What would be the major differences between being a citizen in a nomocratic state and in a teleocratic state?

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

[...] Raymond Plant What would be the major differences between being a citizen in a nomocratic state and in a teleocratic state? 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. [...]

[...] Conversely, the line of reasoning here is that the job of the state is to protect negative freedom, so the absence of coercion and not to compensate other disabilities. The perception of injustice is based on intentional origin, and so we cannot argue that failure or diseases or even genetic results are injustice but misfortune in as much as it is not the produce of an intentional act. The aggregate outcome of the market is an unintentional result and there will not be damages provoked by state action. That means for a citizen that he will not have to pay high taxes. [...]

[...] That leads the fact that responsibilities are gifted to hazard. It seems quite frightening to think that your life depends on hazard, on luckiness. Hayek himself admits that the market is not foreseeable and that is why, it can work because it is not an intentional product. However, if we accept this assertion, our life should be governed by hazard and implies the question of citizen's responsibility in his life. We sharply found this paradoxical asset: how could a citizen who implicitly implied to be fully responsible of his choices, of his ambitions in as much as in this context of a rule framework conception of state provides him such freedom, manage to realize its goals while the realization completely depends on hazard? [...]

[...] As a citizen, you get the feeling of a state who is acting and measures seem legitimate. You feel more-integrated. It is the same for all the politics launched about social health: the state provides you an insurance if you become sick to benefit from a medical treatment. Given that, we can try to find a justification, linking these measures to what John Rawls expounded on his Theory of Justice. He asserts that the economic and social inequalities are only tolerated if they benefit to the worst position member of society. [...]

[...] 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). [...]