Suchergebnisse

G.A. Cohen argues that one is free to do what one is forced to, in order to explain the character of ideological disagreement over the idea that the proletariat are forced/free to sell their labour power. Argues that the stance is made clearer by analysing what the absence of a reasonable alternative entails. Concludes that all proletarians have 'type' freedom, but not all have 'token' freedom. (SJK)

If D commits a wrong against V, D typically incurs a corrective duty to V. But how should we respond if V has false beliefs about whether she is harmed by D's wrong? There are two types of cases we must consider: (1) those in which V is not harmed but she mistakenly believes that she is (2) those in which V is harmed but she mistakenly believes that she is not. I canvass three views: The Objective View, The Subjective View and The Mixed View. The Objective View holds that V's claim depends on the correct account of harm, rather than her false beliefs, and so D has a duty to offer damages to V in (2) but not in (1) in order to compensate her. The Subjective View holds that, for broadly anti-perfectionist reasons, V's claim depends on her sincere beliefs, even if they are mistaken, and so D has a duty to compensate V in (1) but not in (2). The Mixed View holds that we should defer to her beliefs in (1) but not in (2), so D has a duty to compensate her in both cases. In this article, I argue that we should accept The Mixed View.

Abstract Recent studies of the Chinese in Southeast Asia have tended to deconstruct the hybrid, transnational, diasporic, and de-territorialized attributes of 'Chinese-ness', and theorize the politics thereof. In contrast, earlier scholarship on the politics of Southeast Asia's ethnic Chinese raised many questions over the positions, rights, and roles associated with being 'overseas Chinese'. Hence, many analyses of Chinese politics, from suppressed quietude to militant contestation, tended to ask, 'Why and how was that politics Chinese ?' This article asks, instead, 'Why and how were the Chinese political ?' within the larger rubric of Southeast Asian politics. It argues that posing the first question helped officialdom, academia and media to determine who among the 'overseas Chinese' were friends or foes. Asking the second question, it is argued, involves a boundary-crossing shift that sees the immigrant Chinese engaged in a full spectrum of Southeast Asian politics under the impacts of colonialism and nationalism, and capitalism and anti-capitalism. After exploring the shift in perspective from 'being Chinese' to 'being political', the article suggests that politics beyond China-oriented positions, state-bound stances, or preoccupations of ethnic identity, particularly in Malaysia transformed Southeast Asia to the point of 'creating' a 'largely Chinese' state out of Singapore.