Liberalism is associated by many with the protection of private property and the insulation of economic markets from state intervention. Yet the liberal tradition is very diverse, and some have taken its concern with equality and liberty in radically egalitarian directions that belie the reduction of liberalism to market-fundamentalist ‘neoliberalism’.
What Are Its Possible Futures in South Africa?
David Bilchitz and Daryl Glaser
Reply to Darrel Moellendorf
Anton D. Lowenberg
In a recent issue of this journal, Darrel Moellendorf evaluates three socialist models of economic organisation in terms of their efficiency and equity attributes (Moellendorf 1997). From the perspective of the cogency of the arguments made within the worldview accepted by Moellendorf, his contribution must certainly be judged a scholarly and thoughtfully written piece. However, as a free’market economist I find the central claim of his article – that any of the three socialist models discussed can successfully reproduce or even approximate the individual freedom and economic efficiency of a private-property rights system – implausible to say the least.
Republicanism is generally said to promote virtue and equal political participation, yet many historical republics and republican theories endorse the hierarchical political participation of the upper and lower social classes and recommend a centralised executive power. Republican constitutions incorporate the authority of the nobles, the freedom of the people and the political power of one man. Cicero formulates this understanding of the republic, which endures in the ideas of Machiavelli and Montesquieu. I characterise this school of thought as conservative because it promotes the preservation of the social hierarchy, private property and stability. Moreover, it harnesses change by advancing a policy of expansion. I challenge the mainstream Cambridge School interpretation by tracing the trajectory of conservative republican ideas in the thought of Cicero, Machiavelli and Montesquieu. Few interpretations relate the republicanism of these three thinkers to each other, hence this reading contributes a new way of thinking about republicanism.
it might be achieved seems central to the purpose of More's book. Utopia consists of two parts: the first book focuses on sixteenth-century England (and to a lesser extent Europe) and condemns private property and class inequality. In the second
: 7–8 ). To publish statistics such as these is not so much a way to meet defences of exclusionary private property rights head on as an attempt to reframe the discussion within a specific historical and social horizon in which the particular force of
Professor Anna Stilz and Interviewed by Dr Christine Hobden
suggests that collective property is fully internationally legitimate. There's no duty on the part of countries to organise themselves as private property systems. It's true that in Kant's own domestic theory of what he dubbed ‘domestic right’, the
Theoretical Debates on Agency
Sunday Paul Chinazo Onwuegbuchulam and Khondlo Mtshali
. This division occurs over the concept of ‘liberty’ and the issue of private property ( Gaus and Courtland 2011 ). Classical Liberals include John Locke, Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, and Giuseppe Mazzini, who have focused on the values and principles on
seem like a provocative thesis. In relying solely on right-wing libertarians like Hayek and Rothbard, whom Sartre never read, Irwin seems ignorant of left-wing anarchist views that accept market competition and qualified notions of private property. For
Theory and Interpretation in the Justification of Colonialism
debate within the Catholic Church that had perplexed theologians throughout the fifteenth century. The status of the infidel with regard to private property rights and public sovereignty was a matter of moral and legal importance. Pope Innocent IV (ca
same time, an avenger. According to Marx, he carries out the sentence that private property passes on itself. 22 Now, from a Marxian point of view, Camus’s reasoning here is specious. Marx was anything but a fiery agitator for revolutionary violence