Politics is very difficult to define, as people all over have different ideas about what politics is.
Even the most simple societies cannot avoid politics. Politics is necessary for the survival of any society.
Every exchange that takes place in a capitalist society, is in its essence an implicit contract.
The sanctity of contracts cannot be based on the contract alone, it must be enforced in someway by a
greater power. Thus, we are back at politics.
This view of allocation seems to have some sense of dominance in the field of comparative politics.
Political scientist who wrote in 1920's Germany. Most important book "The concept of the political".
Thought the notion of politics was muddled and confusing; particularly in the realm of politics and state.
Couldn’t see an established Dichotomy within politics.
He argued order can only exist within societies. This order must be maintained by first removing the
possibility of disorder (caused by enemies abroad, ex. War). Order is made possible through the
distinction of friend and foe. Which countries are on your side and which countries are not. Its Us and
Forces us to compare interests with other societies to find those compatible with ours.
Argues primary concern of politics is not allocation, but survival. Allocation is obvious, but meaningless if
you cannot assure the survival of the state in the first place.
Politics trumps the rule of law. The rule of law says that it is above politics. Schmitt says the rule of law
can be made generalized, but each case in politics is different and thus the state must be more efficient
in terms of politics.
International relations has often been dominated by the school of thought; realism. Realism states that
the international state is a self help system. Each state needs to rely on themselves.
There is no such thing as an international sovereign; can international law really be called law? Thus
each state helps themselves.
Thomas Hobbes book the Leviathan.
One of the first enlightenment thinkers.
What kind of society is rational for an individual to accept.
In the state of nature, life is nasty, brutish, and short. People are willing to kill in order to get what they
Drew the conclusion that any government is better than no government at all.
Said that society should accept any government at all, even if they are a bad leader.
To try and overthrow the government would put you back in the state of nature. Thus you should not do
This can be related to the international state.
With no sovereign to govern the states, they all rely on self-help, thus making it brutish.
Realists see human nature the same way Hobbes does, as evil and selfish.
The main players in international politics are states, and the most effective means are economic and
Liberals and idealists disagree about the idea of state of nature as held by realists (i.e. that humans are
brutish and evil) Instead they hold that humans are naturally good, but have the capacity to do evil if placed in the
correct circumstance. And above all have the capacity to cooperate.
Argue the basic feature of the int. system is not chaos and anarchy, but rather increasing inter-
dependence. While the competition between states as purposed by realists may have been around, it is
not present today. Instead the inter-dependence is a growing factor today brought on by cooperation.
Thus they promote trade.
While the state of Nature may have been accurate in early history, it is no longer relevant, as there are
now institutions that can facilitate cooperation ( such as