Suchergebnisse

A review essay of, Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, & Public Policy (2nd ed., NY: Cambridge U Press, 2006), by Daniel M. Hausman & Michael S. McPherson, calls attention to the authors' argument that current economic practice is more intertwined with moral philosophy than is generally believed. The book provides an overview of the fundamental tenets of modern, mainstream economics & the current state of moral philosophy. The authors emphasize that recognizing the moral judgments contained in economic arguments allows for a more critical examination & better policy choices. However, they understate economic reasoning's case for the superiority of free markets & too quickly dismiss the idea that the "pure" science of economics is capable of arriving at universal truths independent of any ethical stance. Admiration is expressed for the fair way Hausman & McPherson engage libertarian thought even though it is a political program they do not embrace. Their knowledgeable book "presents a serious challenge to the prevailing belief that economists' policy recommendations usually are or can be grounded solely in their scientific opinion.". J. Lindroth

Comparative study of eighteen democracies; based on conference paper. Why left-libertarian parties have been able to attract significant groups of new voters.

THE AUTHOR EXAMINES THE QUESTION OF CONTROL OF HALLUCINOGENIC DRUGS, THE PROBLEMS POSED BY THEIR USE IN AN INCREASINGLY PERMISSIVE SOCIETY, AND THE POSITIONS AND ARGUMENTS OFFERED BY LIBERTARIANIST LOGIC. HE DISCUSSES THE LEGAL QUESTION OF 3RD-PARTY EFFECTS, THE FAMILY AND THE WELFARE STATE, AND THE WASTE INVOLVED: CAPITAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES; BUREAUCRATIC AND LEGAL EFFORTS; AND CRIME.

Статья касается одного из принципов, который, по мнению автора, можно проследить в политической теории - принципа последовательности. Данный принцип рассматривается в трех теориях современного либерализма: в либерализме, основанном на «теории справедливости», либертаризме и коммунитаризме. В каждой из этих теорий принцип последовательности можно увидеть во взаимосвязи различных элементов: индивидуальной и коммунитарной свободы, равенства возможностей, справедливости. Помимо этого в статье рассматривается вопрос политического консенсуса, основанного на взаимосвязи этих понятий, который уже во многом сложился в современной либеральной политической мысли. ; The article touches upon one of the principles, that as the author thinks, can be traced in the political theory the principle of consistency. This principle may be presented in the three theories of the modern liberalism: liberalism, based on the «theory of justice», libertarianism and communitarianism. Every theory sees the principle in the interdependence of different elements: individual and communitarian freedom, equality of opportunity and justice. Besides, the article touches upon the issue of political consensus, based on the interconnection of these notions, already shaped in the modern liberal political thought.

""To claim that Christianity ought to restrict itself to the narrow circle of the elect, and not influence the nations themselves, is to wish that this religion which has, by its divine nature, the most powerful effect on man, should have less effect than all other religions." Frédéric DeRougement As American Christians, individualism is the air we breathe. In particular, the revivalism of the nineteenth century has made us think that saving individuals is all that matters, and that church and government are distractions from true Christianity. Swiss Reformed writer Frédéric DeRougement saw the rampant revivalism and libertarianism of his day and offered a careful theological critique of it. DeRougement's arguments are more relevant than ever for Christians who have swallowed the lies of secularism and libertarianism"--

The article analyzes the psychological basis of the theory and economic policy of libertarianism, as contained in the book by A. Greenspan "The Age of Turbulence", clarifies the strengths and weaknesses of this doctrine that led to its discredit in 2008. It presents a new understanding of liberalization in 1980-1990s as a process of institutional transformation at the micro and meso levels, implemented by politicians and entrepreneurs with predatory and opportunistic mentality. That process caused, on the one hand, the acceleration of growth, on the other hand - the erosion of informal foundations of a market system. With psychology and ideology of libertarianism, it is impossible to perceive real macro risks generated at the micro level, which lead to a systemic crisis, and to develop measures to prevent it.

Drawing on the thought of political philosopher Michael Oakeshott, we present a framework for thinking about public policy rooted in a balancing of what Oakeshott called the poles of "faith" & "skepticism." This approach takes seriously the maintenance of institutional forms in policy making, seeks to preserve order while maintaining social diversity, is sensitive to the likelihood of unintended consequences, & eschews the attempt to produce ideal end states, emphasizing instead remedying specific defects in existing arrangements. While it has some affinities with libertarianism & modern conservatism, this approach places less emphasis on limiting the scope of governmental interventions & more on shaping their character. Specific case studies of education, public health, & Social Security flesh out this argument, demonstrating that it differs from contemporary conservatism, libertarianism, & liberalism. 31 References. Adapted from the source document.

Unlike the situation in the US, political attitudes in the Netherlands can be classified in terms of three relatively independent dimensions: liberalism, conservatism, & socialism. It is hypothesized that in addition to this three-dimensional structure, a two-dimensional structure in terms of economic equality (left-right) & noneconomic freedom (libertarianism-traditionalism) can be expected. A list of eighty referents for the progressive-conservative domain & eight self-description referents in ideological terms (conservative, left-wing, etc) were given to a cross-sectional sample of the Dutch population (N = 815) aged 18 years or older. Results show a threefold ideological structure with a liberal-conservative factor, an economic left-right factor, & a noneconomic libertarianism factor. A nonideological populism factor could be shown, including noncontroversial elements of the progressive-conservative domain. 3 Tables. Modified HA.

Abstract
In this paper I criticize a growing movement within public policy circles that self-identifies as neoliberal. The issue I take up here is the sense in which the neoliberal label signals a turn away from libertarian political philosophy. The are many import ant figures in this movement, but my focus here will be on Will Wilkinson of the Niskanen Center, not least because he has most prolifically written against libertarian political philosophy. Neoliberals oppose the idea that the rights that libertarianism claims people have are useful guides for making the world a freer place because they forestall too much governmental/democratic political action that they purport to be necessary for increasing freedom. Wilkinson mistakenly takes libertarianism to be a set of ideal public policies for achieving a perfectly free society. If it were, he would be right to turn away from it. But placing rights to freedom at the center of their theory of justice does not commit libertarians to an all-or-nothing approach to political change. Consequences and strategy matter – particularly in a non-ideal world – without abandoning the idea that each individual has a right to freedom. In mistaking libertarian moral claims as a set of policy prescriptions, Wilkinson complains that idealistic policy prescriptions not only fail to take account of how those who disagree will respond to such policies if implemented, but also thereby undermines the justice of those policies in the first instance. Wilkinson proposes that change in the direction of freedom must go through the proper channels of actually-existing democratic legitimacy. It as this stage that Wilkinson's project comes into direct conflict with libertarianism. Whilst libertarianism is not committed to any particular method of creating a free society under non-ideal conditions, and therefore does not rule out democratic political activism as one among many means of doing that, it cannot be committed to the permanence of democratic political authority, and this is what Wilkinson's neoliberalism demands above all else. It turns out that Foucault's characterization of neoliberalism long ago is still accurate to Wilkinson's own view: that neoliberalism is not about creating a society of free individuals, it is about designing the state apparatus in ways that are inspired by the workings of free society – it is about legitimizing the chains, not breaking them. Neoliberalism is not a pragmatic alternative to libertarianism, but rather a gross misapplication of it.

The revolution on the corner of Main and Hardy -- Classical liberalism -- Christian naturalism -- Spiritual libertarianism -- Republicanism emergent -- Economic republicanism -- The liberal symbiosis -- Republicanism victorious -- Vox populi, vox Dei -- William Bentley and the limits of revolutionary ideology