Search results

John Locke′s political economy lends itself to conservative, liberal and radical interpretations that frame the conceptual ambiguities that still shape our debates over government′s proper economic functions. Suggests that “masculinity” was a powerful undercurrent in Locke′s thought which linked these ambiguities and makes them explicable. In short, Locke′s political economy was a “gendered” one which juxtaposed Enlightenment hopes that “manly” men could balance freedom and equality, labour and prosperity, and political order, to ancient misogynist fears that “effeminate” men caused chaos when freed from political constraints. Ultimately, Locke′s scepticism resulted in a heavy investment in political prerogative which has been parlayed into twentieth century political hegemony.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it evaluates the impossibility proposition, called the “Arrow impossibility theorem” (AIT), which is widely attributed to Arrow’s social choice theory. This theorem denies the possibility of arriving at any collective majority resolution in any group voting system if the social choice function must satisfy “certain natural conditions”. Second, it intends to show the reasons behind the proliferation of this impossibility impression.

Theoretical and philosophical.

Arrow’s mathematical model does not seem to suggest or support his impossibility thesis. He has considered only one voting outcome, well known by the phrase “the Condorcet paradox”. However, other voting results are equally likely from his model, which might suggest unambiguous majority choice. This logical dilemma has been created by Arrow’s excessive dependence on the language of mathematics and symbolic logic.

The languages of mathematics and symbolic logic – numbers, letters and signs – have definite advantages in scientific argumentation and reasoning. These numbers and letters being invented however do not have any behavioural characteristics, which suggests that conclusions drawn from the model merely reflect the author’s opinions. The AIT is a good example of this logical dilemma.

The modern social choice theory, which is founded on the AIT, seems to be an academic assault to the system of democratic governance that is dominating current global village. By highlighting weaknesses in the AIT, this paper attempts to discredit this intellectual omission.

The paper offers a counter example to show that the impossibility of social choice is not necessarily implied by the Arrow’s model. Second, it uses Locke’s theory of human understanding to explain why the concerned social scientists are missing this point. This approach is probably entirely novel in this area of research.

In this article Professor Perry argues that Plessy v. Ferguson and the de jure segregation it heralded has overdetermined the discourse on Jim Crow. She demonstrates through a historical analysis of activist movements, popular literature, and case law that private law, specifically property and contract, were significant aspects of Jim Crow law and culture. The failure to understand the significance of private law has limited the breadth of juridical analyses of how to respond to racial divisions and injustices. Perry therefore contends that a paradigmatic shift is necessary in scholarly analyses of the Jim Crow era, to include private law, and moreover that this shift will enrich our understandings of both historic and current inequalities.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a survey piece on the concept of privacy and the justification of privacy rights.

This article reviews each of the following areas: a brief history of privacy; philosophical definitions of privacy along with specific critiques; legal conceptions of privacy, including the history of privacy protections granted in constitutional and tort law; and general critiques of privacy protections both moral and legal.

A primary goal of this article has been to provide an overview of the most important philosophical and legal issues related to privacy. While privacy is difficult to define and has been challenged on legal and moral grounds, it is a cultural universal and has played an important role in the formation of Western liberal democracies.

The paper provides a general overview of the issues and debates that frame this lively area of scholarly inquiry. By facilitating a wider engagement and input from numerous communities and disciplines, it is the authors' hope to advance scholarly debate in this important area.

The chief model of modernization is that of Western Europe and North America, as these have developed since the seventeenth century. Its main elements may be described as the development of science and technology, the national state, democracy, and capitalism. The professed political ideals of this model were put forward by John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and T. H. Green among others. However, in practice, countries in the West have been imperial, warring powers, thus showing that they had little regard for democratic ideals. Internally also, a fascist tendency has often been present. Their economy has been beset with the ills of capitalism: inflation, unemployment, monopolies, and slums. Industrialization has resulted in dehumanization, social disorganization, misutilization of natural resources, and environmental pollution. Science and technology have been used more for private profit and war than for the betterment of human life. The civil administration in this model is expected to function like a large-scale industrial or business undertaking.

From 1782 to 1834, the English social legislation shifted from a safety net devised to deal with emergencies to a social security system implemented to cope with the threat of unemployment and poverty. In the attempt to explain this shift, this chapter concentrates on the changed attitudes toward poverty and power relationships in eighteenth-century British society. Especially, it looks at the role played by eighteenth-century British economic thinkers in elaborating arguments in favor of reducing the most evident asymmetries of power characterizing the period of transition from Mercantilism to the Classical era. To what extent did economic thinkers contribute to creating an environment within which a social legislation aimed at improving the living conditions of the poor as the one established in 1795 could be not only envisaged but also implemented? In doing so, this chapter deals with an aspect often undervalued and/or overlooked by historians of economic thought: namely, the relationship between economic theory and social legislation. If the latter is the institutional framework by which both individual and collective well-being can be achieved the former cannot but assume a fundamental role as a useful abstraction which sheds light on the multifaceted reality in which social policies are proposed, forged, and eventually implemented.

This chapter problematizes the body politics of American liberalism, as viewed through the lens of health policy. The author suggests that American efforts to pursue basic health goals are undercut by the particular way in which American liberals – and their state – conceptualize bodies. To understand the theoretical basis of this body politics, the chapter examines policy preoccupations such as the institution of informed consent, malpractice reform, and efforts to establish a Patients’ Bill of Rights. Finally, considering the ideological contexts that have given rise to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the author gestures toward the establishment of a stronger liberal – and possibly post-liberal – health care system that takes the embodiment of its subjects seriously.

Presents the first chapter in this work with regard to the search for new ideas and better interpretations in the growth and development of new ideas. Investigates the exchange of views between thinkers of different points of view. Invites co‐operation between various factions to investigate unification of all known sciences (natural and economic) and to include the arts. Mentions all the great thinkers in these areas and unreservedly discusses their contribution in the school of thought. Proffers that modern technology cannot and should not be slowed down and that for the social economy of human solidarity should be aimed for, to begin a new era for humanity.

Sages and seers in ancient India specified dharma, artha, kama and moksha as the four ends of a moral and productive life and emphasised the attainment of a proper balance between the spiritual health and the material health. However, most of their intellectual energy was directed towards the attainment of moksha, the salvation from birth‐death‐rebirth cycle. Kautilya, on the other hand considered poverty as a living death and concentrated on devising economic policies to achieve salvation from poverty but without compromising with ethical values unless survival of the state was threatened. Kautilya's Arthashastra is unique in emphasising the imperative of economic growth and welfare of all. According to him, if there is no dharma, there is no society. He believed that ethical values pave the way to heaven as well as to prosperity on the earth, that is, have an intrinsic value as well as an instrumental value. He referred the reader to the Vedas and Philosophy for learning moral theory, which sheds light on the distinction between good and bad and moral and immoral actions. He extended the conceptual framework to deal with conflict of interest situations arising from the emerging capitalism. He dedicated his work to Om (symbol of spirituality, God) and Brihaspati and Sukra (political thinkers) implying, perhaps, that his goal was to integrate ethics and economics. It is argued that the level of integration between economics and ethics is significantly higher in Kautilya's Arthashastra than that in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations or for that matter in the writings of Plato and Aristotle.