Search results

Introduces libertarianism as a political philosophy, outlining a few implications stating that freedom brings responsibilities. Argues that abortion is the ultimate aggression as it is homicide.

Aims to question whether political principles, for example, those of socialism or libertarianism, have lasting significance.Design/methodology/approach – Lays out a case for the stability of at least one variety of political principle, namely that of libertarianism or classical liberalism and argues that the normative version of these positions does manage to have lasting stability and significance.Findings – There is much that is true that people do not necessarily attend to – including certain principles of political life. It may well be true that everybody has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet many of us reject this fact. Even judges and Supreme Court justices often fail to rule in a manner consistent with these principles.Originality/value – Provides insights concerning the nature of political and ethical principles.

The purpose of this paper is to develop, illustrate, and apply the concept of choice architecture to schools.

The analysis is a synthesis of concepts from the social science research that nudge people toward positive actions.

A dozen concepts are identified, defined, and illustrated as a set of principles and guidelines that are elaborated to guide school leaders in the science and art of choice architecture.

The principles of choice architecture are demonstrated to be of practical utility for school leaders in designing educational contexts for school achievement.

A mental toolbox of concepts and principles that are highlighted for use by school leaders to benefit students and teachers.

The purpose of the present paper is to test this premise of no positive obligations against a challenging critique that can be made of it. To wit, abandonment of babies. That is, does the mother who abandons her baby have the positive obligation to at least place it “on the church steps”, e.g. notify all other potential care givers of the fact that unless one of them comes forward with an offer to take in the infant, it will die? If so, then there is at least one positive obligation in the libertarian philosophy; if not, then, at least at the outset, the libertarian claim to be generally utilitarian must be greatly attenuated. At best, there would now be an exception to the previously impermeable principle of no positive obligations; at worst, one exception tends to leads another, posing the risk that the premise will be fatally compromised, which can undermine the entire philosophical edifice.

Despite consumers being essential stakeholders in the exponential growth of the sharing economy, consumers’ attitudes towards their rights and responsibilities are relatively unknown. This study aims to test a novel hypothesised model mapping consumers’ attitudes towards their consumer rights and responsibilities with that of their political ideology (liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism) and moral foundations (avoiding harm/fairness, in-group/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity).

Two survey studies were conducted with consumers of the Uber ride share service; the first being to test measures of political ideology and consumer rights/responsibilities. These measures were then taken into the second study along with the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. The hypothesised model was tested using structural equation modelling.

The findings suggest that political ideology associates with similarities and differences in how consumers perceive their rights and responsibilities in the sharing economy, including mutual self-regulation. Support for these findings is established by identifying links with specific moral foundations.

This study considers a single participant in the sharing economy.

The paper addresses the question as to what kind of a redistribution of wealth created within a society is righteous. It aims to show that philosophically motivated libertarian economic conceptions of justice designed to rationalize the unacceptability of progressive taxation – in particular conceptions of the Nozick type – are built on questionable bases because their proponents neglect facts that play a key role in the socio-economic reality of modern Western societies.

The paper presents critical evaluation of one of the cornerstones of the libertarian conception of economical justice. It makes use of a model example.

The scholars who approve of the regime of limited responsibility for the consequences of economic failure and yet make a claim for the unlimited fruit of one’s economic success adopt a problematic position that is internally incoherent.

The argumentation against the Nozick type arguments against progressive taxation is, as far as the author knows, original.

The purpose of this paper is to correct Rozeff (2010). He contends that fractional-reserve banking is legitimate and efficacious. The authors demonstrate that it is not.

The design of this paper is to quote widely from Rozeff (2010) and then to expose his errors of analysis.

The authors demonstrate that fractional-reserve banking is neither legitimate nor efficacious.

Money is the lifeblood of the economy. If so, then banking is the marrow of the economy, since it is from that sector that money arises in the first place. It is crucially important, then, that the monetary system be based on sound principles. Fractional-reserve banking is a violation of these sound principles. Therefore, it is valuable to demonstrate that this is indeed the case.

An emerging global ethics is outlined that can serve as the foundation for a global management ethos. In so doing, what a global management ethos is is defined, what would make it possible discussed, and its benign and malignant forms distinguished. The global management ethos (GME) described and advocated combines macro libertarianism and micro diversity.

Examines the political philosophy of James Burnham (1905‐87) and attempts to place him within the context of American conservatism. Focuses on his methodology, view of human nature, perception of change, and his thoughts on the State and society. Concludes that Burnham – who moved from being a Trotskyite to a neo‐conservative – does not fit into the two main American conservative traditions. His thought does not mesh comfortably with American libertarianism or American Burkeanism. James Burnham′s political philosophy is unique.