues,
particularly feminist political theory.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
270 people are currently reading
4301 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Wolff
38 books60 followersJonathan Wolff is a Professor specialising in political philosophy at University College London, in England. Wolff earned his MPhil from UCL under the direction of G.A. Cohen. He is the secretary of the British Philosophical Association and honorary secretary of the Aristotelian Society, which publishes Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Recently, Wolff's work has specialized in disadvantage and equality and public policy decision making.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 150 reviews
April 25, 2010
Ok, second reading. What follows is more of a synopsis than a review - for the review, scroll down to my first reading!
--
- The State of Nature -
The contemporary state claims the right to command its citizens in a variety of ways. What would life be like in a society without such a state?
Hobbes idea was that an absence of government would inevitably result in civil war. Human beings are constantly strifing for felicity. In order to achieve felicity, they have to gain power: But power can only be gained in competition. If you add his premises that there is a scarcity of goods, that every men has about the same strength and that there is always the possibility that you could be attacked, war is the inevitable conclusion: People fight out of pure self-defence. Hobbes says that morality can only be present where there is a sovereign to enforce laws. There are, however, the „Laws of Nature“: These are conclusions of reasoning: If everybody would follow them, they would offer the best chances of survival for each individual. In total, there are 19 such laws and they all boil down to „Do not that to another, which you would not have done to yourself“. These laws are collectively rational, but for them to be individually rational Hobbes suggests that everyone only applies them when other people are present of whom it is known that they generally obey these laws, too. But the general level of suspicion in the state of nature is so high that one cannot expect anyone to obey these laws: This is why, according to Hobbes, a sovereign is needed: He would have the power to enforce the laws of nature and make what previously was only collectively rational individually rational by punishing those who do not act accordingly.
Locke, however, supposes that all human beings have the moral duty to preserve their kind: Everyone is only given the liberty to do what the moral laws state as allowed. But this would still need to be enforced by someone. So each person has a natural right to punish those who disobey the Laws of Nature. Locke also substitutes Hobbes' assumption of scarcity with abundance. War is still inevitable, however: People will disagree about whether offenses have taken place. Also, with the creation of money, abundance would turn into scarcity (hoarding incentive).
Rousseau starts out with the premise that people are not only motivated by self-preservation, but also by pity. He also assumes that savage man has only few desires and does not strife for glory or power: All of Hobbe's drives to war have been disarmed. Rousseau, however, goes on to examine the transition from the state of nature: Innovation (as response to growing scarcity) would lead to artificial needs. Also, the idea of private property will emerge and war is the result (because of jealousy and inequality).
There are three ways to maintain that life without government would be bearable even in the long run: One could argue that co-operation will emerge even in a society of selfish beings (and could even be an evolutionary factor). One could argue that all humans are perfectly good and moral (but how did the state come into existence then?). Or one could say that social structures and rules have to take the place that otherwise would be taken by a state: Then, however, the conclusion comes very close to the modern concept of a libertarian democracy.
- Justifying the State -
The state is generally defined as having two essential features: offering to protect everyone within its territory and maintaining a monopoly of legitimate violence. But do we have a moral duty to accept that monopoly? The voluntaristic tradition argues that everyone has to explicitly offer consent to the state. Another idea is that people may tacitly consent to the state by enjoying its benefits and not leaving it – this is highly controversial.
The third approach is the concept of 'hypothetical consent': If we had been in the state of nature, we would all have consented to create a state. This can either be seen as utilitarian argument (the state would have maximized well-being for all people) or as an argument about beliefs never brought to consciousness: Everybody would consent to the state, if only they paid enough consideration to the question. But there might be people who have paid the question enormous amounts of consideration and still believe to be better off in a state of nature.
So we come to the utilitarian arguments in favour of the state. As there are only two forms to consider (state vs. State of Nature), and as the state would bring about more happiness, and as the morally best society is that in which happiness is maximized, we have a moral duty to obey the state. The core of this argument is the principle of utility. This is also the most vulnerable part of the argument: Applied directly, it would allow for slavery or punishment of innocent in the name of the greater good. The only defense is an indirect theory of utilitarianism.
There is also the argument from the principle of fairness: Consider buying rounds in a bar. Don't you have a moral duty to buy a round, too, when other people have done so before? Nozick does not think so: When did you consent to taking up burdens in exchange for benefit?
All in all, there is no satisfactory argument that implies a moral duty of every citizen to obey the state: There are, however, several smaller arguments that add up to a moral duty for the large majority of contemporary societies to obey the laws.
- Who should rule? -
How can you judge who should rule? There are two factors to consider. Firstly, one form of government may be better at detecting and steering towards the common good: It would be instrumentally justifiable to prefer this government. Secondly, some other government may have an intrinsic value (generally equated to being an expression of equality and freedom).
Plato's famous argument against democracy (the craft analogy) says that democracy is not instrumentally justifiable: Some people are simply better rulers than others and so ruling must be learned and should only be taught to those who have a talent for it. But how should such a ruler know what the people want? Democracy would be better at that. Then again, what the people want may not be the best for them (think chocolate). Would a dictator be better at deciding what is best for a people? Condorcet has shown that democracy is probably the better method of detecting the common good, as long as the average voter is steered by this motivation and has a more than even chance of voting correct.
Rousseau designed a democratic system in such a way that these two conditions would be met. His system is based on the education of the citizens, an eradication of inequalities, censorship and a civic religion. This involves an abolishment of all political factions. Rousseau argues that too much debate over political issues will make detection of the general will (the common good) harder.
Rousseau's system is instrumentally justifiable on the grounds that it is very likely to achieve the common good. But while Rousseau's system is a perfect expression of the value of equality, it lacks freedom. To avoid this conclusion, Rousseau would have argued that doing what one prefers (and not what the general will dictates) is simple slavery to one's impulses. In his society the people are free because they are free to live the life a rational person would choose. One can say that it is exactly the tight social net – necessary in order to achieve the common good – that makes his model intrinsically undesirable.
An alternative model of democracy is the idea of representation. It is more efficient but also more prone to usurpation: To protect it from the latter, Mill offers several remedies like the separation of powers, the limitation of money spend on election campaigns as well as an open vote. He also argues that the uneducated should be excluded from voting, while some others should be given more than one vote.
In conclusion, it might be said that neither Rousseau's nor Mill's model democracies are able to combine instrumental justification with intrinsic value: Both are instrumentally justifiable, but Rousseau lacks expression of freedom and Mill lacks expression of equality.
The Place of Liberty
The danger of a democracy is that it may turn out to be more of a 'tyranny of the majority' than a good way of ruling a country. Mill was worried about this and therefore proposed his Liberty Principle: the state may only limit any person's freedom if that person is threatening to harm another person. Children and 'barbarians' are excluded from the application of the principle.
The principle can be illustrated by applying it to freedom of thought: Mill says that society will profit from each voicing of a view, be it a false one or be it a true one. The idea is that only when true thoughts are regularly challenged will they be able to defend themselves against such challenges. Other people may argue that the utility of somebody not voicing a view could be higher than the utility of him voicing that view: According to Mill's own theory of utilitarianism, this person should then stay quiet. Mill, however, avoids this by saying that the usefulness of an opinion is an opinion by itself: As it can not be objectively decided whether it is better to voice that view or not, the best rule of thumb is to generally allow its voicing.
To be able to measure which kinds of harm fall under the Liberty Principle and from which persons therefore are to be protected even if it involves limiting the liberty of another human, Mill introduces the notion of 'rights-based interests'. The rights, however, are not simply stated as axioms as they traditionally have been (natural or human rights), but they are chosen in that way which best maximizes the general happiness.
Now that we have seen that a theory of rights can be deduced from the theory of utilitarianism, still the question remains: Why should a person's liberty be such a sacred right that intervention is only permitted in serious situations? Mill's argument says that liberty is a pre-condition of so-called 'experiments in living': These are essential to progress, however.
- The Distribution of Property -
There are several approaches that aim at establishing a theory of property rights. According to Nozick, such a theory must explain how justice comes about in three stages: in initial acquisition, in transfer and in rectification. Locke sees four ways to explain justice in intitial acquisition:
There are the argument from survival (encompassing non-wastage and you-have-to-leave-enough-provisos), the labour-mixing argument (refuted by Nozick's ocean analogy), the value-added argument and the fruits-of-my-work argument. None of the arguments explain the majority of property acquisitions in contemporary society, so it might be the better way to aim at a morally justifiable system of distributive justice. Mill advocates welfare-state capitalism because of its utility: There have been objections by Marxist thinkers.
John Rawls uses the method of a hypothetical contract to analyze what persons placed under a veil of ignorance would agree on as rules for society. He first defines the conditions of the original position, then argues that his principles would be chosen in such a situation and finally claims that this shows that they are just.
In the original position, a thin theory of the good replaces people's own conception of it. This theory is based on the idea that rational people want certain primary goods (liberties, opportunities, wealth, income) and only care about themselves. They don't know in which situation their society is to be found, but they know that it is within the circumstances of justice (between scarcity and abundance).
Rawls then argues that his Liberty, Fair-Opportunity and Difference Principles would be chosen by persons if placed in such a situation. He gives them priority in the order stated above. While the Libery and Fair-Opportunity Principles are easily shown to be a rational choice, this is harder to do with the broadly egalitarian Difference Principle.
Arguing for the Difference Principle boils down to an argument for the maximin theory of rational choice. Most people would use 'maximize average' as rational choice strategy in normal situations (its rationality in economics), but Rawls convincingly argues that this would be different in a position that will only occur once and where the impacts will be so profound. So the only other rational choice theory that remains is 'constrained maximization': Rawls claims that it fails because it is impossible to set the social minimum in a non-arbitrary way.
Apart from the idea that Rawl's theory of justice is highly biased towards a individualized and commercialized notion of society, the main attack is the claim that Liberty and Difference Principle are not consistent with each other: Either because, to equalize liberty, you would have to equalize property. Or because giving people liberty makes wealth distribution impossible.
Nozick says that, if you imagine a society with an income distribution patterned to your liking, and you imagine a normal exchange of goods and services in that society, the pattern can only be withheld if the state intervenes. Also, if pattern A is just, and people moved from pattern A to patter B volunatrily, why should pattern B be unjust?
- Individulism, Justice and Feminism -
Some might say that the selection of topics in the book has been biased from what may be called a 'liberal individualist' perspective. A 'extreme liberal individualist' would assume that the task of political philosophy is to devise principles of justice, that freedom and equality are of paramount importance, that justice is a or even the priority and that any rights we have only arise out of actions of individuals. Objections to this view generally come down to the idea that „liberal individualism offers a false picture of human nature and social relations, and with it a misleading and damaging vision of what it is possible for human beings to achieve politically“ (p.182).
One example of opposition to the liberal individualist perspective that can be examined as a case-study is feminist political thinking. The opposition centers around the idea that justice is a gender-biased concept: Women would generally appreciate more of a care perspective, deciding on a case-by-case basis. The reason for this has been argued to be the separation of a boy from his mother in early child-hood (necessary to be identified as male) and the opposite event happening to female babies. The author's perspective on this is that justice could offer a safety-net: rights as an insurance policy.
--------- (first reading) ---------
This book is a great introduction to the subject of political philsophy. The simple style allows for an easy read while still mentioning all the important factors and arguments relevant.
It is especially the separation into several chapters that I enjoyed, each chapter dealing with a different topic and the different views on that topic. This made it easy to understand the connections between the opinions, making the reader understand the bigger picture.
--
- The State of Nature -
The contemporary state claims the right to command its citizens in a variety of ways. What would life be like in a society without such a state?
Hobbes idea was that an absence of government would inevitably result in civil war. Human beings are constantly strifing for felicity. In order to achieve felicity, they have to gain power: But power can only be gained in competition. If you add his premises that there is a scarcity of goods, that every men has about the same strength and that there is always the possibility that you could be attacked, war is the inevitable conclusion: People fight out of pure self-defence. Hobbes says that morality can only be present where there is a sovereign to enforce laws. There are, however, the „Laws of Nature“: These are conclusions of reasoning: If everybody would follow them, they would offer the best chances of survival for each individual. In total, there are 19 such laws and they all boil down to „Do not that to another, which you would not have done to yourself“. These laws are collectively rational, but for them to be individually rational Hobbes suggests that everyone only applies them when other people are present of whom it is known that they generally obey these laws, too. But the general level of suspicion in the state of nature is so high that one cannot expect anyone to obey these laws: This is why, according to Hobbes, a sovereign is needed: He would have the power to enforce the laws of nature and make what previously was only collectively rational individually rational by punishing those who do not act accordingly.
Locke, however, supposes that all human beings have the moral duty to preserve their kind: Everyone is only given the liberty to do what the moral laws state as allowed. But this would still need to be enforced by someone. So each person has a natural right to punish those who disobey the Laws of Nature. Locke also substitutes Hobbes' assumption of scarcity with abundance. War is still inevitable, however: People will disagree about whether offenses have taken place. Also, with the creation of money, abundance would turn into scarcity (hoarding incentive).
Rousseau starts out with the premise that people are not only motivated by self-preservation, but also by pity. He also assumes that savage man has only few desires and does not strife for glory or power: All of Hobbe's drives to war have been disarmed. Rousseau, however, goes on to examine the transition from the state of nature: Innovation (as response to growing scarcity) would lead to artificial needs. Also, the idea of private property will emerge and war is the result (because of jealousy and inequality).
There are three ways to maintain that life without government would be bearable even in the long run: One could argue that co-operation will emerge even in a society of selfish beings (and could even be an evolutionary factor). One could argue that all humans are perfectly good and moral (but how did the state come into existence then?). Or one could say that social structures and rules have to take the place that otherwise would be taken by a state: Then, however, the conclusion comes very close to the modern concept of a libertarian democracy.
- Justifying the State -
The state is generally defined as having two essential features: offering to protect everyone within its territory and maintaining a monopoly of legitimate violence. But do we have a moral duty to accept that monopoly? The voluntaristic tradition argues that everyone has to explicitly offer consent to the state. Another idea is that people may tacitly consent to the state by enjoying its benefits and not leaving it – this is highly controversial.
The third approach is the concept of 'hypothetical consent': If we had been in the state of nature, we would all have consented to create a state. This can either be seen as utilitarian argument (the state would have maximized well-being for all people) or as an argument about beliefs never brought to consciousness: Everybody would consent to the state, if only they paid enough consideration to the question. But there might be people who have paid the question enormous amounts of consideration and still believe to be better off in a state of nature.
So we come to the utilitarian arguments in favour of the state. As there are only two forms to consider (state vs. State of Nature), and as the state would bring about more happiness, and as the morally best society is that in which happiness is maximized, we have a moral duty to obey the state. The core of this argument is the principle of utility. This is also the most vulnerable part of the argument: Applied directly, it would allow for slavery or punishment of innocent in the name of the greater good. The only defense is an indirect theory of utilitarianism.
There is also the argument from the principle of fairness: Consider buying rounds in a bar. Don't you have a moral duty to buy a round, too, when other people have done so before? Nozick does not think so: When did you consent to taking up burdens in exchange for benefit?
All in all, there is no satisfactory argument that implies a moral duty of every citizen to obey the state: There are, however, several smaller arguments that add up to a moral duty for the large majority of contemporary societies to obey the laws.
- Who should rule? -
How can you judge who should rule? There are two factors to consider. Firstly, one form of government may be better at detecting and steering towards the common good: It would be instrumentally justifiable to prefer this government. Secondly, some other government may have an intrinsic value (generally equated to being an expression of equality and freedom).
Plato's famous argument against democracy (the craft analogy) says that democracy is not instrumentally justifiable: Some people are simply better rulers than others and so ruling must be learned and should only be taught to those who have a talent for it. But how should such a ruler know what the people want? Democracy would be better at that. Then again, what the people want may not be the best for them (think chocolate). Would a dictator be better at deciding what is best for a people? Condorcet has shown that democracy is probably the better method of detecting the common good, as long as the average voter is steered by this motivation and has a more than even chance of voting correct.
Rousseau designed a democratic system in such a way that these two conditions would be met. His system is based on the education of the citizens, an eradication of inequalities, censorship and a civic religion. This involves an abolishment of all political factions. Rousseau argues that too much debate over political issues will make detection of the general will (the common good) harder.
Rousseau's system is instrumentally justifiable on the grounds that it is very likely to achieve the common good. But while Rousseau's system is a perfect expression of the value of equality, it lacks freedom. To avoid this conclusion, Rousseau would have argued that doing what one prefers (and not what the general will dictates) is simple slavery to one's impulses. In his society the people are free because they are free to live the life a rational person would choose. One can say that it is exactly the tight social net – necessary in order to achieve the common good – that makes his model intrinsically undesirable.
An alternative model of democracy is the idea of representation. It is more efficient but also more prone to usurpation: To protect it from the latter, Mill offers several remedies like the separation of powers, the limitation of money spend on election campaigns as well as an open vote. He also argues that the uneducated should be excluded from voting, while some others should be given more than one vote.
In conclusion, it might be said that neither Rousseau's nor Mill's model democracies are able to combine instrumental justification with intrinsic value: Both are instrumentally justifiable, but Rousseau lacks expression of freedom and Mill lacks expression of equality.
The Place of Liberty
The danger of a democracy is that it may turn out to be more of a 'tyranny of the majority' than a good way of ruling a country. Mill was worried about this and therefore proposed his Liberty Principle: the state may only limit any person's freedom if that person is threatening to harm another person. Children and 'barbarians' are excluded from the application of the principle.
The principle can be illustrated by applying it to freedom of thought: Mill says that society will profit from each voicing of a view, be it a false one or be it a true one. The idea is that only when true thoughts are regularly challenged will they be able to defend themselves against such challenges. Other people may argue that the utility of somebody not voicing a view could be higher than the utility of him voicing that view: According to Mill's own theory of utilitarianism, this person should then stay quiet. Mill, however, avoids this by saying that the usefulness of an opinion is an opinion by itself: As it can not be objectively decided whether it is better to voice that view or not, the best rule of thumb is to generally allow its voicing.
To be able to measure which kinds of harm fall under the Liberty Principle and from which persons therefore are to be protected even if it involves limiting the liberty of another human, Mill introduces the notion of 'rights-based interests'. The rights, however, are not simply stated as axioms as they traditionally have been (natural or human rights), but they are chosen in that way which best maximizes the general happiness.
Now that we have seen that a theory of rights can be deduced from the theory of utilitarianism, still the question remains: Why should a person's liberty be such a sacred right that intervention is only permitted in serious situations? Mill's argument says that liberty is a pre-condition of so-called 'experiments in living': These are essential to progress, however.
- The Distribution of Property -
There are several approaches that aim at establishing a theory of property rights. According to Nozick, such a theory must explain how justice comes about in three stages: in initial acquisition, in transfer and in rectification. Locke sees four ways to explain justice in intitial acquisition:
There are the argument from survival (encompassing non-wastage and you-have-to-leave-enough-provisos), the labour-mixing argument (refuted by Nozick's ocean analogy), the value-added argument and the fruits-of-my-work argument. None of the arguments explain the majority of property acquisitions in contemporary society, so it might be the better way to aim at a morally justifiable system of distributive justice. Mill advocates welfare-state capitalism because of its utility: There have been objections by Marxist thinkers.
John Rawls uses the method of a hypothetical contract to analyze what persons placed under a veil of ignorance would agree on as rules for society. He first defines the conditions of the original position, then argues that his principles would be chosen in such a situation and finally claims that this shows that they are just.
In the original position, a thin theory of the good replaces people's own conception of it. This theory is based on the idea that rational people want certain primary goods (liberties, opportunities, wealth, income) and only care about themselves. They don't know in which situation their society is to be found, but they know that it is within the circumstances of justice (between scarcity and abundance).
Rawls then argues that his Liberty, Fair-Opportunity and Difference Principles would be chosen by persons if placed in such a situation. He gives them priority in the order stated above. While the Libery and Fair-Opportunity Principles are easily shown to be a rational choice, this is harder to do with the broadly egalitarian Difference Principle.
Arguing for the Difference Principle boils down to an argument for the maximin theory of rational choice. Most people would use 'maximize average' as rational choice strategy in normal situations (its rationality in economics), but Rawls convincingly argues that this would be different in a position that will only occur once and where the impacts will be so profound. So the only other rational choice theory that remains is 'constrained maximization': Rawls claims that it fails because it is impossible to set the social minimum in a non-arbitrary way.
Apart from the idea that Rawl's theory of justice is highly biased towards a individualized and commercialized notion of society, the main attack is the claim that Liberty and Difference Principle are not consistent with each other: Either because, to equalize liberty, you would have to equalize property. Or because giving people liberty makes wealth distribution impossible.
Nozick says that, if you imagine a society with an income distribution patterned to your liking, and you imagine a normal exchange of goods and services in that society, the pattern can only be withheld if the state intervenes. Also, if pattern A is just, and people moved from pattern A to patter B volunatrily, why should pattern B be unjust?
- Individulism, Justice and Feminism -
Some might say that the selection of topics in the book has been biased from what may be called a 'liberal individualist' perspective. A 'extreme liberal individualist' would assume that the task of political philosophy is to devise principles of justice, that freedom and equality are of paramount importance, that justice is a or even the priority and that any rights we have only arise out of actions of individuals. Objections to this view generally come down to the idea that „liberal individualism offers a false picture of human nature and social relations, and with it a misleading and damaging vision of what it is possible for human beings to achieve politically“ (p.182).
One example of opposition to the liberal individualist perspective that can be examined as a case-study is feminist political thinking. The opposition centers around the idea that justice is a gender-biased concept: Women would generally appreciate more of a care perspective, deciding on a case-by-case basis. The reason for this has been argued to be the separation of a boy from his mother in early child-hood (necessary to be identified as male) and the opposite event happening to female babies. The author's perspective on this is that justice could offer a safety-net: rights as an insurance policy.
--------- (first reading) ---------
This book is a great introduction to the subject of political philsophy. The simple style allows for an easy read while still mentioning all the important factors and arguments relevant.
It is especially the separation into several chapters that I enjoyed, each chapter dealing with a different topic and the different views on that topic. This made it easy to understand the connections between the opinions, making the reader understand the bigger picture.
May 28, 2019
This book possesses a virtue I greatly appreciate in non-fiction that purports to teach me something; it is written in a measured and qualified style. Wolff introduces the key points of political philosophy from Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, and so on whilst also recognising the lack of conclusive answers within the discipline. The book is structured around simple yet impossible questions like who should rule and are there such things as natural rights. It provides a useful, accessible, and brief introduction to key thinkers, including a much-appreciated chapter on feminist political theory. The book avoids getting bogged down in the many side-questions that occur whilst reading it, such as whether one conclusive model of human nature can ever exist, to what extent happiness can ever be measured, and whether liberty, equality, and fraternity can ever be reconciled.
I enjoyed this book and found that it did what I'd hoped, which was to systematise, formalise, and flesh-out the bits and pieces of political philosophy I'd picked up here and there. It reminded me, for example, of being taught about Bentham and utilitarianism when I was 17. At the time such concepts bored me rigid, which I blame on the tedium of the AS General Studies curriculum. It seems odd in retrospect that at 17 I was fascinated by political abstractions in the context of the French Revolution, but in no way connected this to the dull lessons on broader political philosophy. Likewise, I remember Hobbes being mentioned in my first year of undergraduate studies, during lectures about the British constitution. Apparently it's only now, much later, that I feel there is a gap in my understanding because I ignored previous efforts to introduce me to political philosophy. This book was helpful in filling this gap, as it was introductory but not patronising or overly simplistic.
The sections dealing with the intersection between political philosophy and economics were perhaps where I felt I already knew the most, and thus read less passively. They reminded me of the difficulty there is in drawing a boundary between politics and economics. The latter purports to be a much more empirical, objective discipline, but in my view it is just as ideological and biased by context as any other social science, just less willing to be honest about it. Wolff's points about Stewart Mills were an illustration of this, given Mills support for laissez-faire market economics characteristic of a Victorian industrialist. I am also continually intrigued by the idea, apparently espoused by several political thinkers across the ideological spectrum, that socialism is only suited to a better, more perfect breed of humanity that doesn't exist yet, whilst in our current debased state we must rely on markets to allocate resources. In the 21st century the view of human nature as perfectible seems to have retreated (perhaps mired in associations with eugenics and other horrors?).
Anyway, this book provides a helpful guide to the most important contributions to political philosophy made by great thinkers with indigestibly huge oeuvres of work, such as Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, and Rawls. It is intended to be a broad overview and as such has a focus on work from the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. It provides a useful background to reading, for example, Fukuyama. I rather wish I'd read it before tackling 'End of History and the Last Man', but never mind. There is plenty to be picked at in that book without also considering that, it would seem, his conception of human nature is less convincing than what Hobbes wrote some 350 years before.
I enjoyed this book and found that it did what I'd hoped, which was to systematise, formalise, and flesh-out the bits and pieces of political philosophy I'd picked up here and there. It reminded me, for example, of being taught about Bentham and utilitarianism when I was 17. At the time such concepts bored me rigid, which I blame on the tedium of the AS General Studies curriculum. It seems odd in retrospect that at 17 I was fascinated by political abstractions in the context of the French Revolution, but in no way connected this to the dull lessons on broader political philosophy. Likewise, I remember Hobbes being mentioned in my first year of undergraduate studies, during lectures about the British constitution. Apparently it's only now, much later, that I feel there is a gap in my understanding because I ignored previous efforts to introduce me to political philosophy. This book was helpful in filling this gap, as it was introductory but not patronising or overly simplistic.
The sections dealing with the intersection between political philosophy and economics were perhaps where I felt I already knew the most, and thus read less passively. They reminded me of the difficulty there is in drawing a boundary between politics and economics. The latter purports to be a much more empirical, objective discipline, but in my view it is just as ideological and biased by context as any other social science, just less willing to be honest about it. Wolff's points about Stewart Mills were an illustration of this, given Mills support for laissez-faire market economics characteristic of a Victorian industrialist. I am also continually intrigued by the idea, apparently espoused by several political thinkers across the ideological spectrum, that socialism is only suited to a better, more perfect breed of humanity that doesn't exist yet, whilst in our current debased state we must rely on markets to allocate resources. In the 21st century the view of human nature as perfectible seems to have retreated (perhaps mired in associations with eugenics and other horrors?).
Anyway, this book provides a helpful guide to the most important contributions to political philosophy made by great thinkers with indigestibly huge oeuvres of work, such as Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, and Rawls. It is intended to be a broad overview and as such has a focus on work from the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. It provides a useful background to reading, for example, Fukuyama. I rather wish I'd read it before tackling 'End of History and the Last Man', but never mind. There is plenty to be picked at in that book without also considering that, it would seem, his conception of human nature is less convincing than what Hobbes wrote some 350 years before.
April 10, 2024
De larga utilitate, scurta si la obiect, cu o sumedenie de exemple pe cat de absurde pe atat de adorabile. O carte foarte buna, chiar daca nu exhaustiva, care loveste cateva intrebari esentiale ale filosofiei politice. As zice ca punctul cel mai dezbatut este intreaga teorie a liberalismului - de la Mill la Rawls.
Read
June 17, 2018Wow... We Live In A Society....
August 7, 2012
A while I went looking for a good introduction to political philosophy and eventually found Jonathan Wolff’s “An Introduction to Political Philosophy”, a clear and well-written book I definitely recommend reading. It consist of six chapters which cover the central questions or themes in political philosophy: The State of Nature, Justifying the State, Who Should Rule?, The Place of Liberty, The Distribution of Property, and Individualism, Justice, Feminism. From this book I learned about the difference between ‘representative’ and ‘direct’ models of democracy, and about liberalism and the various critiques of liberalism, as well as about the difference between political emancipation and human emancipation. Here’s a list of some of the questions and problems Wolff’s book addresses. From this list it may seem that Woolf reveals his take/slant on these issues, but in fact he remains fairly ‘neutral’ in his discussion of these questions:
On what basis should people possess property?
Who should hold political power?
Are there any justified limits to my liberty?
What rule or principle should govern the distribution of goods?
What place is there for the free market?
Should we tolerate large inequalities of wealth?
What rights and liberties should people have?
How much power should the state have?
What is democracy and is democracy always a ‘good thing’? Is there something intrinsically good about democracy?
How should property be distributed?
What would life be like without the existence of political power, in a state of nature?
On what basis should people possess property?
Who should hold political power?
Are there any justified limits to my liberty?
What rule or principle should govern the distribution of goods?
What place is there for the free market?
Should we tolerate large inequalities of wealth?
What rights and liberties should people have?
How much power should the state have?
What is democracy and is democracy always a ‘good thing’? Is there something intrinsically good about democracy?
How should property be distributed?
What would life be like without the existence of political power, in a state of nature?
July 24, 2025
There’s a particular kind of joy in discovering clarity amidst chaos—and Jonathan Wolff’s An Introduction to Political Philosophy was exactly that for me during my second year of graduation. Picked up from Seagull Book Store, that little redoubt of reason and rebellion near College Street, this book turned out to be an intellectual map of sorts—lucid, precise, and refreshingly unpretentious.
Wolff doesn’t just explain political ideas; he sits you down, asks tough questions, and gently leads you through the labyrinth of authority, liberty, justice, and the state. What makes this book stand apart is its conversational tone—never talking down, never assuming too much. Be it Hobbes’ Leviathan, Locke’s social contract, or Marx’s critique of capitalism, each thinker is introduced with fairness and flair, their arguments presented before they're challenged.
What I appreciated most back then—and still admire—is how Wolff shows philosophy in action, never treating it as abstract debate club fodder but as the very scaffolding of our political realities. For a young student standing somewhere between street politics and seminar rooms, it helped build a bridge.
Years later, as democracies wobble and the world teeters on the brink of moral fatigue, Wolff’s questions remain hauntingly urgent. This is a book I’d recommend to any student beginning their journey in political thought—especially if they’ve ever wondered not just what power is, but why it exists at all.
Wolff doesn’t just explain political ideas; he sits you down, asks tough questions, and gently leads you through the labyrinth of authority, liberty, justice, and the state. What makes this book stand apart is its conversational tone—never talking down, never assuming too much. Be it Hobbes’ Leviathan, Locke’s social contract, or Marx’s critique of capitalism, each thinker is introduced with fairness and flair, their arguments presented before they're challenged.
What I appreciated most back then—and still admire—is how Wolff shows philosophy in action, never treating it as abstract debate club fodder but as the very scaffolding of our political realities. For a young student standing somewhere between street politics and seminar rooms, it helped build a bridge.
Years later, as democracies wobble and the world teeters on the brink of moral fatigue, Wolff’s questions remain hauntingly urgent. This is a book I’d recommend to any student beginning their journey in political thought—especially if they’ve ever wondered not just what power is, but why it exists at all.
July 27, 2020
It was really interesting, easy, informative introduction to political philosophy! Which ask, challenge, evaluate fundamental questions of politics connect them with human nature, ethics, economic...etc . and answer them by appealing to most influential and revolutionary thinkers and philosophers of politics, and what was more interesting about this book was that it doesn’t just try to answer fundamental questions but present various ideas criticise each of them that will give you wider understanding of subject rather than giving the direct answer about questions and convince you to believe it!!
February 8, 2020
I had to read this book to find some structure in the everyday questions and contradictions that I come across in markets, politics and social life. The whole book was amazing and the coherence of the prose superb for a beginner like me. I will continue my readings from the rich references provided.
December 1, 2020
He has collected the ideas of famous political philosophers to shed light on the modern-world political issues. In most of the topics, he ends up discussing the concepts of justice and liberty and shows how one can criticize the ideas based on these concepts.
In general, the book is quite mind-tickling compared to Adam Swift's Political Philosophy which takes a relatively informative stance.
In the introduction the author mentions that: "It will be possible to read this book and end up as uncertain as before. But we must not underestimate the progress made by advancing from muddled ignorance to informed bemusement."
In general, the book is quite mind-tickling compared to Adam Swift's Political Philosophy which takes a relatively informative stance.
In the introduction the author mentions that: "It will be possible to read this book and end up as uncertain as before. But we must not underestimate the progress made by advancing from muddled ignorance to informed bemusement."
November 20, 2023
If you need a single book with all the main ideas, opposing arguments and thinkers on political philosophy, then this is it. Definitely recommend it!
March 14, 2018
This Oxford University press publication is a lucid, clear introduction to some of the most important questions of political philosophy. Written in a style that manages to be chatty without being irritating, something not often achieved by professional philosophers aspiring to write for the general or student audience.
In this book one discovers that politics can be studied from both a descriptive and normative standpoint. In this book one discovers that characteristically, descriptive political studies are undertaken by the political scientist, sociologist and the historian. By studying how things are it helps to explain how things can be and studying how they can be is indispensable for assessing how they ought to be. Through self-knowledge and honest introspection, one can learn so, so much.
One also learns in this book, that it’s a natural right to punish those who offend against the laws of nature. Each of us has the right to punish those who harm another’s life, liberty or property. In this book one considers political philosophy in a theological framework too, and it uses natural reason when making judgements. One of course needs moral reasoning for justification of the state, and when evaluating the laws of nature.
This book covers topics on the state, societal norms and the laws of the land. Ideas from great thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau are included. Topics on our political obligations are also included, as well as sections on social justice, and utilitarianism. Few philosophers are now prepared to accept utilitarian reasoning, for they think it has morally unreasonable consequences, including grave injustices. This book is very similar to one’s like for instance Anarchy, state and utopia by Robert Nozick, yet it is also very unique too.
I would definitely recommend this book to philosophy and theology students and those who are interested in law and politics. I would also recommend, In search of truth by Brian Hodgekinson about the school of economic science, as an all-round introduction to philosophy in a broader sense.
”Every man that hath any possession, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of the government, during such enjoyment as any one under it; whether this possession be of land to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging for only a week; or whether it barely travelling freely on the highway”
(Second treatise, S. 119. P 348)
July 29, 2024
Earlier this year I read news that In 2024, elections are scheduled to be held in 50 countries, marking a record year for global democratic participation. Since I was eligible to vote this season too, this made me question what exactly democratic participation mean, and is it different in different countries. So I started Googling a lot of stuff, some I’d already known, some I came across for the first time. Slowly but surely I was reading some theories regarding political philosophy. It was all jumbled up though. I had to make some sense of it, what do I do? I looked into the introductory texts for this subject, now they were pretty dense, some were about the contemporary accounts, some suggested the debates b/w old giants, some were relating things to Plato. In short, I got pretty lost.
Luckily though I stumbled upon Jonathan Wolff’s ‘An Introduction to Political Philosophy’. Wolff writes in a way that beginners to political philosophy can read this book as though it were an article, once through, and still understand the technical ideas. t provides, if not answers, a good overview of what philosophers have reasoned on important questions like Should there be a state? who should rule? Do we have a moral obligation to obey the state? Have all humans been imbued with unalienable natural rights? If not, are we entitled to natural rights at all or can we find some other justification for rights? How much liberty should we each possess? Which is more important when social justice competes with liberty? Which should be our primary concern, the individual or society?
Wolff takes us on a journey to try to answer these questions using the arguments from Plato and Rosseou, Locke, and Hobbes to Mill, Rawls and Marx. Another feature of this work is a lack of decisive conclusion.
I completed this book with more questions than answers but as the author himself says
‘We must not underestimate the progress made by advancing from muddled ignorance to informed bemusement’
The last chapter, provided a list of potential books which one can further read to appreciate their comprehension.
4.5/5
Luckily though I stumbled upon Jonathan Wolff’s ‘An Introduction to Political Philosophy’. Wolff writes in a way that beginners to political philosophy can read this book as though it were an article, once through, and still understand the technical ideas. t provides, if not answers, a good overview of what philosophers have reasoned on important questions like Should there be a state? who should rule? Do we have a moral obligation to obey the state? Have all humans been imbued with unalienable natural rights? If not, are we entitled to natural rights at all or can we find some other justification for rights? How much liberty should we each possess? Which is more important when social justice competes with liberty? Which should be our primary concern, the individual or society?
Wolff takes us on a journey to try to answer these questions using the arguments from Plato and Rosseou, Locke, and Hobbes to Mill, Rawls and Marx. Another feature of this work is a lack of decisive conclusion.
I completed this book with more questions than answers but as the author himself says
‘We must not underestimate the progress made by advancing from muddled ignorance to informed bemusement’
The last chapter, provided a list of potential books which one can further read to appreciate their comprehension.
4.5/5
November 9, 2020
Uma introdução razoável sobre alguns dos principais problemas da filosofia política.
Gostei bastante dos comentários do autor sobre a filosofia política moderna, como as teorias de Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau e Mill (assumindo que Mill está entre os "clássicos"). Entretanto, achei um pouco resumido demais as abordagens dos problemas mais contemporâneos. De todo modo, um bom livro para se usar como base para discussão com público leigo, ou um bom livro pra quem não tem nenhum domínio formal de filosofia.
Gostei bastante dos comentários do autor sobre a filosofia política moderna, como as teorias de Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau e Mill (assumindo que Mill está entre os "clássicos"). Entretanto, achei um pouco resumido demais as abordagens dos problemas mais contemporâneos. De todo modo, um bom livro para se usar como base para discussão com público leigo, ou um bom livro pra quem não tem nenhum domínio formal de filosofia.
August 15, 2021
É sempre dificil avaliar introduções quando não dominas a área introduzida, mas pelo menos posso dizer que achei interessante. O livro começa com uma introdução ao tema do State of Nature, e depois parte para a discussão de vários temas, passando por várias das mais influentes tradições politicas da história.
August 13, 2025
A very clear-headed book, quite similar to Swift's Introduction to Political Philosophy, it explains the topics in different ways. One thing that both books do excellently is they do not encourage you to follow a certain idea - they set them out quite evenly, and follow through the arguments and critiques for all. I've read some of the original books, but the way Wolff explains them is just so simple to follow, which is so helpful. I'll probably end up reading this book for the third time, eventually.
January 13, 2022
informative, with an understandable writing style. also gave recommendations for more, similar books at the end
January 19, 2025
It does what it says on the tin!
November 8, 2022
doamne ajuta ca am terminat aceasta abominatie. 10/10 pentru citatele din rousseau si chodorow tho
May 1, 2025
The two Big questions - Who gets what? Says who?
Meaning how do we distribute material goods and rights and liberties? Who should hold the power to command others and subject them to punishment should they disobey?
For Philosophy, we ask “should” it is not descriptive, but we find ourselves describing all the time to answer these questions. How things are helps us to understand how things should be.
Political philosophers tackle issue of why we allow there to be coercive institutions.
The State of Nature - what was/is life like without government? Would life be unbearable, or an improvement? Which gets at, should we let people have the right to command others?
Hobbes - people have desires that are never satisfied, scarcity will cause conflict, in such a situation where we fear others it is acceptable that we don’t have to follow a moral code. We can only act morally when we can be assured that others will as well. No chance for progress under such conditions.
Locke - Even in state of nature we have only the liberty to do what the law of nature allows and we have the right to punish. But there will be disagreements over who has violated the code. Once a population grows we will have scarcity and thus a need for government.
Rousseau - argues that man is not naturally given to war. Problem with Hobbes and Locke is that they are applying how man behaves in civilization to the state of nature. People have been conditioned to be selfish. What they overlook is that people have pity and compassion for others. They will not want to war with others over goods that they can easily get on their own. Once civilization came - rich set up laws to protect themselves we ruined the whole thing and now we can’t go back.
Anarchists - People are naturally good. Life better without coercion of government. Took things a step further than Rousseau. Still possible.
How do we justify the state?
Contract theory has a problem - how do we give our consent? Was there a moment in the past when this happened? How are we bound by this? If voting or accepting benefits is consent then what of those who don’t? Perhaps this is settled by hypothetical consent - if we were faced with the state of Nature, we would rationally consent to join a social contract.
Anarchists believe that nobody has right to coerce others.
Utilitarianism - that which brings the most utility (happiness) to the greatest number is justified. Thus, the state is justified because it brings more happiness than state of nature. Problems here - how do we measure this? Can’t we justify slavery or the persecution of some scapegoat by Utilitarianism?
The fairness principle (HLA Hart) - if we accept the benefits of the state, we must also accept the burdens and obligations such as obeying the law and paying taxes. But what if we did not ask for these benefits critics ask?
Who should rule?
Democracy was long criticized but now accepted. There are tensions:
What do we mean by it? Simply majority rule or does Democracy also mean the protection of a minority (Madison)
Direct democracy or representative democracy? Rousseau felt representative was no democracy at all.
What can we tell about how people vote? Does it reflect the common good or general will? Do people vote in their own interest or do they vote for what they perceive to be in the interest of what would be best for all? Or, most likely, is it a mix of the two and thus hard to say. Wouldn’t opinion polls be enough if we only feel it is valuable to see what the public thinks? Do we assume that there is a better than average chance that the majority is right?
Plato - Wrote against Democracy. I don’t turn a ship’s navigation over to a group of untrained sailors. If I’m sick I go to an expert doctor, I don’t turn it over to a vote of the people. Governing and policy making is a skill, a craft, and commoners cannot be trusted with it. People will be swayed by those who speak the loudest and with the most conviction - the Sophists - and will be swayed by the false reasoning of ambitious politicians. Those who really know what to do will be ignored. WHat it takes to be successful in winning elections - flattery, manipulation duplicity are the very things that those most capable don’t want to engage in. We need to turn rule over to the experts. Who? Trained philosophers - the guardians. They would be prevented from owning property to avoid corruption. Entire argument is based on the end result of governing and ignores that there might be other intangible benefits to democracy. Freedom and equality not a consideration. Also, how would the philosophers know what the people want?
Rousseau - Argues that democracy could do just as well or better than Plato’s rule by experts. We need to train citizens in virtue to care for one another and make them active participants. Then, they will be the law-makers. In small bodies they will discuss and vote on laws (The Sovereign). But, they must be trained not to vote on what is in their interest, but in the interest of the whole - THE GENERAL WILL not the will of all (the product of everyone’s individual interest). The correct policy is the one which benefits all people equally. People must be equal in wealth for this to happen and thus share the common interest and know that every law will apply to all equally. If I did not vote as the majority voted I should conclude that I was mistaken, not that I was defeated, and I should not continue to dissent. Also said there must be a civic religion - atheism not allowed. You can follow any religion that teaches toleration. In addition, society would have to have a set of dogmas that promote good citizenship. An executive government would be needed to enforce law, but never make it - that is not democracy. A censor would be needed to ridicule anti-social behavior. Severe punishment on those who violate the civic religion. Rousseau did not believe that freedom was freedom to pursue one’s individual desires unrestrained by others (negative freedom). He supported “positive freedom” - living the life that a rational person would want to live. Must be forced to be free.
Problems with Rousseau - Wollstonecraft writes in reaction to Rousseau - to him women were not equal and could not be citizens. Also, how would people have time to do this? Greeks depended on slavery to free them for direct democracy. Today labor saving technology has probably addressed this concern. Freedom restricted in his model. Can there be such a thing as a General Will even if we have equality? Don’t people value different things? Why should dissenters be classed as criminals? Is the majority always right? How can we say we are free if we are forced to obey a law that we might have opposed? Rousseau does not want a vigorous debate. There is one correct policy in the end and dissent must end when it is arrived at. To him dissent is treason.
In the end in attempting to create a system in which the majority would find the general will he creates a system that is repressive.
PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY -
Unlike Rousseau more respect for individual and open debate. Only free when all aspects of life are democratic. Problems - WHo sets the agenda? Inefficiency. Will people devote the time needed? Still need people to execute the laws.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY - MILL - government should be judged by administrating issues of public concern and also its ability to improve individuals morally and intellectually (which puts him at odds with the liberal school he founded). Despotism leads to passive and uninformed subjects. WHile direct democracy would do the most for making good citizens he worries as Plato did that people are easily misled. Better to defer to elected officials. Still he argued for education and felt jury service and serving local gov. Was essential to citizenship. Agreed with separation of power, checks and balances to counter the problem of the wrong people seeking office. People should vote for who would best serve the general interest, not their private interest. Thus, the vote should be public, not a secret ballot. Only educated can vote, but all can speak. Or, the educated should have more votes. This to protect us from the ignorant majority. To protect the minority a strong believer in proportional representation and limiting the role of government to protect liberty.
Liberty
Mill’s Liberty Principle or the Harm Principle - only reason to give power to another against your will is to prevent harm to others. - NEGATIVE FREEDOM. Complete freedom of thought and expression. WHat we once thought wrong is not right and why would we deny ourselves the opportunity to strengthen our belief in truth by listening to and responding to what we feel is false? Truth leads to happiness. But, because of his harm theory speech could be limited. He would agree that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre.
Problems with rights theories - if natural rights are self-evident why is there so much disagreement over what rights we have. Do we have a right to a universal basic income or shelter? Mill did not believe that rights were natural. He based his justification on utility - rights that promoted the general happiness. Most happiness is attained if in our private sphere government leaves us alone but in public sphere intervention is possible but only on utilitarian grounds. Giving people liberty will lead to experimentation, progress and thus happiness.
Marx - Political liberalism is a great advance but does not take into account that people are unequal and can exploit one another.
Communitarians - Our identities are bound up in our communities and customary morality is what holds a community together and should be followed. Take a POSITIVE VIEW of liberty - you don’t make people free by leaving them alone. You make them free by putting people in a position to make the right choices to live their best lives.
How should property be distributed? Political Economy
Libertarianism - Robert Nozick - natural right to property so strong that to redistribute wealth or have anything more than a night watchman government is a violation of liberty. For Locke the mixing of labor with that which was unowned makes it property. A utilitarian argument is that private property leads to most efficient use of resources and happiness. Von Hayek best defense of efficiency of free market and why command economies never work.
The problem is with externalities - negative externalities are things that we get for nothing that we don’t want like pollution and noise. Positive externalities are things we get for nothing but would like to have - public goods like street lights. Free market produces lots of negative externalities but undersupplies positive externalities - public goods. Thus we have to regulate negative externalities and have government provide public goods or have businesses charge for public goods. But is that enough?
Engels/Marx attacked also on utilitarian grounds - the boom and bust cycle leads to crisis after crisis; the profit motive leads work to be specialized and degraded and unfit for human beings; exploits workers; people who do not labor receive rewards off the labor of others; produces people who have no productive role to fill.
Welfare Liberalism - Rawls - inequality from laissez-faire capitalism would mean denial of liberty/opportunity to the poor.
We should not determine the rules of a card game after the cards have been dealt! Can’t decide what a just society is based on our present circumstances because we would be biased.
Must be put in an “original position” - ignorant of what place we will have in society to be impartial. What rules of society In such a situation people would pick to have the most extensive liberties and equally applied to all (liberty principle); The greatest benefit to the least advantaged (difference principle); fair and equal opportunity for any office (opportunity principle). The liberty principle would be most valued.
The difference principle is based on game theory and the claim that people would want to make the worst possible outcome the best it can be. We would follow a miaximin principle and play it safe.
Meaning how do we distribute material goods and rights and liberties? Who should hold the power to command others and subject them to punishment should they disobey?
For Philosophy, we ask “should” it is not descriptive, but we find ourselves describing all the time to answer these questions. How things are helps us to understand how things should be.
Political philosophers tackle issue of why we allow there to be coercive institutions.
The State of Nature - what was/is life like without government? Would life be unbearable, or an improvement? Which gets at, should we let people have the right to command others?
Hobbes - people have desires that are never satisfied, scarcity will cause conflict, in such a situation where we fear others it is acceptable that we don’t have to follow a moral code. We can only act morally when we can be assured that others will as well. No chance for progress under such conditions.
Locke - Even in state of nature we have only the liberty to do what the law of nature allows and we have the right to punish. But there will be disagreements over who has violated the code. Once a population grows we will have scarcity and thus a need for government.
Rousseau - argues that man is not naturally given to war. Problem with Hobbes and Locke is that they are applying how man behaves in civilization to the state of nature. People have been conditioned to be selfish. What they overlook is that people have pity and compassion for others. They will not want to war with others over goods that they can easily get on their own. Once civilization came - rich set up laws to protect themselves we ruined the whole thing and now we can’t go back.
Anarchists - People are naturally good. Life better without coercion of government. Took things a step further than Rousseau. Still possible.
How do we justify the state?
Contract theory has a problem - how do we give our consent? Was there a moment in the past when this happened? How are we bound by this? If voting or accepting benefits is consent then what of those who don’t? Perhaps this is settled by hypothetical consent - if we were faced with the state of Nature, we would rationally consent to join a social contract.
Anarchists believe that nobody has right to coerce others.
Utilitarianism - that which brings the most utility (happiness) to the greatest number is justified. Thus, the state is justified because it brings more happiness than state of nature. Problems here - how do we measure this? Can’t we justify slavery or the persecution of some scapegoat by Utilitarianism?
The fairness principle (HLA Hart) - if we accept the benefits of the state, we must also accept the burdens and obligations such as obeying the law and paying taxes. But what if we did not ask for these benefits critics ask?
Who should rule?
Democracy was long criticized but now accepted. There are tensions:
What do we mean by it? Simply majority rule or does Democracy also mean the protection of a minority (Madison)
Direct democracy or representative democracy? Rousseau felt representative was no democracy at all.
What can we tell about how people vote? Does it reflect the common good or general will? Do people vote in their own interest or do they vote for what they perceive to be in the interest of what would be best for all? Or, most likely, is it a mix of the two and thus hard to say. Wouldn’t opinion polls be enough if we only feel it is valuable to see what the public thinks? Do we assume that there is a better than average chance that the majority is right?
Plato - Wrote against Democracy. I don’t turn a ship’s navigation over to a group of untrained sailors. If I’m sick I go to an expert doctor, I don’t turn it over to a vote of the people. Governing and policy making is a skill, a craft, and commoners cannot be trusted with it. People will be swayed by those who speak the loudest and with the most conviction - the Sophists - and will be swayed by the false reasoning of ambitious politicians. Those who really know what to do will be ignored. WHat it takes to be successful in winning elections - flattery, manipulation duplicity are the very things that those most capable don’t want to engage in. We need to turn rule over to the experts. Who? Trained philosophers - the guardians. They would be prevented from owning property to avoid corruption. Entire argument is based on the end result of governing and ignores that there might be other intangible benefits to democracy. Freedom and equality not a consideration. Also, how would the philosophers know what the people want?
Rousseau - Argues that democracy could do just as well or better than Plato’s rule by experts. We need to train citizens in virtue to care for one another and make them active participants. Then, they will be the law-makers. In small bodies they will discuss and vote on laws (The Sovereign). But, they must be trained not to vote on what is in their interest, but in the interest of the whole - THE GENERAL WILL not the will of all (the product of everyone’s individual interest). The correct policy is the one which benefits all people equally. People must be equal in wealth for this to happen and thus share the common interest and know that every law will apply to all equally. If I did not vote as the majority voted I should conclude that I was mistaken, not that I was defeated, and I should not continue to dissent. Also said there must be a civic religion - atheism not allowed. You can follow any religion that teaches toleration. In addition, society would have to have a set of dogmas that promote good citizenship. An executive government would be needed to enforce law, but never make it - that is not democracy. A censor would be needed to ridicule anti-social behavior. Severe punishment on those who violate the civic religion. Rousseau did not believe that freedom was freedom to pursue one’s individual desires unrestrained by others (negative freedom). He supported “positive freedom” - living the life that a rational person would want to live. Must be forced to be free.
Problems with Rousseau - Wollstonecraft writes in reaction to Rousseau - to him women were not equal and could not be citizens. Also, how would people have time to do this? Greeks depended on slavery to free them for direct democracy. Today labor saving technology has probably addressed this concern. Freedom restricted in his model. Can there be such a thing as a General Will even if we have equality? Don’t people value different things? Why should dissenters be classed as criminals? Is the majority always right? How can we say we are free if we are forced to obey a law that we might have opposed? Rousseau does not want a vigorous debate. There is one correct policy in the end and dissent must end when it is arrived at. To him dissent is treason.
In the end in attempting to create a system in which the majority would find the general will he creates a system that is repressive.
PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY -
Unlike Rousseau more respect for individual and open debate. Only free when all aspects of life are democratic. Problems - WHo sets the agenda? Inefficiency. Will people devote the time needed? Still need people to execute the laws.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY - MILL - government should be judged by administrating issues of public concern and also its ability to improve individuals morally and intellectually (which puts him at odds with the liberal school he founded). Despotism leads to passive and uninformed subjects. WHile direct democracy would do the most for making good citizens he worries as Plato did that people are easily misled. Better to defer to elected officials. Still he argued for education and felt jury service and serving local gov. Was essential to citizenship. Agreed with separation of power, checks and balances to counter the problem of the wrong people seeking office. People should vote for who would best serve the general interest, not their private interest. Thus, the vote should be public, not a secret ballot. Only educated can vote, but all can speak. Or, the educated should have more votes. This to protect us from the ignorant majority. To protect the minority a strong believer in proportional representation and limiting the role of government to protect liberty.
Liberty
Mill’s Liberty Principle or the Harm Principle - only reason to give power to another against your will is to prevent harm to others. - NEGATIVE FREEDOM. Complete freedom of thought and expression. WHat we once thought wrong is not right and why would we deny ourselves the opportunity to strengthen our belief in truth by listening to and responding to what we feel is false? Truth leads to happiness. But, because of his harm theory speech could be limited. He would agree that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre.
Problems with rights theories - if natural rights are self-evident why is there so much disagreement over what rights we have. Do we have a right to a universal basic income or shelter? Mill did not believe that rights were natural. He based his justification on utility - rights that promoted the general happiness. Most happiness is attained if in our private sphere government leaves us alone but in public sphere intervention is possible but only on utilitarian grounds. Giving people liberty will lead to experimentation, progress and thus happiness.
Marx - Political liberalism is a great advance but does not take into account that people are unequal and can exploit one another.
Communitarians - Our identities are bound up in our communities and customary morality is what holds a community together and should be followed. Take a POSITIVE VIEW of liberty - you don’t make people free by leaving them alone. You make them free by putting people in a position to make the right choices to live their best lives.
How should property be distributed? Political Economy
Libertarianism - Robert Nozick - natural right to property so strong that to redistribute wealth or have anything more than a night watchman government is a violation of liberty. For Locke the mixing of labor with that which was unowned makes it property. A utilitarian argument is that private property leads to most efficient use of resources and happiness. Von Hayek best defense of efficiency of free market and why command economies never work.
The problem is with externalities - negative externalities are things that we get for nothing that we don’t want like pollution and noise. Positive externalities are things we get for nothing but would like to have - public goods like street lights. Free market produces lots of negative externalities but undersupplies positive externalities - public goods. Thus we have to regulate negative externalities and have government provide public goods or have businesses charge for public goods. But is that enough?
Engels/Marx attacked also on utilitarian grounds - the boom and bust cycle leads to crisis after crisis; the profit motive leads work to be specialized and degraded and unfit for human beings; exploits workers; people who do not labor receive rewards off the labor of others; produces people who have no productive role to fill.
Welfare Liberalism - Rawls - inequality from laissez-faire capitalism would mean denial of liberty/opportunity to the poor.
We should not determine the rules of a card game after the cards have been dealt! Can’t decide what a just society is based on our present circumstances because we would be biased.
Must be put in an “original position” - ignorant of what place we will have in society to be impartial. What rules of society In such a situation people would pick to have the most extensive liberties and equally applied to all (liberty principle); The greatest benefit to the least advantaged (difference principle); fair and equal opportunity for any office (opportunity principle). The liberty principle would be most valued.
The difference principle is based on game theory and the claim that people would want to make the worst possible outcome the best it can be. We would follow a miaximin principle and play it safe.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 13, 2025
Hard going. Lots of jumping about.
March 28, 2023
absolute banger
August 10, 2013
Jonathan Wolff's "An Introduction to Political Philosophy" was the best of the four books that were assigned for my freshman history of ideas course in college. I especially liked how each chapter was about a different fundamental question in political philosophy. If nothing else, readers learn what important questions they should be asking.
One criticism of the book is that the first chapter on "The State of Nature" only considers the views of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. As a libertarian anarchist fairly familiar with the anarcho-capitalist literature on this subject I was very disappointed with this non-critical examination of life without a state and the very premature conclusion reached by the author on page 33:
"In the end, I think, we must agree with Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Nothing genuinely worthy of being called a state of nature will, at least in the long term, be a condition in which humans can flourish."
No student or other reader should accept this without first considering the arguments put forth in the anarcho-capitalist literature, arguments that Wolff sadly left out of his book completely.
One criticism of the book is that the first chapter on "The State of Nature" only considers the views of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. As a libertarian anarchist fairly familiar with the anarcho-capitalist literature on this subject I was very disappointed with this non-critical examination of life without a state and the very premature conclusion reached by the author on page 33:
"In the end, I think, we must agree with Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Nothing genuinely worthy of being called a state of nature will, at least in the long term, be a condition in which humans can flourish."
No student or other reader should accept this without first considering the arguments put forth in the anarcho-capitalist literature, arguments that Wolff sadly left out of his book completely.
December 6, 2020
The book provides a very good genetal introduction to some central debates at the core of political philosophy. Most of the essay can works as a sum of the thoughts of many great phiilosophers (i.e. history of political thought) but the last chapter tries to deal with the subject from a broader angle, delving into some contemporaneous issues. The book is generally fine, absolutely not too technical, but I found Wolff's style excessively manual. It may serve as a handbook rather than as a traditional essay.
April 6, 2017
A very interesting and accessible introductory work. The book not only gives an overview of the powerhouses of political philosophy (Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke etc) and their landmark theories, but posses many questions about the state, justice and rights, etc to the reader, which I myself had previously never considered.
August 17, 2019
As much as I hated getting assigned a 200 page reading for one week of uni (plus another 80 page reading, and an assignment), this was actually incredibly enjoyable. Not only was it really fascinating, and covered quite a number of people and ideas, it was well-written, paced and thought out.
Read
March 20, 2022an accessible introduction to political philosophy
September 3, 2016
Dette er rett og slett en veldig god bok som alle med en ørliten interesse for politikk burde lese.
August 31, 2019
I was impressed by the lucidity and rigour of this writer's explanation. It favoured well compared to the other writing on my course reading list.
Notes
- Hobbes sees humans as always in search of something, never at rest
- Human beings are constantly fighting a war, because of this everyone is fighting in self defence, even taking pre-emptive action. Everything can be justified.
- Fear and mutual suspicion is so high in the state of nature that we can generally be excused for not obeying the law.
- Might is right- whoever has authority has the right to exercise it by the virtue of the fact that he has it.
- Lock argues that the role of man is to preserve other men. we also have a natural right to punish those who harm others. Not the same thing as a right to self defence.
- Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin - an anarchist who believed state is the cause of human corruption, in fact rather than darwinian survival of the fittest, Kropotkin believes that without a government we would have survival of those best able to cooperate with each other. Isn't a state just the result of this cooperation over time?
- One definition of the state is that it has a monopoly on legitimate violence.
- David Hume argues against the state- residence alone cannot be construed as consent.
- "Tacit consent" "Hypothetical consent" [Hypothetical consent is belief that state is justified because the alternative is so horrific that we would all create a new state now even if it didn't exist]. baically utilitarian
- Philosophical anarchist = we have every right and obligation to disobey the law if we do not agree with it.
- Birmingham 6 = judge said not to let go to trial on appeal because the findings of this new trial would probably undermine the state which would be bad for general utility.
- H L A Hart's principle that if you wreak benefits from the state, even just use the pavements, you have opted in to it - but there was actually no point when you ever agreed.
- Maddison view is that democracy requires protection of minorities.
- In Plato philosopher king guardians agree to rule not because they want power, but because they want to avoid others having power over them.
- The French Philosopher and political theoriest Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, the Marquis de Condorcet, provided an interesting mathematical argument that appears to show the advantaged of allowing people to vote for the common good. Condorcet pointed out that if we assume that people, on average, have a better than average chance of gettingt he right answer, then allowing majority decision turns out to be a near certain way of getting the right result.
- Classless, highly educated society much better chance of being a succesful democracy- Rousseau.
- Rousseau - belief in one civic religion, plus tolerance for all other religions but only of those religions themselves uphold the principle of toleration.
-The Federalist papers by Maddison, Hamilton and John Jay publishe dunder psuedynoym Publius to encourage voters to ratify US Constitution
-Mill believes that humans will prorgess, and the main tool of personal improvement of human beings is liberty. Obviously liberty and happiness in tension, believes that humans are capable of learning and progress [not poor people, womena nd ethnic minorities] BUT LIBERTY IS STILL ONLY GOOD IF IT ADDS TO OUR HAPPINESS.
- Marx belies that liberal rights are actually an obstacle to our emancipation, only transiition from feudalistic hierarchical society towards communist utopia.
- Liberatarian development of view in Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick - rights so powerful government has no right to interfere.
-Jan Penn 1970s income distribution and inequality
- The free market will tned to oversupply goods with negative externalities and undersupply goods with positive externalities. it is easy to see why. Creating a negative externality is often a way of dumping costs on another.
-Rawls liberty principle veil of ignorance.
Notes
- Hobbes sees humans as always in search of something, never at rest
- Human beings are constantly fighting a war, because of this everyone is fighting in self defence, even taking pre-emptive action. Everything can be justified.
- Fear and mutual suspicion is so high in the state of nature that we can generally be excused for not obeying the law.
- Might is right- whoever has authority has the right to exercise it by the virtue of the fact that he has it.
- Lock argues that the role of man is to preserve other men. we also have a natural right to punish those who harm others. Not the same thing as a right to self defence.
- Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin - an anarchist who believed state is the cause of human corruption, in fact rather than darwinian survival of the fittest, Kropotkin believes that without a government we would have survival of those best able to cooperate with each other. Isn't a state just the result of this cooperation over time?
- One definition of the state is that it has a monopoly on legitimate violence.
- David Hume argues against the state- residence alone cannot be construed as consent.
- "Tacit consent" "Hypothetical consent" [Hypothetical consent is belief that state is justified because the alternative is so horrific that we would all create a new state now even if it didn't exist]. baically utilitarian
- Philosophical anarchist = we have every right and obligation to disobey the law if we do not agree with it.
- Birmingham 6 = judge said not to let go to trial on appeal because the findings of this new trial would probably undermine the state which would be bad for general utility.
- H L A Hart's principle that if you wreak benefits from the state, even just use the pavements, you have opted in to it - but there was actually no point when you ever agreed.
- Maddison view is that democracy requires protection of minorities.
- In Plato philosopher king guardians agree to rule not because they want power, but because they want to avoid others having power over them.
- The French Philosopher and political theoriest Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, the Marquis de Condorcet, provided an interesting mathematical argument that appears to show the advantaged of allowing people to vote for the common good. Condorcet pointed out that if we assume that people, on average, have a better than average chance of gettingt he right answer, then allowing majority decision turns out to be a near certain way of getting the right result.
- Classless, highly educated society much better chance of being a succesful democracy- Rousseau.
- Rousseau - belief in one civic religion, plus tolerance for all other religions but only of those religions themselves uphold the principle of toleration.
-The Federalist papers by Maddison, Hamilton and John Jay publishe dunder psuedynoym Publius to encourage voters to ratify US Constitution
-Mill believes that humans will prorgess, and the main tool of personal improvement of human beings is liberty. Obviously liberty and happiness in tension, believes that humans are capable of learning and progress [not poor people, womena nd ethnic minorities] BUT LIBERTY IS STILL ONLY GOOD IF IT ADDS TO OUR HAPPINESS.
- Marx belies that liberal rights are actually an obstacle to our emancipation, only transiition from feudalistic hierarchical society towards communist utopia.
- Liberatarian development of view in Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick - rights so powerful government has no right to interfere.
-Jan Penn 1970s income distribution and inequality
- The free market will tned to oversupply goods with negative externalities and undersupply goods with positive externalities. it is easy to see why. Creating a negative externality is often a way of dumping costs on another.
-Rawls liberty principle veil of ignorance.
May 3, 2024
The Introduction to Political Philosophy
Jonathan Wolff is a world-renowned professor of political philosophy at University College London, and certainly one with a flair for preparatory writing. An introduction to political philosophy precisely fits its description – for a relative novice in the realm of political philosophy, Wolff’s creative tone and gradually developing structure allows a complete outsider the chance to grapple with six core, perplexing questions which underline the need for green growth on the branches of political philosophy. In a mere 260 words, Wolff persuades us to reconsider the merits of democracy, question the need for the state, and define the principles of liberty for ourselves. Taking in quotations and ideas from the greatest political and philosophical minds of our time, from Locke to Plato, and Mill to Hobbes, Wolff offers effective counterarguments for each point he makes. It is evident from the outset that the purpose of this masterful introduction is to teach one how to think, never what to think. Despite the dismissal of the occasional erratic proposal, Wolff airs the ideas of all those he discusses, giving them each a fair trial in his court of political ideas, on which we found ourselves in the privileged position of sole juror. Leaving the final verdict in our hands, most of his chapters end in the most valuable of philosophical symbols; the question mark. Wolff informs us, but does not direct us; answers with us, not for us; leaves us with questions, not finite answers. Wolff designed his introduction for a general audience, an attempt to bring the pivotal choices of the nature of the state to its interested citizens. The book itself is not the only aspect worth reviewing, as (in my view) an introduction to political philosophy is not limited by 260 pages of analysis and welcome, but continues past such a mark aided by its intention. The chapter generally designated as ‘references’ is aptly titled ‘further reading,’ almost a request for the reader to continue beyond page 260. Wolff’s writing gives each reader a key with which to unlock a myriad of philosophical and political doors. As readers, we have been provided with the tools required to unpick great works, and with the basic knowledge to identify key themes which run through them. The greatest accomplishment of this introduction is to guide keen minds toward unique works of philosophy, a precedent I intend to follow. It is no wonder that the University of Oxford considers this ‘essential reading’ for courses involving political philosophy. Much like a painter needing to acquire familiarity with his brush, budding political philosophers much become chummy with Wolff’s book. It is the perfect introduction.
Jonathan Wolff is a world-renowned professor of political philosophy at University College London, and certainly one with a flair for preparatory writing. An introduction to political philosophy precisely fits its description – for a relative novice in the realm of political philosophy, Wolff’s creative tone and gradually developing structure allows a complete outsider the chance to grapple with six core, perplexing questions which underline the need for green growth on the branches of political philosophy. In a mere 260 words, Wolff persuades us to reconsider the merits of democracy, question the need for the state, and define the principles of liberty for ourselves. Taking in quotations and ideas from the greatest political and philosophical minds of our time, from Locke to Plato, and Mill to Hobbes, Wolff offers effective counterarguments for each point he makes. It is evident from the outset that the purpose of this masterful introduction is to teach one how to think, never what to think. Despite the dismissal of the occasional erratic proposal, Wolff airs the ideas of all those he discusses, giving them each a fair trial in his court of political ideas, on which we found ourselves in the privileged position of sole juror. Leaving the final verdict in our hands, most of his chapters end in the most valuable of philosophical symbols; the question mark. Wolff informs us, but does not direct us; answers with us, not for us; leaves us with questions, not finite answers. Wolff designed his introduction for a general audience, an attempt to bring the pivotal choices of the nature of the state to its interested citizens. The book itself is not the only aspect worth reviewing, as (in my view) an introduction to political philosophy is not limited by 260 pages of analysis and welcome, but continues past such a mark aided by its intention. The chapter generally designated as ‘references’ is aptly titled ‘further reading,’ almost a request for the reader to continue beyond page 260. Wolff’s writing gives each reader a key with which to unlock a myriad of philosophical and political doors. As readers, we have been provided with the tools required to unpick great works, and with the basic knowledge to identify key themes which run through them. The greatest accomplishment of this introduction is to guide keen minds toward unique works of philosophy, a precedent I intend to follow. It is no wonder that the University of Oxford considers this ‘essential reading’ for courses involving political philosophy. Much like a painter needing to acquire familiarity with his brush, budding political philosophers much become chummy with Wolff’s book. It is the perfect introduction.
January 26, 2021
Como o título indica, esta é uma introdução à Filosofia Política, saída da pena de um especialista na matéria. O livro está particularmente bem escrito, com uma clareza e uma fluidez invejáveis, o que torna a sua leitura muito aprazível, mas sem perda de rigor e profundidade. Na verdade, apesar da feição analítica e argumentativa, o autor nunca adopta um discurso excessivamente técnico ou permeado por jargão, conseguindo antes encontrar um tom expositivo bastante coloquial e leve. A tradução pareceu-me boa e foi cientificamente revista por um filósofo, o que permite preservar a propriedade terminológica.
Quanto ao conteúdo, não se trata de uma história da filosofia política, que privilegie uma abordagem essencialmente cronológica, dado que a obra está organizada por capítulos temáticos, que se encadeiam de acordo com um critério sistemático e lógico. Claro que, dentro destas temáticas, há uma apresentação tendencialmente cronológica das principais respostas que foram sendo dadas ao longo da história da Filosofia Política (o que faz todo o sentido, na medida em que as posteriores tendem a complementar, modificar ou refutar as anteriores). Desde a questão da legitimidade do poder político e da existência do Estado, por contraposição com o que seria a vida num hipotético estado de natureza, à determinaç��o da forma que aquele deve assumir, como e por quem deve ser exercido, à escolha dos princípios em torno dos quais se deve estruturar ou que deve visar, aos problemas e os desafios que a democracia comporta, designadamente face a modelos alternativos de organização política da comunidade, terminando com um capítulo sobre as perspectivas feministas que se repercutem sobre a política, o autor passa em revista as principais teses desenvolvidas pelos filósofos ao longo da história, sendo de destacar Platão, Hobbes, Locke, Bentham, Rousseau, Mill, Kropotkin, Wollstonecraft, Rawls, Nozick, Marx, entre outros (mas com uma ausência de peso: Kant…).
É certo que se pode notar a prevalência de uma visão bastante centrada na perspectiva do individualismo liberal, isto é, da precedência ontológica e valorativa do indivíduo sobre a sociedade e da visão do homem como um ser naturalmente livre, cuja liberdade só pode ser restringida de forma fundamentada. Essa opção não é escondida; pelo contrário, o autor assume-a e procura fundamentá-la, ao mesmo tempo que apresenta algumas visões alternativas, ainda que de forma comparativamente menos desenvolvida.
Em suma, uma introdução muito bem feita, bem argumentada, com rigor filosófico e que permite não só sistematizar algumas ideias, como servir de ponto de partida para um estudo mais aprofundado de alguns autores ou ideias-chave.
A classificação seria mais um 4 1/2, mas arredondei para 5.
Quanto ao conteúdo, não se trata de uma história da filosofia política, que privilegie uma abordagem essencialmente cronológica, dado que a obra está organizada por capítulos temáticos, que se encadeiam de acordo com um critério sistemático e lógico. Claro que, dentro destas temáticas, há uma apresentação tendencialmente cronológica das principais respostas que foram sendo dadas ao longo da história da Filosofia Política (o que faz todo o sentido, na medida em que as posteriores tendem a complementar, modificar ou refutar as anteriores). Desde a questão da legitimidade do poder político e da existência do Estado, por contraposição com o que seria a vida num hipotético estado de natureza, à determinaç��o da forma que aquele deve assumir, como e por quem deve ser exercido, à escolha dos princípios em torno dos quais se deve estruturar ou que deve visar, aos problemas e os desafios que a democracia comporta, designadamente face a modelos alternativos de organização política da comunidade, terminando com um capítulo sobre as perspectivas feministas que se repercutem sobre a política, o autor passa em revista as principais teses desenvolvidas pelos filósofos ao longo da história, sendo de destacar Platão, Hobbes, Locke, Bentham, Rousseau, Mill, Kropotkin, Wollstonecraft, Rawls, Nozick, Marx, entre outros (mas com uma ausência de peso: Kant…).
É certo que se pode notar a prevalência de uma visão bastante centrada na perspectiva do individualismo liberal, isto é, da precedência ontológica e valorativa do indivíduo sobre a sociedade e da visão do homem como um ser naturalmente livre, cuja liberdade só pode ser restringida de forma fundamentada. Essa opção não é escondida; pelo contrário, o autor assume-a e procura fundamentá-la, ao mesmo tempo que apresenta algumas visões alternativas, ainda que de forma comparativamente menos desenvolvida.
Em suma, uma introdução muito bem feita, bem argumentada, com rigor filosófico e que permite não só sistematizar algumas ideias, como servir de ponto de partida para um estudo mais aprofundado de alguns autores ou ideias-chave.
A classificação seria mais um 4 1/2, mas arredondei para 5.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 150 reviews