Security Liberty and Participants

¶ … Stone's treatise on Liberty fascinating particularly since I have been much intrigued by philosophers' depiction of an ideal metropolis (with, therefore, ideal liberty) in general, and with Leibniz's political jurisprudence (and ideal liberty) in particular.

Leibniz, draws on Ulpian's Roman code for basis but goes beyond that in extrapolating and arguing that ideal liberty should constitute not only strict Justice but also Charity (i..e national welfare). He then goes on to state that the highest strata of liberty is one where the country is regulated per a City of God. What this, essentially, means is that Justice and Charity should be combined with ethical attributes (that he called Piety).

Comparing this to Mill's definition of liberty presented by Stone I see an interesting correspondence as well as contrast.

Mill states that the government is only justified in restricting behavior that impedes others. Connecting that to contemporary concerns one may argue that therefore the government should not interfere in curbing addictive behavior (for instance). One can, however, rebut this by counter-arguing that an individual's addictive behavior may adversely impact others particularly -- as Stone points out -- in the emotional and psychological sector where psychological harms can adversely effect others.

Stone is also correct in indicating that if community is used as the starting point (such s with conservation where accumulative harms can consequent for instance in allowing pollution to accumulate, then the government too should interfere. Therefore, even thoguh some individuals point to Mill's theory as restraint for government, it seems to me that Stone is correct in indicating that the individual is ultimately part of a whole and his actions have ripple effects on others. Justice ( to the individual), Charity (taking in mind others) will result in Leibniz's state of Piety.

One generally thinks that certain select areas, business administration, being one of them would be, at least, one field that is unchanging in one's world. Although social, it does have a scientific basis, and as Frederickson (2008) shows, can be explained via five models.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that Kuhn's insights (in his discussion of paradigmatic socially-inspired change) are as applicable here as anywhere else since all knowledge structures are dependent on historical conditions. They shape the behavior of others, as well as being changed by key individuals at the same time.

Public administration is closely connected to social equity values -- as Frederickson demonstrates -- and social equity values deal with moral questions associated with the organization: for instance as regards its value principles, moral principals, and cultural principles (that influence and define performance and outcome). All of these are ethno-historically based and, therefore, contingent on epoch and state.