# Political economy approaches politics primarily as a system for allocating resources; and starts with the assumption that social values are limited relative to needs.

# Politics as analyzed in this book emphasizes the logic behind political allocation; or the logic behind the exercise of power as authority-legalized use of force.

# So used, politics has two meanings: As social conflict and as the means of removing social conflict.

# Morgenthau's approach to power best represents political economy's understanding of politics as a social constraint.

# Political economy understands political constraint as a clash over social values and resources which are scarce relative to needs.

# Political constraint (this clash between social values) originates in the human condition of man as a social being.

# Schattschneider's approach to politics represents Political economy's second understanding of politics as the power to settle the clash between social values.

# Political constraint precludes any opportunity for mutual voluntary settlement.

# Therefore, political constraint can only be settled through intervention by a third party, which at the state level is government.

# Because it calls for third-party intervention, politics sets up a power relationship between the law-giver and the subject.

# Private authority relies upon love relationship to ensure compliance.

# At the state level, authority is backed by a legal punitive capacity with which to compel subjects to compliance.

# The state enjoys a monopoly (total control) over legal power.

# The state is the special relationship between government (supreme power) and the people.

# The Polity defines the political context within which politics is exercised. It includes the people, government, a well defined geographic territory, the means of defending that land, and the constitution that defines the laws of the country.

# Politics allocates resources either by rationing or through a zero sum method.

# Rationing, for example in the distribution of scarce budget dollars, involves giving each of several competing units a little less than they ask for.

# Other social values and resources are nondivisible and so cannot be shared, meaning one person wins all and the other loses all--zero-sum.

# Both forms of political allocation depend on arbitrary decisions that leaves all parties very unsatisfied.

Question: If government allocation is so unsatisfactory, then why do we form government?

# Answers to this question have traditionally divided society into two groups with contrasting views about government.

# Both liberals and conservatives agree we form government to escape what Thomas Hobbes calls, "the state of nature," where life is "nasty, brutish, and shot."

# So the individuals of a polity each sacrifices absolute freedom to form government in order to enjoy relative freedom, but their understanding of this state of nature differs.

# Conservatives also believe in man's calling to higher collective values, but do not see government as the appropriate vehicle for getting there.

# Liberals think government has a positive role to help man reach for higher collective values such as peace and love that are not possible is a pure capitalist society.

# The conservative tradition traces its origin to the beliefs and writings of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes who believed that the human nature is so corrupt that only a powerful sovereign could keep him in check to allow sensible freedom to reign.

# But because an unrestrained government is like a monster--a Leviathan, government, itself, must NOT be allowed unlimited power. Government-society relationship must be governed strictly by a written social contract--a written constitution.

# Like any business contract, a government that breaks this bond is subject to legitimate replacement, including violent overthrow if all civil means fail.

# In writing the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers drew much inspiration from the Hobbes/Lockean tradition, especially in establishing a firm basis for individual freedom from government encroachment.

# The liberal tradition traces its origin to Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

# Rousseau believed that man is by nature good and pacifist, indeed, naturally capable of voluntary collective endeavor if not for the restraining imposition by man-made institutions like government.

# Man's only problem is that he is at times childish, for which he may need the guidance of government (enlightened leadership) to prod him on.

# Man is at his natural best when he works for the collective good, or what Rousseau describes as the general will.

# Outside the general will, man feels alienated and uncertain.

# Extreme poverty that deprives the poor of a sense of belonging to the collective is therefore man's greatest danger and source of alienation.

Question: Is alienation a realistic threat in a capitalist society?

# Yes, capitalism tends to produce two extremes of income earners, perfectly legal.

Question: Should government do more to promote income equality?

# Liberals say yes. If extreme poverty threatens to alienate man from his natural domain where only he is at his best, then government must provide for greater equalization among its citizens.

# Conservatives consider any deviation beyond the restricted task of providing law and order such as government equalization programs as a moral issue over which there should be no compulsion.

Question: So who is right?

# It is true that the original role of government is to enable man to escapolitical economythe state of nature, which it does when it enacts and enforces laws to protect property rights.

# Rousseau's description of the state of nature as pacifist is not realistic.

# However, he is correct in claiming that, as human beings, we are at our best only in the company of others.

# If capitalism threatens to impose extreme poverty that will make some feel less that adequate human beings, then they cannot be at their best as human beings.

# Those so alienated are threatened with a return to a state of nature, even when surrounded by government on all sides.

# Without some income equalization, such groups are likely to extend their revived state of nature to threaten even those who are well of.

# So as constituted, a capitalist society that makes no attempt at equalization is in danger of returning to the state of nature, the very reason we sacrificed absolute freedom to form government in the first place.

# Given the threat posed by pure capitalism, modern governments have found that to carry out their primary task successfully they must fulfil a second function of achieving some level of greater equality.

Question: So, what is the best way to achieve greater equalization without destroying the basis of individual liberty?

# The traditional liberal solution of more government equalization programs evokes the danger of inefficiency associated with government production.

# Socialist and Communist countries who ignore this problem and have relied on government production have paid a heavy price.

# Collective voluntarism--the typical Rousseaunian proposition embraced by all recent U.S. presidents and even in some conservative circles--is neither the solution. There is a lot of greed and competition in even so-called purely social groups.

# Liberal and Conservatives have over the years settled on some compromises, a series of innovative ways of bringing political tools like collective bargaining into the market place.

# Through trade unions, workers use collective power to transform how wages are determined, and job security arranged.

# Workers/owner partnership offers middle-to-top management workers company shares and a stake in the well-being of the company for which they work.

# Direct worker ownership gets rid of the very uneven income structure responsible for the sharp income divisions within pure capitalism.

# Employee management also gives workers the opportunity of eventually owning the company which they now manage on behalf of private capital.

# A growing number of interest groups use their combined purchasing power to lobby for favorable laws from law makers and lower prices from business.

# Society has changed in its sense of efficiency from balanced budgets and maximum profits to job security, quality of life, and peaceful and secured working conditions.