Suchergebnisse

Résumé Théorisé par James Hugues dans Citizen Cyborg (2004), le technoprogressisme cherche une troisième voie, entre le transhumanisme libertarien et le bioconservatisme critique. Du premier, il reprend la fascination pour la technique, la foi dans le progrès et la revendication de la liberté individuelle absolue : chacun a le droit de se transformer, lui-même et ses enfants, comme bon lui semble, à condition que cela ne porte pas directement atteinte à autrui. Du second, le technoprogressisme fait siennes les craintes d'une inégalité biotechnologique aggravant les disparités sociales et plaide pour un contrôle par les autorités étatiques nationales et internationales. Hugues rêve ainsi d'un transhumanisme pour le bien de tous, grâce à l'amélioration morale de chacun. Une telle voie médiane entre liberté individuelle et contrôle étatique est-elle possible ? Nous nous proposons d'en montrer les lignes de force et les faiblesses.

This article undertakes a comparative analysis of two key variables libertarians & Hobbesians can use to develop left-wing versions of their respective theories. It turns out that Hobbesianism, while it does have limited means to extend the scope of its concept of cooperative surplus, has a hard time justifying the equal division of this surplus as a general rule. Libertarianism, in contrast, can avail itself not only of strategies to broaden the concept of external resources, but also of an equal division rule. We go on to explore how these differences impact the redistributive capacities of left-Hobbesianism & left-libertarianism, & how these left-wing variants, especially left-libertarianism, tally with theories of equal opportunity & sufficientarianism. Adapted from the source document.

Résumé Cet article interroge la pertinence théorique des liens historiquement constitués entre le libertarianisme et le transhumanisme. Il s'attache tout d'abord à démontrer qu'il n'y a entre les deux théories aucune implication réciproque. D'un côté, le transhumanisme peut ne pas être libertarien : l'avènement d'un homme nouveau, augmenté par la technique, ne passe pas nécessairement par la défense d'un État minimal. D'un autre côté, le libertarianisme peut ne pas être transhumaniste : le rejet d'un État étendant ses prérogatives au-delà de la simple protection des personnes ne suppose pas une amélioration fondamentale de la condition humaine et la promotion de toutes les technologies susceptibles d'y conduire. Cet article analyse ensuite les rapports entre transhumanisme et libertarianisme en envisageant la compossibilité de leurs réalisations respectives. Si le libertarianisme ne justifie aucunement le transhumanisme, il ne le proscrit pas, et sa concrétisation pourrait même l'encourager en instaurant une concurrence exacerbée et en créant ainsi faisant un besoin de performance que les technologies amélioratives voudraient pouvoir satisfaire. En retour, la réalisation du transhumanisme, et l'avènement de l'homme augmenté, consacrerait cependant l'obsolescence d'une théorie libertarienne originellement destinée à des êtres très imparfaits, et ouvrirait la possibilité de son contraire totalitaire.

Left-libertarianism strives to reconcile the recognition of an unconditional right of self-ownership with the legitimacy of a structural requirement of equality. The foregoing article shows why that enterprise fails. Beginning with an exposition of the principle of self-ownership, it goes on to examine the chief left-libertarian variants of the principle of equal distribution of external resources & argues that the best version of this principle is indeed compatible with self-ownership. Despite their compatibility, however, the relationship between these principles is inherently unstable, as shown by Gerald Cohen's objections to left-libertarianists, particularly to the circularity of their definition of justice. Indeed, left-libertarianism inevitably swerves either toward right-libertarianism or toward a dilution of full self-ownership. Therefore, limiting self-ownership may be a way of maximizing individual autonomy. Adapted from the source document.

This article argues that left-libertarianism, ie., the combination of resource egalitarianism & full self-ownership, is a profoundly unstable reflective equilibrium. Focusing on the legitimacy of bequest & inheritance, it shows that left-libertarians, when confronted with this question, either abandon a key element of self-ownership -- thus diluting their position to a liberal, Rawlsian egalitarianism -- or turn into right libertarians. The underlying problem is that libertarianism in general bases its theory of self-ownership on hypothetical examples of individuals who single-handedly transform natural resources into products. This premise, which aims to establish the link between self-ownership & ownership of the fruits of one's labor, is too abstract to be relevant in a world in which almost every product is the result of a collective effort to which any individual makes but a small contribution. In the final analysis, an egalitarian should adopt only the no-coercion rule from libertarianism, & therefore advocate higher inheritance taxes. Adapted from the source document.

The aim of this article is to compare two of the leading contemporary theories of equality: those of left-libertarianism & perfectionist liberalism. I argue that, in theoretical terms, the chief difference between the two regards the State's responsibility for "wasted lives." Libertarianism rejects State spending on individual self-realization if such expenditure conflicts with the right of self-ownership. Perfectionist liberalism, in contrast, accepts this possibility. I also look at case studies that bring out ramifications of perfectionist liberalism unacceptable to left-libertarians. Specifically, only the former advocates public spending to cultural, humanitarian or economic ends. Adapted from the source document.

Left-libertarianism combines the principle of self-ownership with that of equal access to natural resources. This article looks at one branch of left-libertarianism, passed over by the movement's current mainstream, which holds that natural resources should not be appropriated by individuals but should remain state property. In 19th-century France, Leon Walras was a leading exponent of this view, which he inherited from his father, Auguste. The Walrases argued that public land ownership was the foundation of individual citizenship & the guarantee of liberty, & hence preferable to any form of individual appropriation of land. Adapted from the source document.

The libertarian movement may not be well known in France, but it is currently riding a wave of popularity in the United States: according to a 2009 opinion poll, 23 percent of Americans identify with libertarian values. One of its biggest proselytizers is David Boaz, Vice President of the influential Cato Institute, a Washington-based think tank founded in 1977. In this exclusive interview, he explains what libertarianism really means. It is a vision of the world centered on the primacy of individual liberty in all areas of human endeavor, from private lives to economic enterprise. Libertarians, heavily inspired by thinkers such as Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, are believers in a minimal state which interferes as little as possible in the economic functioning of society. From this perspective, they are close to the Republicans. But, at the same time, they have a very tolerant stance toward social and moral issues. In this, they more closely resemble Democrats. Their influence will no doubt be felt during the presidential campaign in 2012. Adapted from the source document.

Translated by Marie-Jeanne Rossignol. Summary in English. Looks at the ecology-minded libertarian left in Western Europe, especially France, and profiles its supporters.

[Extrato] Que la Théorie de la justice de John Rawls (1971), aux débuts des années soixante-dix, ait renouvelé non seulement la manière de faire de la philosophie politique, mais aussi donné un nouveau contenu à toute réflexion en ce domaine, est un point qui semble communément accepté. Robert Nozick fut l'un des premiers à en faire le constat dans Anarchie, État et Utopie (1974), signalant qu'il était impossible, après Théorie de la justice, de se placer hors du cadre rawlsien où se combinent liberté individuelle et égalité sociale, à partir d'un contrat social revisité. Chez Rawls, en effet, une conception rationnelle de la coopé-ration sociale permet de justifier les transferts de richesse à l'intérieur d'une communauté politique et, du même coup, certaines formes de solidarité. ...

Cet ouvrage vise à offrir un survol de huit grandes familles d'idéologies politiques : le libéralisme, le conservatisme, le socialisme-communisme, l'anarchisme, le libertarianisme, le fascisme, le nationalisme et l'écologisme. La démarche qui préside à son organisation est à la fois synthétique et comparative. Synthétique, dans la mesure où elle vise d'abord à mettre au jour ce qui constitue les « idées maîtresses » de chacune de ces grandes familles idéologiques. Comparative, car elle s'emploie ensuite à mettre en rapport chacune de ces familles les unes avec les autres, et cel