Suchergebnisse

GEORGE SOREL WAS A CRITIC OF "CITIZENSHIP" IN THE SENSE CURRENT THEN AS NOW. BEHIND HIS IDEAL PICTURE OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION LAY A CONCEPTION OF CITIZENSHIP WHICH DERIVED FROM AN OLDER TRADITION. HE ACHIEVED A VISION OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION WHICH DISPLACED CIVIL ASSOCIATION BY TAKING SOME OF ITS TYPICAL FEATURES FOR ITSELF.

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Introduction -- Part I. Legitimizing Citizenship -- Part II. Recovering Politics -- Part III. Citizenship Displaced -- Part IV. Citizenship and Civic Religion -- Conclusion: Moral Community and Political Order -- Notes -- Select Bibliography -- Index

A widely read and influential text in its own day, P.-J. Proudhon's Du Principe federatif is now often overlooked by students of federalism. Yet the book's theoretical and general chapters, in the first English translation, can claim to be considered a key text for the history of federalist thinking. Standing at the point of intersection between the anarchist and federalist traditions, they make a passionate case for federalism as the political order which gives the fullest possible expression to liberty - indeed, as the only political order in which liberty can be preserved: 'The twentieth century will open the age of federations, or else humanity will undergo another purgatory of a thousand years.' Proudhon's federal principle is a radically decentralist one, which contrasts sharply with modern pictures of federalism at many points, what Proudhon calls a 'federal' system is what many, today, would regard as the dissolution of such a system. Although it thus stands apart from the mainstream of North American views of federalism, Proudhon's book raises questions which are posed by any federal arrangement. In connecting the federalist ideal with such distinct ends as the dispersal of power, maximum participation, and the maintenance of cultural diversity, it builds significant political tensions into the concept of federalism itself

"Ideas of justice have traditionally focused on what individuals owe to one another and have drawn our attention to what is considered fair--what one of us owes to another is justly matched by what the other owes to them. However, what does justice require us to do for past and future generations? In Justice Back and Forth, award-winning author Richard Vernon explores the possibility of justice in cases where time makes reciprocity impossible. This "temporal justice" is examined in ten controversial cases including the duty to return historical artifacts, the ethics and politics of parenting, the punishment of historical offences, the right to procreate, and the imposition of constitutions on future citizens. By deftly weaving together discussions on historical redress and justice for future generations, Vernon reveals that these two opposing topics can in fact be used to illuminate each other. In doing so, he concludes that reciprocity can be adapted to serve intergenerational cases."--

1 Does the past have rights? -- Why rights matter -- The testamentary model -- Our interests survive us -- Can the dead be harmed? -- Posthumous rights and cold cases -- The 'too abstract' objection -- 2 Who benefits? -- Does anyone benefit? -- Does injustice pay? -- Baseline issues -- Do benefits create duties? -- Unjust Enrichment -- Is redress the right response? -- 3 What memory calls for -- Kinds of memory -- What truth commissions can do -- Public apology -- From apology to identity -- 4 Because we are who we are -- Relationship terms -- Nation, or state? -- Complicity -- Political continuity -- 5 Back to the future -- Inherited wrongs -- The lynching of Louis Sam -- Why history matters -- Ants and grasshoppers -- On clarity.

Contents: Introduction -- Fables about freedom -- Democracy as political morality -- Procedure and substance in democratic theory -- Moral defeats and majority rule -- How rights come in -- The scope of liberty -- On disagreement -- Neutrality and community -- Conclusion.

The Career of Toleration considers the Locke-Proast controversy from the standpoint of political theory, examining Locke's and Proast's texts and tracing their relationship to later discussions of toleration. Vernon reconstructs the grounds of the dispute, drawing attention to the long-term importance of the arguments and evaluating their relative strength. He then examines issues of toleration in later contexts, specifically James Fitzjames Stephen's critique of John Stuart Mill, the perfectionist alternative to contractualist liberalism, and the view that the traditional attachment to toleration must, by the force of its own arguments, move from liberalism to a defence of a much stronger form of democracy. Arguing that Locke's and Proast's exchange marks a turning point in the intellectual history that has helped to structure the terms of modern political debate, Vernon presents a solid case for thinking that the exchange between Locke and Proast is as important for the twentieth century as it was for the seventeenth.

AbstractTheories of toleration maintain that people sometimes have good reasons not to act on their convictions, however strong. Theories of latitude maintain that one should doubt the strength of one's convictions. While toleration has often been taken to be foundational for the liberal tradition, another view (made fully explicit by Brian Barry'sJustice as Impartiality) is that we should look, rather, to the idea of latitude, as exemplified in late seventeenth-century Anglican writings. Taking these writings as its initial point of reference, the article maintains that toleration, rather than latitude, should be seen as foundational for the liberal tradition, which is better understood in terms of what one person owes to another than in terms of the relative validity of their beliefs.

It is often claimed that the idea of toleration emerged from and depends upon a Protestant context that limits its usefulness today. These claims implicate the political thought of John Locke, clearly a key figure for the history of toleration, and also an emphatically Protestant one. The fullest support for the claim in question is offered by Jeremy Waldron's God, Locke and Equality, which argues that the idea of equality on which Locke based his case cannot be separated from its religious foundations. Taking issue with Waldron's view, this article argues that in the course of defending toleration Locke came to advance an idea of equality that may be termed 'dialogical', in that it rested on the equality that is necessarily presupposed by argumentative exchange. While that idea of equality is fully consistent with Locke's Protestantism, it does not, the article argues, depend upon it. Rather, it depends on the minimum requirements of shared citizenship. Civil equality is modelled, in Locke's defence of toleration, on what is presupposed by shared membership in political society, and no religious view is indispensable to it. Moreover, while the 'Protestant' reading of Locke may seem unique in introducing an element of compulsion, the 'dialogical' reading may introduce as much compulsion as is needed for the purposes of contractualist political theory. Adapted from the source document.