I have two--John Stuart Mill and Thurman Arnold

Mill because he has the most sophisticated understanding of what liberalism means. He understands that freedom is not simply freedom from the government, but that the social and economic realms can tyrannize us as well, and that in order to be free we need to have protections not only from political power, but from social pressures and the market. To read him as a libertarian completely misses that important element to his thought. He's the first liberal to really make the arguement that you can't be free if you are worried about how you are going to pay for retirement, how are you going to educate your kids, where are you going to sleep tonght, and how are you going to eat.

Thurman Arnold

Not too many people know this guy. He was active in the 30's into the 60's. He wrote a best selling book called the folklore of capitalism and led the anti-trust division of the new deal. He was also one of the important figures in the legal realism movement. As a judge he fought moral censorship and his law firm defended victims of the McCarthy which hunts. Arnold is essentially a liberal Machiavelli. He understood that people interpret the world symbolically and that in order to be succesful you need to figure out how to manipulate those symbols. He also offers of the best non-socialist critiques of lassiez faire capitalsim out there.

Mill, period. Shouldn't surprise anyone. I think you summed up his contributions nicely, especially in pointing out that social and economic factors can also be tyrannous.

Does this really differ enough from the "How did you arrive at your political beliefs?" thread to warrant a new one?

This thread opens the door for people to post pics of Ann Coulter though.

No, but it let me tell everyone how much I love J.S. Mill again, and that my friend is worth every thread we can muster!

I think so. I arrived at my political beleifs before I read those people. But if you want to merge them it would be awfully hypocritical of me to complain.

Sartre!

Well, it's a bit late now.

Kant!

i have to say Rousseau. His ideas about the decline of human capabilities with the prograss of social systems are so radical and revolutionary, he gets the top spot in my book without question. too bad he's so often overlooked.




and i'm not a communist.

Nietzsche once said of Mill and his contemporaries:

"Man does not seek pleasure. Only the Englishman does."

____________

To answer the thread, since Nietzsche is not a political thinker at all... I'd have to say, Jurgen Habermas, and The Economist.

I wish I could appreciate Nietzche I just cannot bring myself to. I'm sure being insane is a rational response to the human condition, perhaps if he sought pleasure he wouldn't have become quite so neurotic. His philosophy also appeals to a certain group of people which I do not relate to. They tend to have a warped sense of personal nobility and an apathetic character. Its probably cause I am an ignorant hillbilly and do not posess the mental capacity to understand this mans genius. If only I owned a Che Guevara shirt...

Nietzche would have hated Che Guevara. And Nietzche is totally legit as a political thinker. He just starts us down the ugly road to facism.

Have you read the last chapter of the social contract? Where he says its legit for the state to put people to death for disagreeing with the state's civil religion.

Rouseau is a scary thinker--there is a real sinister edge to his thought that can justify all sorts of horrible things in the name of the general will.

That wasnt my point.

DeLime and GH--why Sartre

Hinny--why Kant?

I'm sure his going insane at the end of his life had scant to do with his philosophy.



Thankfully, I don't know anyone of this disposition, even if that were to matter to me.

Oh come on, pal, this is bullshit. Explain yourself.

I think it had everything to do with his philosophy. During his eight "wandering years" between 1880 and 1888 he comprised nearly all of his most important works and then.... BAM! 1889 comes around and not a month after he finishes Nietzsche Contra Wagner (December 1888) he tosses his arms around the neck of a distressed horse, has a complete mental breakdown (which was eight years in the making methinks) and spends the rest of his days mumbling. That event occurured January 3, 1889 btw. Coincidence? Why I think not...