Suchergebnisse

Is there a difference between a liberal and a social democrat that amounts to a distinction? If there is, is it a distinction with merit? Michael Walzer is a social democrat; it is an honorary badge. For a long time, he wore his badge while driving an antique Volvothe second-hand car for mature social democrats. Sidney Morgenbesser, a master of fine and funny distinctions, tried to answer our question with a quip: A liberal believes money should be taken from the very rich and handed over to the poor. But he stands exactly at the point at which no money should be taken and no money should be given. In contrast, the social democrat believes she, too, has to give money. Social democrats are more concerned about the distribution of income than are liberals. For the social democrat, it is not just taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Rather it is about caring about equality all the way down the slope of the income curve. There is another quip, the source of which I don't know: a social democrat is a socialist who compromised with reality, whereas a liberal is an anarchist who compromised with reality. Liberals moved from defending free trade against the yoke of privileged protectionism in the nineteenth century, to promoting the active interference of government in the market. At the same time, social democrats moved away from the ideal of public ownership of the means of production to a mixed economy of private and public enterprises, tethered to a welfare state. Those who may lament the watered-down versions of these ideologies shouldn't forget that there was a rather noble reason why the dilution occurred: both had a deep commitment to gain power solely by democratic means. Parliamentary democracy calls for constant compromises, which tend to dilute messages and blur distinctions. But the relation between liberalism and democracy is not complementary, like fish and chips. Liberalism is in tension with the popular understanding of democracy. Adapted from the source document.

Neoliberal Housing Policy considers some of the most significant housing issues facing the West today, including the increasing commodification of housing; the political economy surrounding homeownership; the role of public housing; the problem of homelessness; the ways that housing accentuates social and economic inequality; and how suburban housing has transformed city life. The empirical focus of the book draws mainly from the US, UK and Australia, with examples to illustrate some of the most important features and trajectories of late capitalism, including the commodification of welfare provision and financialisation, while the examples from other nations serve to highlight the influence of housing policy on more regional- and place-specific processes. The book shows that developments in housing provision are being shaped by global financial markets and the circuits of capital that transcend the borders of nation states. Whilst considerable differences within nation states exist, many government interventions to improve housing often fall short. Adopting a structuralist approach, the book provides a critical account of the way housing policy accentuates social and economic inequalities and identifies some of the significant convergences in policy across nations states, ultimately offering an explanation as to why so many 'inequalities' endure. It will be useful for anyone in professional housing management/social housing programmes as well as planning, sociology (social policy), human geography, urban studies and housing studies programmes

Is there a difference between a liberal and a social democrat that amounts to a distinction? If there is, is it a distinction with merit? Michael Walzer is a social democrat; it is an honorary badge. For a long time, he wore his badge while driving an antique Volvo—the second-hand car for mature social democrats. Sidney Morgenbesser, a master of fine and funny distinctions, tried to answer our question with a quip: A liberal believes money should be taken from the very rich and handed over to the poor. But he stands exactly at the point at which no money should be taken and no money should be given. In contrast, the social democrat believes she, too, has to give money.

The author of this piece shows the key elements of the classic contractualist model of the State legitimacy, proposal by John Locke in his major work Two Essays on Civil Government. This essay pretend to bring out that although Hobbes as well as Locke us ; El autor de esta pieza muestra los elementos clave del modelo contractualista clásico de legitimidad del Estado, propuesta de John Locke en su obra principal Two Essays on Civil Government. Este ensayo pretende resaltar que aunque Hobbes y Locke usaron lo