Suchergebnisse

Contrary to what their critics sometimes contend, left-libertarians are egalitarians. They support a moderate version of luck egalitarianism in line with the views of Ronald Dworkin & Gerald Cohen. Their model does not call for the elimination of all undeserved inequalities resulting from luck where such leveling would entail unreasonable sacrifices. But some left-libertarians do endorse imposing a tax on convicted criminals -- in the form of forced labor for those who intentionally infringe others' rights -- in order to redistribute resources to people who are born disabled. In spite of their insistence on equal opportunity for welfare, left-libertarians cannot endorse political perfectionism. Adapted from the source document.

Eine der Grundfragen der modernen Gesellschaftstheorie lautet: Wo finden Handlungsregeln ihre Begründung? Kommen sie durch formale Prozesse politischer Mitbestimmung zustande, ist ihre materiale Geltung also allein abhängig von den prozeduralen Kriterien ihrer Entstehung? Kann deshalb prinzipiell alles beschlossen werden? Oder gibt es inhaltliche Grenzen demokratischer Beschlussfassung? Die Entwicklung einer Gesellschaft, die sich normativ selbst aufgegeben ist, reflektiert vielleicht zum ersten Mal systematisch Richard Hooker (1554-1600) in seinem Werk »Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity«. Normen werden in dieser Konzeption als kontingent erkannt und stehen menschlicher Beschlussfassung zur Disposition, gleichzeitig wird die Disponibilität der Normen durch die Existenz unaufgebbarer Grundwerte strukturell eingeschränkt. Die auf Hooker zurückreichende Unterscheidung zwischen einer Konsensebene, die über Normen disponiert, und einer Wertebene, die dem einzelnen unaufkündbare Rechte zusichert und nicht Gegenstand von Mehrheitsentscheidungen werden kann, gehört bis heute zum Kern modernen Demokratieverständnisses.

This study examines the extent of separation of religion and state (SRAS) between 1990 and 2002 in 152 states using the Religion and State database. The results show that when using a strict interpretation of SRAS—nostate support for religion and no state restrictions on religion–no state has full SRAS except the United States. Even when discounting moderate amounts of government involvement in religion (GIR), greater than three quarters of states do not have SRAS. The findings also show that GIR has increased slightly between 1990 and 2002, economic development is associated with higher levels of GIR, states with Muslim majorities have higher levels of government support for religion, and democracies have higher levels of SRAS than do autocratic states but rarely have full SRAS. This contradicts the idea that SRAS is an essential element of democracy and predictions that religion will cease to be an important political and social factor in modern times.

The article compares the Norwegian & the German political debate on changes to the respective countries' citizenship laws. The Norwegian law will come into force in September 2006, while the German law was introduced in 2000. In citizenship laws we can find a contrast between an ethnic & cultural understanding of political community & a rights-based understanding. This contrast was hardly touched upon in the Norwegian debate. Among the Norwegian political parties there was broad agreement to carry on with the principle of ethnic decent. Moreover, all parties, with an exception of the Socialist Left Party (SV), wanted to introduce more restrictions on the established Norwegian practice to accept dual citizenship. The German debate dealt with the contrasting principles, & the conflict followed the left/right cleavages. The main difference found between the two countries refers to the left parties. Both with regard to the principle of ethnic decent/territorial principle & the acceptance of dual citizenship, the Social Democrats in Norway & Germany presented opposite standpoints. References. Adapted from the source document.

The aim of this article is to display the main lines of a left-libertarian argument I defend in my book Libertarianism without Inequality. I argue that left-libertarian theory can coherently combine robust rights to self-ownership and egalitarian rights to world-ownership. This allows us to oppose paternalism and consequentialism while defending a strongly egalitarian conception of justice. The model I advocate is one of equality of opportunity for welfare, and I show what justifies this choice. I conclude by clarifying one of the consequences of my theory concerning the legitimacy conditions of political authority: viz. that admitting the existence of illiberal or hierarchical societies is consistent with full respect for people's status as autonomous, rational agents and for the choices they make in fair circumstances of equality. Adapted from the source document.

"This thesis aims to generate a "hyper-prototype" that intends to reanimate architecture as a catalyst for social and political invention by exploring its potential to redefine boundaries through its positioning in the urban context."

Historical and social aspects about production processes and technological and public science policies evaluation are posed in this work. Traditional theoretical approaches that mediate political action and propose the setting up of plural alterna ti vesare deeply criticized and questioned. These are aimed to expand the participation basis of the proposal and evaluation of public policies, starting from the agreement among social agents from different origins. ; Este artículo plantea aspectos históricos y sociales acerca de los procesos de producción y evaluación de las políticas públicas de ciencia y tecnología. Se adentra en la crítica y el cuestionamiento a los enfoques teóricos tradicionales que median la acción política y propone el establecimiento de alternativas plurales, orientadas a ampliar la base de participación en la formulación y evaluación de las políticas públicas a partir de la búsqueda del consenso entre agentes sociales de múltiples procedencias.