What would be the major differences between being a citizen in a nomocratic state and in a teleocratic state? - publié le 25/11/2014

Thèmes abordés

Hayek, neoliberalism, nomocratic, teleocratic state, autonomy, citizen

Résumé du document

Some famous conservative philosophers as Michael Oakeshott define the origins of states by distinguishing two basic types of government: the nomocratic and the teleocratic state. Their conception about the role of state and how it should rule the citizen's life is completely opposed. Indeed, a nomocratic state as its etymology refers to (nomos means law), is built under the idea on a rule-based government. Why? According to Hayek, coercion is a continual threat which cannot be completely abolished, and that is why this is the job of the state to own the monopole of coercion in order to dissuade people from using it. However, who is controlling the state? The answer is Law. So a nomocratic state could be roughly defined as a non-interventionist state, not governed by moral definition and values but only by an agreed set of rules. By contrast, a teleocratic state found its meaning on the pursuit of an ending goal, a common objective which drives the members of society to its realization. Consequently, it follows recognition of common values shared by all, determining the achievement of specific ends such as abolishing Poverty or struggle against an enemy for example. Considering that a citizen is supposed to have rights and duties, the issue at stake here is to establish how he could be obviously differently affected by these two opposite thought of state.

Hence, the purpose of this essay is not to assert that one form is better than another, this is not what we should focus on. Our target consists in trying to offer an overview not only on the role traditionally taken by a citizen but also what consequences on his life and his feelings are implied by the form of the state. Are there really such differences between being a citizen in a teleocratic and nomocratic state? The questioning is not really there. We will rather try to develop an examination on the following interrogations: what could be the major ones? To what extent? What are their concrete implications for a citizen? I shall discuss in a first part the differences between state's reactions is based on the perception of injustice or what is considered as injustice, which causally imply different consequences for the citizen. Then, I shall deliberate on the problematical case of autonomy, dealing with freedom access and citizen's responsibilities.

Extraits

[...] I would like to discuss now the central place of citizen's autonomy living on teleocratic or nomocratic state thanks to alternatively demonstrating the importance of notion like freedom and responsibility. Citizens in a nomocratic state benefit from a negative freedom as Hayek told us in The Constitution of Liberty that helps us to underline the importance of citizen's autonomy. This absence of coercion makes them very free to realize their goals, everybody is pushed to maximize its actions, and everyone could have access to market. [...]

[...] Besides, it also means the respect of property rights because of the necessity to develop individual work and ambition, you need a private space. You own your body as well as you own your production, you can thus take advantage of it as all as you want to. On the other hand, if we consider now a teleocratic state, the citizen autonomy could be voluntary sacrificed to serve an ideal. In effect, that is explained by the philosophers of social contract as John Locke (Property rights), Thomas Hobbes (The Leviathan) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Du contrat social). [...]

[...] Nomocratic state follows the idea of an individual freedom, a spontaneous market, an ideal of maximizing opportunities, and an agreed set of rules of law which provides a clear framework. A non-interventionist state means no redistribution, no economic planification, and no “safety net” to help you if you suffer from unemployment. Mutual tolerance is the major point of nomocratic state that helps you to develop your own projects, considered there as the best way to organize a society since it allows pluralism. [...]

[...] Hence, the purpose of this essay is not to assert that one form is better than another, this is not what we should focus on. Our target consists in trying to offer an overview not only on the role traditionally taken by a citizen but also what consequences on his life and his feelings are implied by the form of the state. Are there really such differences between being a citizen in a teleocratic and nomocratic state? The questioning is not really there. [...]

[...] What are their concrete implications for a citizen? I shall discuss in a first part the differences between state's reactions is based on the perception of injustice or what is considered as injustice, which causally imply different consequences for the citizen. Then, I shall deliberate on the problematical case of autonomy, dealing with freedom access and citizen's responsibilities. My first part is dealing with the treatment of “injustice” in a teleocratic and nomocratic state, which constitutes a significant difference in the perception of society and the daily way of life for a citizen. [...]