Suchergebnisse

Abstract. Henry George, the 19th century American economist and social philosopher, saw the problem of protecting the working peoples' wages and Jobs one of distributive justice. He attacked as fallacious the idea that equality of opportunity to work was a "privilege" accorded to labor. The protectionist system, he held, was based on the antidemocratic notion that "the many are called to serve and the few to rule." The paternalism of protection, whether in the domestic or the world economy, is "the pretense of tyranny," he argued. He holds that labor, including workers and entrepreneurs, and not landholders, or owners of capital, is the source of all economic value. Labor, he reasoned, "employs capital," and not the reverse. George's theory of value was an improvement on Adam Smith's, putting into it a greater emphasis on the importance of land in the analysis of the distribution of wealth. But it was a production cost theory, with all its problems and advantages.

Abstract. The central question of Henry George's 1886 book. Protection or Free Trade, commemorated now after a century, was: do protectionist policies help or hinder the working man Have George's concerns in 1886 since become outdated or anachronistic? If not, what are some historic trends toward protectionism since that time? Some of the formal arguments for and against protectionism are examined. George contended that protectionism threatens labor unions and reduces workers'wages. An apparent counterexample is provided by the International Ladies'Garment Workers'Union, which now actively lobbies for protectionist legislation. Its arguments have merit when protectionism is viewed instrumentally, but one must recognize that there are substantive objections to protectionism as a comprehensive national policy. George linked protectionism to paternalism; his theory of economic value as well as his model of the rational economic man are derived from basic democratic principles which stand at sharp odds with the implicit paternalism of tariff policies.

Abstract. The republication of Steven Cord's Henry George: Dreamer or Realist? makes available once more a work which dealt with insight and depth of analysis with the misconceptions, factual inaccuracies and offhand dismissals of the American economist and social philosopher's theories. Although he alienated many in the academic community, George attracted many leading scholars in it to significant research on basic problems of our times.

Very little has been written on the subject of terrorism from a philosophical viewpoint. What little exists generally presuposes terrorism to be either senseless brutality or romanticized heroism. We argue that it is neither. Many writers conflate terrorism with either revolutionary or criminal activity. We contend that it is a separate and recent phenomenon, defining terrorism as violence directed, as a matter of political strategy, against innocent persons. We consider three possible arguments that may be offered in defense of terrorism. First, the Economy of Scale argument, which supposes terrorism to be the "cheapest form of warfare." Second, the Consciousness-Raising argument, contending that terrorism is warranted provided that it makes the public aware of institutional injustice. Third, the Collective Guilt argument, which holds that the public is sealed by their silence. We argue that none of these arguments holds up under close scrutiny, and we further consider general objections that can be raised against any terrorist activity. We conclude with a look into the terrorist's mind, noting that he or she interprets the world in starkly polar terms between good and evil. We describe the ideological rift that exists between the liberal democratic tradition—of which our arguments are representative—and the ideologies of terrorism.