Leviathan’ın Egemenliğinde Yaşamak ve/veya Leviathan’a Karşı Özgürlükleri Güvenceye Almak

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 104, 7 - 25, 03.12.2021

Devrim Özkan

https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.975643

Öz

Özgürlük kavramı, sosyal bilimlerin önemli problemlerinden biri olmaya devam etmektedir. Zira, son yıllarda yapılan araştırmalarda, özgürlüklerin, sadece yurttaşların haklarıyla ilgili olmadığı, fakat aynı zamanda ulusların kalkınmasını sağlayan bir faktör olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Leviathan’ın gücünü kullanan yönetici elitler, kendi güçlerini arttırmak için kapsayıcı kurumların yerine sömürücü kurumları ikame etmeye eğilimlidirler. Bu durum yurttaşların özgürlüklerini zayıflatırken, ulusun kalkınma ve refah düzeyini azaltır. Buna rağmen, kendi ayrıcalıklarını korumaya meyilli yönetici elitler, ülkenin çöküşüne neden olabilecek kurumsal çürümelere yol açacak uygulamalarını sürdürürler. Modern liberal demokrasilerde, devlet yurttaşlarının estetik değerlerini veya dinsel ya da felsefi doktrinlerini belirlemekle ilgilenmez. Modern liberal demokrasilerde, toplumu bir arada tutacak değerlerin, yurttaşların kamusal alanda sürekli sürdürecekleri özgür diyaloglar yoluyla meydana gelmesi arzulanır. Bunun için devletin yurttaşlarının özgürlüklerini sürdürebilmelerini sağlayacak bir altyapı tesis etmesi zorunludur. Bu sayede yurttaşlar, özgürce refahın artışına katkıda bulunabilirler. Bu çerçevede, bu makale, yurttaşların özgürlüklerini zayıflatarak gücünü arttırmaya eğilimli Leviathan’ın sınırlandırılmasının refahın, istikrarın ve güvenliğin sağlanabilmesi için ne derece önemli olduğunu inceler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Leviathan, özgürlük, sömürücü kurumlar, kapsayıcı kurumlar, sınırlı devlet

Living in the Sovereignty of Leviathan, and/or Securing Freedoms Against Leviathan

Öz

The liberty concept continues to be one of the most important problems of social sciences. Because, it has been reported in recent studies that freedoms are not only related to the rights of citizens, but is also a factor ensuring the “development” of nations. Ruling elites, who use the power of Leviathan, tend to substitute extractive institutions instead of inclusive institutions to increase their own power. This weakens the freedoms of citizens, and reduces the level of development and welfare of the nation. Despite this, ruling elites, who tend to protect their own privileges, continue their practices which causes institutional corruption that can lead to the collapse of the country. The state is not concerned with determining the aesthetic values or religious or philosophical doctrines of its citizens in modern liberal democracies. It is desired in modern liberal democracies that the values that will glue the society together emerge via free dialogues that citizens will constantly maintain in the public sphere. To do this, the state must establish an infrastructure, which will enable its citizens to maintain their freedom. In this way, citizens can contribute to the increase of welfare freely. In this context, the present article examines how important the limitation of Leviathan, which tends to increase its power by weakening the freedoms
of citizens, is in ensuring welfare, stability, and security.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Leviathan, Liberty, Extractive Institution, Inclusive Institution, Limited State

Kaynakça

• Acemoğlu, D. (2008). Oligarchic Versus Democratic Societies. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6 (1), 1-44.
• Acemoğlu, D. (2010). Institutions, Factor Prices, and Taxation: Virtues of Strong States? The American Economic Review , 100 (2), 115-119 . Acemoğlu, D. (2010). Theory, General Equilibrium, and Political Economy in Development Economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24 (3), 17-32.
• Acemoğlu, D. ve Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why States Fail. Foreign Policy, 194 (July/August), 89-91.
• Acemoğlu, D. ve Robinson, J. A. (2020). Dar Koridor: Devletler, Toplumlar ve Özgürlüğün Geleceği. (çev. Yüksel Taşkın). İstanbul: Doğan Kitap.
• Acemoğlu, D. ve Yared, P. (2010). Political Limits to Globalization. The American Economic Review, 100 (2), 83-88.
• Acemoğlu, D., Egorov G. ve Sonin, K. (2013). A Political Theory of Populism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128 (2), 771-805.
• Acemoğlu, D., Gallego, F. A. ve Robinson, J. A. (2014). Institutions, Human Capital, and Development. Annual Review of Economics, 6, 875-912.
• Acemoğlu, D., Vindigni, A. ve Ticchi, D. (2011). Emergence and Persistence of Inefficient States. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9 (2), 177-208.
• Albritton, R. R. (1976). Hobbes on Political Science and Political Order. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, 9 (3), 464-472.
• Aristoteles (2004). Nicomachean Ethics. (çev. & ed. Roger Crisp). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Barker, D. W. M. (2009). Tragedy and Citizenship: Conflict, Reconciliation, and Democracy from Haemon to Hegel. New York: State University of New York Press.
• Berlin, I. (1958). Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Bertman, M. A. (1976). Equality in Hobbes, with Reference to Aristotle. The Review of Politics, 38 (4), 534-544.
• Church, J. (2010). The Freedom of Desire: Hegel's Response to Rousseau on the Problem of Civil Society. American Journal of Political Science, 54 (1), 125-139.
• Dunning, W. A. (1905). The Political Philosophy of John Locke. Political Science Quarterly, 20 (2), 223-245.
• Dyzenhaus, D. (2001). Hobbes and the Legitimacy of Law. Law and Philosophy, 20 (5), 461-498.
• Farina, J. (2021). Nationalism, Globalism, and Religion. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, O Bem na Filosofia Antiga:Leituras Contemporâneas / The Good in Ancient Philosophy: Contemporary Retrievals, 77 (1), 411-426.
• Forde, S. (2001). Natural Law, Theology, and Morality in Locke. American Journal of Political Science, 45 (2), 396-409.
• Freud, S. ([1923-1925] 1961). The Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud Volume XIX (The Ego and the Id and Other Works). (çev. James Strachey). London: Hogarth Press.
• Fukuyama, F. (1995). Virtue and Prosperity. The National Interest, 40 (Summer), 21-27.
• Fukuyama, F. (2004). State-Building: Governance and World Order in The 21st Century. New York: Cornell University Press.
• Fukuyama, F. (2004). Transhumanism. Foreign Policy, 144 (Sep.-Oct.), 42-43.
• Fukuyama, F. (2011). Is There a Proper Sequence in Democratic Transitions? Current History, 110 (739), 308-310.
• Fukuyama, F. (2016). American Political Decay or Renewal? The Meaning of the 2016 Election. Foreign Affairs, 95 (4), 58-68.
• Fukuyama, F. (2018). The Last English Civil War. Daedalus, 147 (1), 15-24.
• Hegel, G.W.F. ([1820] 2021). Philosophy of Right. (çev. S.W Dyde). Kitchener: Batoche Books.
• Hobbes, T. ([1651] 1998). Leviathan. (Ed. J. C. A. Gaskin). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jaede, M. (2016) Hobbes on the making and unmaking of citizens. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 19 (1), 86-102.
• Jespersen, M. (2020). Challenging Hobbes: Is War Inevitable? Global Society, 34 (1), 21-35.
• Kraynak, R. P. (1983). Hobbes on Barbarism and Civilization. The Journal of Politics, 45 (1), 86-109.
• Levine, S. (2015). Hegel, Dewey, and Habits. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 23 (4), 632-656.
• Locke, J. ([1689] 2003). Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. (Ed. I. Shapiro). New Haven ve London: Yale University Press.
• Lutz, D. S. ([1992] 2021). A Preface to American Political Theory. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
• Maloy, J. S. (2009). The Aristotelianism of Locke's Politics. Journal of the History of Ideas, 70 (2), 235-257.
• Marini, F. (1969). John Locke and the Revision of Classical Democratic Theory. The Western Political Quarterly, 22 (1), 5-18.
• May, L. (2016). Hobbes, Law, and Public Conscience. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 19 (1), 12-28.
• Merriam, C. E. (1906). Hobbes's Doctrine of the State of Nature. Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, 3 (1), 151-157.
• Montesquieu, B. ([1734] 2019). Romalıların Yücelik ve Çöküşünün Nedenleri Üzerine Düşünceler. (çev. Berna Günen). İstanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
• Montesquieu, B. ([1748] 2017). Kanunların Ruhu Üzerine. (Çev. B. Günen). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları.
• Nietzsche, F. ([1872] 2007). The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings. (çev. Ronald Speirs). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Perlikowski, L. (2019).How Does One Understand the Stability of Political Regimes from a Theoretical Point of View? Politeja , 63, 111-123.
• Rawls, J. ([1971] 1999). A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition. Cambridge & Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
• Reznick, S. M. (2019). Government and Manners. Early American Literature, 54 (1), 135-162.
• Skinner, Q. (1998). Liberty Before Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sok, S. (2014). Limited State and Strong Social Forces: Fishing Lot Management in Cambodia. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 45 (2), 174-193.
• Villa, D. (2005). Hegel, Tocqueville, and "Individualism". The Review of Politics, 67 (4), 659-686.
• Waldron, J. (1989). John Locke: Social Contract versus Political Anthropology. The Review of Politics, 51(1), 3-28.