{"id":340629,"date":"2025-06-17T09:39:11","date_gmt":"2025-06-17T04:09:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/?p=340629"},"modified":"2025-06-17T09:44:14","modified_gmt":"2025-06-17T04:14:14","slug":"psir-power-50-day-13-capsule-wpt-part-2-3-practice-qs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/psir-power-50-day-13-capsule-wpt-part-2-3-practice-qs\/","title":{"rendered":"PSIR Power 50 \u2013 Day 13 Capsule: WPT- (Part-2\/3) + Practice Qs"},"content":{"rendered":"

Hello everyone,<\/p>\n

Today it\u2019s the second part of Western Political thought\u2013Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill. UPSC<\/strong> has asked 9 ten-mark, 4 fifteen-mark, and 1 twenty-mark \u00a0<\/strong>in total in the last 12 years.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1.Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Block<\/strong><\/td>\nCore Content<\/strong><\/td>\nTexts \/ Events Anchored<\/strong><\/td>\nScholars, Parallels & Critics<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1 Space & Time<\/strong><\/td>\nSpanish Armada birth omen (1588) \u25b8 decline of Elizabethan age \u25b8 De Cive<\/em> 1642 \u25b8 English Civil War, execution Charles I (1649) \u25b8 exile in France \u25b8 Leviathan<\/em> 1651 \u25b8 Treaty of Westphalia 1648 births modern state-system<\/td>\nLetters; Autobiography; Leviathan<\/em> ch. 46 chronicle<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2 Comparative Benchmarks<\/strong><\/td>\nvs Machiavelli<\/strong>: prince \u21a6 sovereign, rule of arms<\/em> \u2192 rule of laws<\/em>, scientific deduction replaces historical anecdote.
\nvs Aristotle<\/strong>: rejects teleology\/virtue; life \u2260 pursuit of good but avoidance of evil; politics about life-&-death not eudaimonia.<\/td>\n		Prince<\/em>; Discourses<\/em>; Politics<\/em><\/td>\nLaski (\u201cwhole Renaissance in Machiavelli\u201d); Sabine; Strauss<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3 Methodology<\/strong><\/td>\n\u2022 Scientific<\/strong>; geometry model (Kepler, Galileo)
\n\u2022 Resolutive\u2013Compositive<\/strong> analysis \u2192 synthesis
\n\u2022 Deductive reasoning<\/strong> from postulates
\n\u2022 Psychological egoism<\/strong> (self-interest)
\n\u2022 Ethical relativism<\/strong> (no absolute morals)
\n\u2022 Political absolutism<\/strong> as logical output<\/td>\n		Leviathan<\/em> Part I ch. 1-6<\/td>\nRawls (state-of-nature = Prisoner\u2019s Dilemma)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4 Human- & State-of-Nature<\/strong><\/td>\nHumans = matter in motion \u25b8 vital vs voluntary motion \u25b8 passions: desire\/aversion<\/strong> \u2192 power-seeking
\nState-of-Nature: equality + scarcity \u2192 competition, diffidence, glory \u2192 \u201csolitary, poor, nasty, brutish, short\u201d war of all against all<\/td>\n		Leviathan<\/em> I-13<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5 Natural Rights & Laws of Nature<\/strong><\/td>\nRight = liberty for self-preservation; 19 laws of nature<\/strong> (seek peace, renounce rights, honour covenants, etc.) = rational \u201ctheorems of peace\u201d yet unenforceable without common power<\/td>\nLeviathan<\/em> I-14-15<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6 Social-Contract & Covenant<\/strong><\/td>\nMutual renunciation \u2192 covenant<\/strong> creates third person (sovereign). Sovereign not<\/em> party to contract, only beneficiary; fear-based obligation as valid as consent (sovereignty by institution vs by conquest)<\/td>\nLeviathan<\/em> II-17-18<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7 Sovereignty Doctrine<\/strong><\/td>\nAbsolute \u00b7 indivisible \u00b7 inalienable \u00b7 perpetual \u201cmonopoly of coercive power\u201d
\nNo right to life demand upon subject (except self-defence clause); obligation lasts only while protection lasts<\/td>\n		Leviathan<\/em> II-18-20<\/td>\nJean Bodin<\/strong> (first formulates term), Austin<\/strong> (command theory), Robert Caponigri<\/strong> (no intrinsic limits), C. W. W. Taylor<\/strong> shared-sovereignty critique<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8 Law Theory<\/strong><\/td>\nLaw = command of sovereign; natural law absorbed into positive\/civil law<\/strong>; sovereign sole interpreter; \u201ccovenants without the sword are but words\u201d<\/td>\nLeviathan<\/em> II-26<\/td>\nJohn Plamenatz<\/strong> on natural v civil law<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9 Religion<\/strong><\/td>\nFreedom of conscience but public worship under civil authority; church a corporation subject to state; religion useful for peace but subordinate<\/td>\nLeviathan<\/em> III-42<\/td>\nComparison to Indian one-way secularism<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10 Individualism & Market Seeds<\/strong><\/td>\nMethodological & normative individualism; market-egoist psychology; absolutism protects individual self-interest \u2192 logical linkage not contradiction<\/td>\nJudith Shklar<\/strong> (\u201cfounding father of liberalism\u201d); Sabine (\u201cgreatest individualist\u201d)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11 Main Labels<\/strong><\/td>\n\u2022 Father of modern political science
\n\u2022 Pioneer of absolutist sovereignty<\/strong>
\n\u2022 Forerunner of liberalism<\/strong> via natural rights
\n\u2022 Nascent ideology of market economy<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u2014<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12 Evaluation \/ Reception<\/strong><\/td>\n\u2022 Sabine<\/strong>: narrow, dated, pessimistic, ignored future role of religion; yet coined modern \u201cstate\u201d
\n\u2022 Shklar<\/strong>: proto-liberal
\n\u2022 Strauss<\/strong> & conservative critics: materialist reduction
\n\u2022 Liberal-democratic pluralists: challenge indivisible sovereignty; federal \u201cshared sovereignty\u201d shows diffusion<\/td>\n		Modern pluralist \/ constitutional debates<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Keywords (rolled-up)<\/strong><\/td>\nPsychological egoism \u00b7 Ethical relativism \u00b7 Fear \u00b7 Power-politics \u00b7 Covenant \u00b7 Leviathan \u00b7 Absolutism \u00b7 Natural right\/self-preservation \u00b7 Laws of nature \u00b7 Sovereign (internal\/external) \u00b7 Positive law \u00b7 Church-state \u00b7 Scientific deduction \u00b7 Prisoner\u2019s Dilemma \u00b7 Shared sovereignty<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

    \n
  1. John Locke (1632-1704)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Block<\/strong><\/td>\nEssential Substance \/ Keywords<\/strong><\/td>\nAnchor Texts & Historical Markers<\/strong><\/td>\nScholars \u2022 Parallels \u2022 Critics<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    1 Space & Time<\/strong><\/td>\nEnglish Civil War 1642-51 \u2022 Commonwealth (Cromwell) \u2022 Restoration 1660 \u2022 Royal Society milieu \u2022 Glorious Revolution 1688 \u2192 constitutional monarchy<\/td>\nLife 1632-1704 \u2022 Westminster \u201cKing\u2019s Scholar\u201d \u2022 Oxford education \u2022 Exile with Earl of Shaftesbury<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    2 Major Works<\/strong><\/td>\nTwo Treatises (1689)<\/strong>: 1st Treatise vs Filmer\u2019s Patriarcha<\/em>; 2nd Treatise \u2192 consent, limited gov\u2019t, right of revolt \u2022 Essay Concerning Human Understanding<\/strong> (1690): tabula rasa, empiricism \u2022 Letter on Toleration<\/strong> (1689)<\/td>\nAlso Some Thoughts on Education<\/em> 1693<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    3. Perspective \/ School<\/strong><\/td>\nFounding liberalism<\/strong> \u2022 Core of Enlightenment<\/strong> empiricism \u2022 Optimistic social-contract<\/strong> tradition (vs Hobbes) \u2022 Government a fiduciary<\/strong> trust, revocable<\/td>\nTwo Treatises preface cites Glorious Revolution<\/td>\nInfluence on US Declaration<\/strong>, French Rights of Man<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    4. Natural-Law & State of Nature<\/strong><\/td>\nState of Nature = perfect freedom & equality<\/em> yet moral; governed by reason \/ God\u2019s law<\/strong>; not Hobbesian war \u2022 Rights life-liberty-property<\/strong> inalienable \u2022 Individuals obliged \u201cnot to harm\u201d others<\/td>\nSecond Treatise \u00a74-15<\/td>\nParallels Aristotle\u2019s moral teleology; contrasts Hobbes\u2019s amoralism<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    5. Social Contract & Consent<\/strong><\/td>\n2-step process: unanimous consent<\/strong> \u2192 civil society<\/strong>; majority \u2192 choose government<\/strong> (legislature supreme). Express<\/strong> vs tacit<\/strong> consent underpins obligation. Right to revolt<\/strong> if trust breached.<\/td>\nSecond Treatise \u00a795-122<\/td>\nHobbes (single covenant) vs Locke (two stages)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    6. Organs of Government<\/strong><\/td>\nLegislature<\/strong> (supreme) \u2022 Executive + Judicial<\/strong> bundled \u2022 Federative<\/strong> (foreign affairs) \u2022 Separation anticipates Montesquieu<\/td>\nSecond Treatise \u00a7143-148<\/td>\nMontesquieu elaborates SOP<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    7. Limits on State<\/strong><\/td>\nGovernment bound by natural law<\/strong>, due process<\/strong>, promulgated statutes \u2022 No arbitrary rule, no taxation w\/out consent \u2022 Non-delegation<\/strong> of legislative power<\/td>\nSecond Treatise \u00a7134-142<\/td>\nBasis of later constitutionalism<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    8. Theory of Property<\/strong><\/td>\nLabor-mixing origin \u2022 Limitations \u279c labor<\/strong>, sufficiency<\/strong>, spoilage<\/strong> \u2022 Money invention nullifies spoilage \u2022 Property = extension of personality<\/td>\nSecond Treatise \u00a725-51<\/td>\nRobert Nozick<\/strong> (entitlement) builds; C. B. MacPherson<\/strong> (\u201cpossessive individualism\u201d) criticises; replies by Isaiah Berlin, John Dunn, Martin Seliger<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    9. Law & Liberty<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201cNo law, no liberty<\/strong>\u201d\u2014positive law valid only if<\/strong> mirrors natural law; liberty secured through<\/em> law. Contrast Hobbes \u201cliberty where law silent\u201d.<\/td>\nSecond Treatise \u00a757; Essay<\/em> Bk II<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    10. Religious Toleration<\/strong><\/td>\nChurch\u2013state separation; conscience free; civil magistrate can\u2019t coerce belief; pluralist state<\/td>\nLetter Concerning Toleration<\/em><\/td>\nInfluences US First-Amendment thought<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    11. Liberal Legacy<\/strong><\/td>\nPrototype of conservative<\/strong> (natural-law) & radical<\/strong> (rights-against-tyranny) liberalism \u2022 Basis of night-watchman state<\/strong> ideal \u2022 Inspires Montesquieu, Hume, Friedman, Berlin (positive\/negative liberty), Dworkin, Rawls<\/strong>; analyzed via Karl Mannheim<\/strong> (sociology of knowledge)<\/td>\n<\/td>\nLocke \u2190 softens Hobbes\/Machiavelli absolutism into accountable rule<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    12. Evaluation \/ Keywords<\/strong><\/td>\nEmpiricism \u2022 Tabula rasa \u2022 Parliamentary sovereignty \u2022 Rule of law \u2022 Fiduciary power \u2022 Natural rights \u2022 Social consent \u2022 Right of revolution \u2022 Labor theory of value \u2022 Separation of powers \u2022 Bourgeois justification (Mannheim<\/em>) \u2022 Liberal constitutional democracy<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 \u2013 1778)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      (not explicitly in the syllabus but important)<\/em><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Block<\/strong><\/td>\nEssential Substance \/ Keywords<\/strong><\/td>\nAnchor Texts & Events<\/strong><\/td>\nScholars \/ Critics \/ Parallels<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      1. Space & Time<\/strong><\/td>\nGeneva birth 1712 \u2022 Protestant \u2192 Catholic \u2192 Paris (age 30) \u2022 French absolutism of Louis XV \u2022 Enlightenment \/ Age of Reason backdrop \u2022 Works burnt (Paris & Geneva) \u2022 Pre-French-Revolution ferment<\/td>\n1749 Dijon prize; persecution 1762 Social Contract<\/em> & \u00c9mile<\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      2. Two Intellectual Phases<\/strong><\/td>\nPhase 1 (critical \/ romantic)<\/strong>: Discourse on Sciences & Arts<\/em> (1750) \u2022 Discourse on Origin & Foundations of Inequality<\/em> (1754) \u2190 critique of artificial \u201cprogress\u201d, private property, luxury, Baconian abundance. Phase 2 (constructive \/ rational)<\/strong>: The Social Contract<\/em> (1762) \u2022 Discourse on Political Economy<\/em> (1755) \u2014 constructive blueprint using reason & General Will.<\/td>\n<\/td>\nVoltaire (mockery of \u201cwalk on all fours\u201d)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      3. State of Nature<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201cNoble savage\u201d \u2022 solitary, non-violent \u2022 simple needs \u2022 no amour-propre<\/em> \u2022 Middle position between Hobbesian brutishness<\/strong> & Lockean optimism<\/strong> (Enemuo) \u2022 private property \u2192 plunder \u2192 inequality \u2192 need for pouvoir<\/em> (Shaapera)<\/td>\nSecond Discourse<\/em> \u00a7<\/td>\nEnemuo \u2022 Shaapera<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      4. Inequality Thesis<\/strong><\/td>\nNatural equality \u2192 social \/ moral inequality via metallurgy & agriculture \u2022 first land enclosure = birth of civil society \u2022 distinction amour-de-soi<\/strong> (healthy) vs amour-propre<\/strong> (vain) (Christopher Bertram)<\/td>\n\u201cHere is mine!\u201d quote<\/td>\nMukherjee & Ramaswamy \u2022 Gauba<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      5. Revolt against Reason (1749 Essay)<\/strong><\/td>\nArts\/sciences corrupt morals \u2022 progress a fa\u00e7ade \u2022 luxury breeds decadence \u2022 sentiments & conscience > cold reason<\/td>\nDijon Academy Question; critiques Baconian programme<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      6. Social Contract (1762)<\/strong><\/td>\nOpening: \u201cMan is born free, yet everywhere in chains.\u201d \u2022 Aim: replace illegitimate chains with legitimate ones. \u2022 Total transfer<\/strong> of each associate to the whole \u2192 creation of moral collective person<\/strong>: State<\/em> (passive), Sovereign<\/em> (active). \u2022 Contract as process<\/strong>, not one-shot.<\/td>\nBook I chap 6 (form of association)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      7. General Will<\/strong><\/td>\nAlways tends to common good; distinct from aggregate \u201cwill-of-all\u201d. \u2022 Qualitative universality (origin + object + form). \u2022 Requires economic equality (\u201cno citizen rich enough to buy another, none poor enough to sell himself\u201d). \u2022 If dissent \u2192 \u201cforced to be free\u201d.<\/td>\nDiscourse on Political Economy<\/em>; Social Contract<\/em> II-3\u20134<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      8. Direct Democracy & Representation<\/strong><\/td>\nReal sovereignty = people in assembly; cannot be alienated or represented. \u2022 English \u201cfree only on the day they vote\u201d. \u2022 Factions distort GW.<\/td>\nSocial Contract<\/em> III-15<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      9. Government vs Sovereign<\/strong><\/td>\nGovernment = agent\/commission; executive & judiciary subordinate; sovereignty indivisible & inalienable.<\/td>\nSocial Contract<\/em> III-1\u20133<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      10. Legislator<\/strong><\/td>\nExtra-ordinary \u201cpublic enlightener\u201d to frame laws, but no coercive power; proposes, people ratify.<\/td>\nSC<\/em> II-6-7; Political Economy<\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      11. Democracy & Nationalism<\/strong><\/td>\nGW works best where political community \u2248 culturally homogeneous nation (religion, language, customs). \u2022 Civil religion to cement sociability.<\/td>\nConsiderations on Government of Poland<\/em>; SC<\/em> IV-8<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      12. Women & Family<\/strong><\/td>\nDomestic role inculcates virtue (\u00c9mile<\/em>, Letters to d\u2019Alembert<\/em>). \u2022 Exclusion from public sphere; men can \u201crepresent\u201d women.<\/td>\nCritiqued by Mary Wollstonecraft<\/strong><\/td>\nWollstonecraft (\u201crights of woman\u201d reply)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      13. Happiness & Morality<\/strong><\/td>\nTrue happiness roots in natural simplicity; civilization multiplies desires. \u2022 Moral judgments spring from feelings rather than intellect.<\/td>\n\u00c9mile<\/em> Bk IV; Second Discourse<\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      14. Key Formulae & Concepts<\/strong><\/td>\nPopular sovereignty \u2022 General Will \u2022 Civil religion \u2022 Amour-de-soi \/ amour-propre \u2022 Legislator \u2022 Forced-to-be-free \u2022 Inalienable\/indivisible sovereignty \u2022 Economic equality pre-condition \u2022 Direct legislation (referendum, initiative)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      15. Influence & Relevance<\/strong><\/td>\nIntellectual spark of French Revolution 1789<\/strong> (Appadorai) \u2022 Basis for popular sovereignty, modern referenda, revolt doctrine. \u2022 Critique of private property illuminates roots of today\u2019s injustice. \u2022 Warning against military dictatorships (African context).<\/td>\n<\/td>\nAppadorai<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      16. Major Critiques<\/strong><\/td>\nTotalitarian charge<\/strong>: Bertrand Russell, Karl Popper, Isaiah Berlin see unrestricted GW as absolutist. \u2022 Classical-republican defence<\/strong>: Philip Pettit reads him as egalitarian republican. \u2022 Social-contract ahistoricism (Appadorai). \u2022 Risk of anarchy (weak executive).<\/td>\nRussell History of Western Philosophy<\/em>; Popper Open Society<\/em>; Berlin \u201cTwo Concepts of Liberty\u201d<\/td>\nPettit \u2022 C.B. Macpherson analogy to possessive individualism (contrast)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      17. Comparative Grid<\/strong><\/td>\nHobbes \u2192 war; Locke \u2192 property\/liberty; Rousseau \u2192 noble-savage & General Will. \u2022 Purpose of gov\u2019t: Hobbes\u2013order, Locke\u2013rights, Rousseau\u2013harmony under GW. \u2022 Representation: Hobbes minimal, Locke essential, Rousseau rejected.<\/td>\nSee prompt grid reproduced conceptually.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

       <\/p>\n

        \n
      1. J-S Mill (1806 \u2013 1873)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

         <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
        Block<\/strong><\/td>\nKey points \/ Keywords<\/strong><\/td>\nTexts & Illustrations<\/strong><\/td>\nNamed thinkers & critics<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        1. Space & Time<\/strong><\/td>\n17-C birth of classical\/bourgeois liberalism \u2192 18-C revolutionary ferment \u2192 19-C industrial capitalism, mass exploitation, socialist & Marxist attacks \u2192 need to revise liberalism<\/strong>.<\/td>\nRise of early socialism (Fourier, Saint-Simon, Robert Owen); humanitarian critic Thomas Carlyle<\/strong>; Marx (contemporary).<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        2. Influences<\/strong><\/td>\nGreek philosophy<\/strong> (rational humanism) \u2022 Jeremy Bentham<\/strong> (\u201cpush-pin vs poetry\u201d, \u201ctwo sovereign masters\u201d pleasure\/pain) \u2022 James Mill<\/strong> (democracy) \u2022 Harriet Taylor<\/strong> (liberty, gender).<\/td>\n<\/td>\nCarlyle (\u201cpig\u2019s philosophy\u201d)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        3. Major works<\/strong><\/td>\nOn Liberty<\/em> (1859) \u2022 Utilitarianism<\/em> (1861) \u2022 Considerations on Representative Government<\/em> (1861) \u2022 The Subjection of Women<\/em> (1869).<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        4. Perspective<\/strong><\/td>\nRevised utilitarianism<\/strong>: utility understood as dignity & self-realisation, not mere pleasure.<\/td>\n\u201cBetter to be Socrates dissatisfied\u2026\u201d<\/td>\nRoots: Epicureanism, hedonism; Bentham; Hobbes, Locke, Hume<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        5. Mill vs Bentham<\/strong><\/td>\nRejects purely quantitative pleasures; introduces higher vs lower; utility = human development. Adds self-sacrifice & altruism.<\/td>\n<\/td>\nCarlyle\u2019s \u201cpig\u201d jibe; Mill\u2019s reply.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        6. Liberty doctrine<\/strong><\/td>\nLiberty = supreme utility & pre-condition of progress. Three spheres<\/strong>: freedom of thought\/ expression \u2022 liberty of action (harm principle; self-regarding vs other-regarding) \u2022 freedom of association.<\/td>\nOn Liberty<\/em> chap II\u2013V<\/td>\nErnest Barker: \u201cprophet of empty liberty\u201d, abstract individualism<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        7. Harm principle<\/strong><\/td>\nOnly purpose for power over anyone: prevent harm to others<\/strong>. All restraint \u201cqua restraint\u201d is evil. Difficult line-drawing, but necessary.<\/td>\nExamples: diet bans, trade restrictions, sale of property.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        8. Representative government<\/strong><\/td>\nTwo functions: use existing qualities & raise moral-intellectual level. \u21d2 Representative democracy<\/strong> best. \u2022 Suffrage: near-universal incl. women, except illiterate or no taxes. \u2022 Proportional representation<\/strong>, open voting, plural \/ weighted votes. \u2022 Split powers: Representative Assembly (Congress of Opinion) + Codification Commission.<\/td>\nConsiderations\u2026<\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        \u2022 \u201cReluctant democrat\u201d<\/td>\nFears tyranny-of-majority; wants qualified voting<\/strong>; liberty requires civic education; unsuitable for \u201cuncivilised\u201d colonies (e.g. India).<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        \u2022 \u201cRadical democrat\u201d<\/td>\nStill backs wide participation, proportionality, women\u2019s vote, worker co-ops (economic democracy).<\/td>\nWendy Donner: Mill even more optimistic on workplace participation.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        9. Subjection of Women<\/strong><\/td>\nFirst systematic male critique of patriarchy (Susan Okin). Points: laws on marriage, inheritance, property, marital rape unjust. Inequality is socialisation, not nature<\/strong>; \u201cperfect equality\u201d should replace subordination.<\/td>\nSubjection of Women<\/em><\/td>\nSusan Okin; IMF note 27 % GDP gain (modern echo).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        <\/td>\n\u201cVoluntary\u201d female consent meaningless under patriarchy. Equality strengthens democracy, civic virtue, economy (competition & efficiency) and has a civilising effect on men.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        10. Contribution \/ Evaluation<\/strong><\/td>\nSynthesises liberty with broader utilitarian good; keeps rights central while insisting on social justice. Criticisms: artificial self\/other split, ambiguity of plural voting. Yet legacy spans free-speech doctrine, modern liberal democracy, feminist theory. Mill regarded as the liberal exemplar.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

         <\/p>\n

        Scholars Index<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Aristotle\u2002|\u2002Montesquieu\u2002|\u2002Socrates\u2002|\u2002Voltaire\u2002|\u2002A. Appadorai\u2002|\u2002John Austin\u2002|\u2002Ernest Barker\u2002|\u2002Jeremy Bentham\u2002|\u2002Isaiah Berlin\u2002|\u2002Christopher Bertram\u2002|\u2002Jean Bodin\u2002|\u2002Robert Caponigri\u2002|\u2002Thomas Carlyle\u2002|\u2002Henri de Saint-Simon\u2002|\u2002Wendy Donner\u2002|\u2002John Dunn\u2002|\u2002Ronald Dworkin\u2002|\u2002Sir Robert Filmer\u2002|\u2002Charles Fourier\u2002|\u2002Milton Friedman\u2002|\u2002Galileo Galilei\u2002|\u2002O. P. Gauba\u2002|\u2002Thomas Hobbes\u2002|\u2002David Hume\u2002|\u2002Johannes Kepler\u2002|\u2002Harold Laski\u2002|\u2002John Locke\u2002|\u2002Niccol\u00f2 Machiavelli\u2002|\u2002C. B. Macpherson\u2002|\u2002Karl Mannheim\u2002|\u2002Karl Marx\u2002|\u2002James Mill\u2002|\u2002John Stuart Mill\u2002|\u2002Subrata Mukherjee\u2002|\u2002Susheela Ramaswamy\u2002|\u2002Robert Nozick\u2002|\u2002Susan Okin\u2002|\u2002Robert Owen\u2002|\u2002Philip Pettit\u2002|\u2002John Plamenatz\u2002|\u2002Karl Popper\u2002|\u2002John Rawls\u2002|\u2002Jean-Jacques Rousseau\u2002|\u2002Bertrand Russell\u2002|\u2002George Sabine\u2002|\u2002Isaac Schapera\u2002|\u2002Martin Seliger\u2002|\u2002Judith Shklar\u2002|\u2002Leo Strauss\u2002|\u2002C. W. W. Taylor\u2002|\u2002Harriet Taylor\u2002|\u2002Mary Wollstonecraft<\/strong><\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        Practice Questions (Write before 4 p.m.)<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

        \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Question 1<\/strong>.<\/strong> Discuss, ‘All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility’ (JS Mill) [2014\/10m]<\/strong><\/p>\n

        \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Question 2.<\/strong> Individualism is inherent in Hobbes’ absolutist ideology. Comment. [2022\/15m]<\/strong><\/p>\n

        \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Question 3. <\/strong>John Locke is a father of liberalism. Explain. [2018\/20m]<\/strong><\/p>\n

        \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

        \ud83d\udccc Model answers drop this evening on the Telegram channel:<\/em> https:\/\/t.me\/psirbyamitpratap<\/strong><\/a> \u2013 keep notifications on.<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        See you tomorrow on Day 14. Keep practicing!<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        \u2014Amit Pratap Singh<\/strong> & Team<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

        A quick note on submissions of copies and mentorship<\/strong><\/p>\n