This essay investigates Xenophon's claim in the Memorabilia that political ambition is a qualification for the study of political philosophy, through an examination of three conversations between Socrates and politically ambitious men. These conversations reveal that the basis for the ambition to serve the public welfare is a concern not only with one's political community but also with one's own character and its excellence or virtue. Politically ambitious men hold virtue to be the greatest good, but they may not know what virtue is. For someone who is conscious of his concern with virtue and of his ignorance of virtue, there is no more urgent task than to search for the knowledge of virtue through the study of political philosophy.

Francis Bacon's New Atlantis is considered with a view to the problematic unity of its author's oeuvre. Beginning from the question of the genre or literary character of the work and proceeding through a consideration of the Platonic precedent announced in the title, an attempt is made to reconcile Bacon's rejection of the classical, utopian tradition of political thought with the apparently utopian character of the island of Bensalem. Such an interpretation suggests that the title announces a project shown to be possible, even necessary, in the course of the travel story that is the drama of the work.

Histories of political theory have framed the story of the emergence of sovereign states and sovereign selves as a story about secularization—specifically, a story that equates secularization with self-deification. Thomas Hobbes's investment in modesty and humility demonstrates the need for, and the possibility of, an alternative secularization narrative. Scholars have long insisted that “vainglory” is a key term for the interpretation of Leviathan. But Hobbes's task is not complete once he has discredited vainglory. Hobbes must also envision, and cultivate, contrary virtues—and modesty is one virtue that Hobbes would cultivate. An analysis of Hobbes's attempt to redefine and rehabilitate the virtues of modesty shows that Hobbes warns against the temptation to self-deification. In Leviathan, the political task is not to enthrone humans in sovereign invulnerability, but rather to achieve the right balance between bodily security and consciousness of finitude.

In this reading of William Blackstone's Commentaries the jurist is neither a conservative promoter of arbitrary power nor a modern liberalizer of the common law. He is a proceduralist who emphasizes due process of law as the way to reconcile political liberty with parliamentary sovereignty. Blackstone's jurisprudence reflects a particular reading of political history, one that sees Parliament at the forefront of the protection of English liberties. While the legislature is capable of tyranny, it is in the king and the courts that historically he finds the greatest examples of arbitrary rule. And it has been the exercise of parliamentary sovereignty that has reinstated and guarded due process—in particular, habeas corpus—thereby preserving and facilitating public liberty.

The political philosophy latent in Borges's works rests on the belief in a self-sufficient individual, the preeminence of liberty, a distrust of government, and nostalgia for anarchy understood as a self-organized order. Yet Borges also emphasizes the fallibility of individuals and warns against the civic indifference brought about by an isolated individualism. A paradox seems to emerge from these simultaneous convictions: would anarchy work if individuals are unable to do much in and by themselves? Can an individualistic disposition be conducive to a rich and orderly civic life? Borges's notion of fallibility is consistent with his defense of liberal anarchism because fallibility carries less pernicious effects under liberal anarchism than it does under alternative political arrangements. Thus, his notion of liberal anarchism is compatible with his concern for civic order if we look at the ethics of self-restraint that sustains Borges's simultaneous advocacy of a self-organized order and a stable civic life.

In political science, democracy is generally associated with high levels of economic development. However, some scholars note that this is true only as long as economic development is not based on possession of rich energy resources. Many resource-rich states are nondemocratic regimes. This is sometimes called the “resource curse.” This means that “natural resource abundance may stimulate rent-seeking behavior that, together with highly concentrated bureaucratic power, induces corruption in the economy and hence lowers the quality of institutions.” It also means that “resource wealth itself may harm a country's prospects for development” and that “oil and mineral wealth tends to make states less democratic.”