Search results

In the course of the levelling of modern distinction, society loses central categories of monitoring and evaluation. The supposedly modern thinking manifests itself as mere transitional semantic. These semantics do not show which peace-ethical aspects are compliant with a fully developed functional pattern of differentiation. Augustinus determines peace (as tranquility of order) in its significance for a hierarchical society as well as Kant with his idea of legal concord outlines the time of transition from hierarchic to functional differentiation. These peace concepts clearly show us what is missing today: a peace ethics that is corresponding to a functional differentiated world society. Since preferable ethics cannot base itself on a definition of peace that stands for a democratically legitimated power, pacifism as a peace movement has become obsolete. In conclusion, pacifism as countervailing power is suspended, but as ethics it is pioneering. (S+F/Pll)

"This paper shows that ideocracies, especially communist ideocracies, have a specific pattern of cooptation and incorporation of elites and ordinary citizens, which is different from all other political regime types. Ideocracies dominate society through and through by a net of measures that make the citizens materially dependent on the state, from which the individual citizen cannot escape. The strong concentration of the distribution of goods and positions in the hands of the ideocratic state goes hand in glove with the great power to repress non - co - opted people. However, there are trade - offs in the ideocratic pattern of cooptation. The tendency of ideocracies to infantilize its citizens, may provoke reluctance even among otherwise politically indifferent citizens. Nevertheless, despite the trade - offs, the specific pattern of cooptation and incorporation of citizens and elites might help to explain why communist ideocracies were very durable in comparison to other types of political regimes." (author's abstract)

"In diesem Beitrag setzen wir uns mit der zukünftigen Positionierung der Ordnungsökonomik innerhalb der Wirtschaftswissenschaften im Spannungsfeld zwischen positiver Analyse und normativer, auf wirtschaftspolitische Beratung zielender Disziplin auseinander. Im Sinne des normativen Individualismus bieten sich das Legitimationskriterium der individuellen Zustimmung oder die Steuerungsideale der Bürger- und Konsumentensouveränität als Grundlage für die moderne Ausrichtung der Ordnungsökonomik an. Ganz im Sinne des verfassungsökonomischen Forschungsansatzes von James Buchanan werden daher die Bürgerinteressen als Referenzkriterium herangezogen. Nach einem Überblick über den neueren Methodenstreit diskutieren wir jüngste Beiträge zur zukünftigen Ausrichtung der Ordnungsökonomik vor dem Hintergrund des verfassungsökonomischen Forschungsprogramms. In einem dritten Schritt stellen wir unsere Perspektive zur Weiterentwicklung des ordnungsökonomischen Forschungsansatzes dar." (Autorenreferat)