Search results

Some claim Marx was proved wrong by the collapse of the USSR but there is reason to think Marxism is more powerful than this view assumes. For example, the USSR never satisfied Marx′s view that socialism must be built on capitalism. Arguably, Marx is being borne out by some Western developments – e.g. the erosion of the principle of private property, socialization of land and even labour, etc. Still, a better way to understand these matters would seem to be the bourgeois position of individualism, whereby individual human beings can make first choices and influence the direction of events, slowly but surely. The result of such an understanding is just the mixed‐up world of human life we witness.

Identifies certain commonalities in the bases of the moral philosophies of Rand (individualist/capitalist/egoist) and Marx (collectivist/socialist/altruist), such as a man’s natural rights and materialism. Examines their philosophies from an ethical viewpoint, looking at the origins and content of morality, moral laws, the principles of ethics and realistically reflects the nature of man, as man can be neither wholly altruistic nor wholly individualistic but is rather a combination of both, with man’s self‐development depending on interaction with other haman beings. Concludes that neither doctrine presents a viable model of social organization.

Within entrepreneurship literature, the conventional approaches inspired by Schumpeter's “creative destruction” have largely emphasized the role of human cognitive processes to come up with new business ideas. In contemporary studies, however, there is a recent research stream wherein creativity is aestheticized. As a research line of the aesthetic approach, there is an increasing interest for playfulness and other signals of enjoyment that can also stimulate the entrepreneur's creative acts.

This chapter is a reflexion about the liberating and creative role of play in the context of sport entrepreneurship, particularly, in the fitness industry. It aspires to give to the recent development of the sport entrepreneurship field a novel twist by relating it to a theology of play. Drawing on the work of one of the most influential twentieth-century theologians who has approached play theology, Hugo Rahner, we present how his theological approach may be used to widen our understanding of sport entrepreneurship. This theological perspective allows us to develop alternative thoughts based on concepts that transcend the typical rationalist business approach and its instrumental language.

Although the topics of business ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are not new, this article focuses on the changing role of both subjects in the current business world. Having heard much about CSR in the past, the authors were under the impression that it had taken hold as a movement and more and more corporations were leaning toward ethical business practices and social responsibility. Media attention on the shocking revelations of the tobacco industry stimulated their interest in investigating this impression. Their research indicates that, although some corporations are still practicing unethical behavior, many more indicated that they have a social responsibility to their stakeholders.

The purpose of writing this paper is to defend the doctrine of commodification, or alienability: that there are no exceptions to the principle that all things that are owned may be legally sold.

The approach of this paper is to consider arguments to the contrary, mainly those, in this case, furnished by Kuflik, and then to refute these arguments.

The conclusion of this paper is that socialism, the view that purchases and sales, markets, free enterprise, is unjustified, is mistaken. Non‐alienability is part and parcel of the critique of markets. To the extent it is countered, markets are strengthened.

Future research would probe more deeply into anti‐market arguments.

The practical implications is that the law should legalize markets in body parts, and, more radically, should recognize voluntary slave contracts.

This is virtually an entirely original paper, in that there are only a very few publications that defend complete alienability, such as does this one.

This paper argues that laissez faire capitalism is the last best hope for mankind. That if the human race is to survive and prosper, put an end to starvation, hopelessness and unemployment, then we must embrace private property rights, the rule of law and free enterprise. No longer should “profits” be a dirty word.

Reviews ten criticisms concerning business ethics: six of which question the development of the field in general; and four which challenge common teaching methods. By doing so, attempts to understand progress and aims to articulate the urgent need for a goal structure which can become the basis for assigning success or failure. Also calls for a new inquiry in which individual integrity, rather than corporate ethics is paramount.

In the aftermath of the Enron scandal, the critics of free enterprise have blamed this system for inflated and out of control executive salaries, particularly those of the chief executive officer (CEO). The present paper defends the marketplace against these charges. In section I we argue that the market has passed the Enron test with flying colors. Section II gives the background of the financial situation relating to CEO salaries. Sections III and IV are devoted to, respectively, the tax court and the appellate court; section V looks at the reaction of the former to the latter; and in section VI we defend the “independent investor” test. We look at this issue from a political economic perspective in section VII and conclude in section VIII.

Over the last three quarters of a century, the discourse on economic and social policy has oscillated between two polar opposites: an interventionist approach and a free market-oriented one. The former led to the establishment of the Keynesian welfare state and was dominant in the post-war years, but the latter gained much ground beginning in the 1980s, forcing defenders of the welfare state to retreat into a more defensive position. In the wake of the ‘Great Recession’, however, these two visions are once again sustaining vigorous debates in the global public arena. Economists in their role as policy advisers and public intellectuals, in other words as ‘experts’, have participated actively in such debates; the gains made by (what its critics call) ‘neo-liberalism’ were due, in no small measure, to the growing prestige and influence of Austrian economics. The experts’ discourse tends to be a historical and arguments are often phrased in terms of supposedly ‘cutting edge’ theoretical and empirical advances.¹ Yesterday's theories are judged obsolete and irrelevant. I argue that a more historically informed perspective can actually be more rewarding.