DOCSLIB.ORG

'Democracy, Markets and the Commons'

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
'Democracy, Markets and the Commons' Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2017 Democracy, markets and the commons Peter, Lukas Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-158362 Dissertation Published Version Originally published at: Peter, Lukas. Democracy, markets and the commons. 2017, University of Zurich, Faculty of Arts. DEMOCRACY, MARKETS AND THE COMMONS Thesis presented to the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences of the University of Zurich for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Lukas Peter Accepted in the fall semester 2017 on the recommendation of the doctoral committee: Prof. Dr. Urs Marti-Brander (main supervisor) Prof. Dr. Francis Cheneval Prof. Dr. Philipp Gonon Prof. Dr. Ugo Mattei Zurich, 2018 “We stand at the gates of an important epoch, a time of ferment, when spirit moves forward in a leap, transcends its previous shape and takes on a new one. All the mass of previous representations, concepts, and bonds linking our world together are dissolving and collapsing like a dream picture. A new phase of the spirit is preparing itself. Philosophy especially has to welcome its appearance and acknowledge it, while others, who oppose it impotently, cling to the past.” G. W. F. Hegel, in a lecture on September 18, 1806, quoted in Francis Fukuyama’s End of History (1992) “There is enormous inertia – a tyranny of the status quo – in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.“ Milton Friedman, Preface to Capitalism and Freedom (1982) 1 Summary of Contents Introduction............................................................................................................6 1. The Concept of Democracy.......................................................................13 2. State Monopoly and the Competitive Market....................................23 3. Garret Hardin’s Tragedy of the Unregulated Commons...............39 4. Overcoming the Tragedy with the Ostroms.......................................46 5. An Ecological Understanding of the Commons................................86 6. Towards a Commons Theory of Property........................................137 7. The Role of the State in a Commons Creating Society................208 8. Commons and the Market.......................................................................258 9. Conclusion.....................................................................................................290 Literature............................................................................................................312 2 Contents Introduction..............................................................................................6 1. The Concept of Democracy............................................................13 1.1. Democracy as a Contested Concept...........................................................................................13 1.2. Models of Democracy......................................................................................................................15 1.3. Surplus and Foundational Meanings of Democracy...........................................................17 2. State Monopoly and the Competitive Market.........................23 2.1. Hobbes: Anarchy, Leviathan and the Competitive Market...............................................24 2.2. Justifying the Market: Social Order, Protection from Arbitrary Powers and Unlimited Wealth......................................................................................................................................25 2.3. Self-Regulation, Limited Politics and the Open-Access Market......................................28 2.4. Economist Kings, Authoritarian Liberalism and Structural Constraints....................32 3. Garret Hardin’s Tragedy of the Unregulated Commons.....39 3.1. The Tragedy: Maximization Strategies and the Double C-Double P Game................39 3.2. Social Institutions Against Tragedy: Privatism or Socialism...........................................42 4. Overcoming the Tragedy with the Ostroms............................46 4.1. Collective Action and “Grim” Social Dilemmas.....................................................................47 4.2. The Tragedy of Monocentric Orders.........................................................................................49 4.3. The Tragedy of Privatization and the Market.......................................................................52 4.3.1. Different Types of Goods (Part I).......................................................................................53 4.3.2. Market Failure and Privatization.......................................................................................56 4.3.3. The Tragedy of the Market...................................................................................................59 4.4. Overcoming Tragedy through Collective Action..................................................................66 4.4.1. A Behaviorist Theory of Bounded Rationality and Norm-Oriented Agents......66 4.4.2. The Importance of Reciprocity, Trust and Reputations............................................69 4.5. Self-Governing Commons with the Aid of Eight Design Principles...............................71 4.6. Institutional Diversity and Polycentricity...............................................................................78 4.7. Interim Conclusion...........................................................................................................................83 5. An Ecological Understanding of the Commons......................86 5.1. Nature, Language and Social Relations....................................................................................87 3 5.2. Preliminary Reflections on the Concepts of Nature............................................................91 5.3. Autopoiesis and the Interdependent Co-Creation of Reality..........................................96 5.4. Ecosystems, Abundance and Natural Commons...............................................................102 5.5. Empathy, Cooperation and Common(s) Reality................................................................112 5.6. Ecological Freedom and Care....................................................................................................116 5.7. The Civic Tradition of Ecological Democracy and Commoning...................................123 5.7.1. The Civil Tradition of Democracy....................................................................................124 5.7.2. The Civic Tradition of Democracy...................................................................................126 5.7.3. Eco-law, Commons and Commoning.............................................................................130 6. Towards a Commons Theory of Property.............................137 6.1. The Normative Language of Goods.........................................................................................138 6.2. Common Needs, Common Resources and Common Property.....................................143 6.3. Reinterpreting John Locke’s Theory of Property from a Commons Perspective. 149 6.3.1. Locke’s Justification of Individual Private Property................................................150 6.3.2. From (Self-)Ownership to Guardianship......................................................................152 6.3.3. From Non-Interference to Non-Domination...............................................................157 6.3.4. From Individual Labor to Interdependent Needs.....................................................167 6.4. Pre-distribution: Commons in a Property-Owning Democracy..................................177 6.4.1. John Rawls’ Property Owning Democracy...................................................................177 6.4.2. Rawls’ Notion of the Individual and Society...............................................................181 6.4.3. The Competitive Market and the Problem of Endless Growth............................183 6.4.4. From Productivity to Care..................................................................................................186 6.5. Consumption Goods: Individual or Common Property?................................................193 6.5.1. Different Types of Goods (Part II)..................................................................................194 6.5.2. Maximizing Consumption and the Population Myth...............................................196 6.5.3. Collaborative Consumption and Relative Abundance...........................................201 6.6. Interim Conclusion........................................................................................................................205 7. The Role of the State in a Commons Creating Society.......208 7.1. Preliminary Reflections on the State-Commons Relationship.....................................208 7.1. Varieties of the State and the Role of the Commons........................................................211 7.1.1. Commons in a Hierarchical and Monocentric State.................................................211
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Direct E-Democracy and Political Party Websites: in the United States and Sweden
    Rochester Institute of Technology RIT Scholar Works Theses 5-1-2015 Direct E-Democracy and Political Party Websites: In the United States and Sweden Kirk M. Winans Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses Recommended Citation Winans, Kirk M., "Direct E-Democracy and Political Party Websites: In the United States and Sweden" (2015). Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Running head: E-DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL PARTY WEBSITES Direct E-Democracy and Political Party Websites: In the United States and Sweden by Kirk M. Winans Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Science, Technology and Public Policy Department of Public Policy College of Liberal Arts Rochester Institute of Technology May 1, 2015 E-DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL PARTY WEBSITES Direct E-Democracy and Political Party Websites: In the United States and Sweden A thesis submitted to The Public Policy Department at Rochester Institute of Technology By Kirk M. Winans Under the faculty guidance of Franz Foltz, Ph.D. Submitted by: Kirk M. Winans Signature Date Accepted by: Dr. Franz Foltz Thesis Advisor, Graduate Coordinator Signature Date Associate Professor, Dept. of STS/Public Policy Rochester Institute of Technology Dr. Rudy Pugliese Committee Member Signature Date Professor, School of Communication Rochester Institute of Technology Dr. Ryan Garcia Committee Member Signature Date Assistant Professor, Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Me, Myself & Mine: the Scope of Ownership
    ME, MYSELF & MINE The Scope of Ownership _________________________________ PETER MARTIN JAWORSKI _________________________________ May, 2012 Committee: Fred Miller (Chair) David Shoemaker, Steven Wall, Daniel Jacobson, Neil Englehart ii ABSTRACT This dissertation is an attempt to defend the following thesis: The scope of legitimate ownership claims is much more narrow than what Lockean liberals have traditionally thought. Firstly, it is more narrow with respect to the particular claims that are justified by Locke’s labour- mixing argument. It is more difficult to come to own things in the first place. Secondly, it is more narrow with respect to the kinds of things that are open to the ownership relation. Some things, like persons and, maybe, cultural artifacts, are not open to the ownership relation but are, rather, fit objects for the guardianship, in the case of the former, and stewardship, in the case of the latter, relationship. To own, rather than merely have a property in, some object requires the liberty to smash, sell, or let spoil the object owned. Finally, the scope of ownership claims appear to be restricted over time. We can lose our claims in virtue of a change in us, a change that makes it the case that we are no longer responsible for some past action, like the morally interesting action required for justifying ownership claims. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Much of this work has benefited from too many people to list. However, a few warrant special mention. My committee, of course, deserves recognition. I’m grateful to Fred Miller for his many, many hours of pouring over my various manuscripts and rough drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedural Democracy, the Bulwark of Equal Liberty Author(S): Maria Paula Saffon and Nadia Urbinati Source: Political Theory, Vol
    Procedural Democracy, the Bulwark of Equal Liberty Author(s): Maria Paula Saffon and Nadia Urbinati Source: Political Theory, Vol. 41, No. 3 (June 2013), pp. 441-481 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23484433 Accessed: 06-05-2020 03:17 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23484433?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Wed, 06 May 2020 03:17:25 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Political Theory 41(3) 441-481 Procedural Democracy, © 2013 SAGE Publications Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav the Bulwark of Equal DOI: 10.1177/0090591713476872 Liberty ptx.sagepub.com María Paula Saffon1 and Nadia Urbinati1 Abstract This essay reclaims a political proceduralist vision of democracy as the best normative defense of democracy in contemporary politics.We distinguish this vision from three main approaches that are representative in the current academic debate: the epistemic conception of democracy as a process of truth seeking; the populist defense of democracy as a mobilizing politics that defies procedures; and the classical minimalist or Schumpeterian definition of democracy as a competitive method for selecting leaders.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Abolishing the Institution of Renting Persons: a Different Path for the Left David Ellerman [University of Ljubljana, Slovenia]
    real-world economics review, issue no. 93 subscribe for free Towards abolishing the institution of renting persons: A different path for the Left David Ellerman [University of Ljubljana, Slovenia] Copyright: David Ellerman, 2020 You may post comments on this paper at https://rwer.wordpress.com/comments-on-rwer-issue-no-93/ Abstract This paper is a brief analysis of how the Left has been side-tracked for about a century and a half by Marx, Lenin, and the Russian Revolution. It is as if the central question was whether people should be publicly or privately rented – with the Great Capitalism-Communism Debate and Cold War being like a “Peloponnesian War” over whether slaves should be publicly owned (Sparta) or privately owned (Athens). Although Marx would have personally favored abolishing the (private) wage-labor relation, the deficiency was in his theories. He had: no theory of inalienable rights to critique wage-labor per se; no labor theory of property about workers appropriating the whole product (positive and negative fruits of their labor); and no theory about democracy in the workplace (or elsewhere). The major fork-in-the-road started with the inchoate “labor theory” of Locke, Smith, and Ricardo. Marx tried to develop it as the labor theory of value and exploitation, and the so-called “Ricardian Socialist” (such as Thomas Hodgskin and to some extent, Proudhon) developed it as the labor theory of property – while modern economics bypassed it entirely with the marginalist revolution. We argue that the Left should take the branch indicated by the labor theory of property.
    [Show full text]
  • Associational Life Under Authoritarianism: the Saudi Chamber of Commerce and Industry Elections
    This is a repository copy of Associational Life under Authoritarianism: The Saudi Chamber of Commerce and Industry Elections. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/92453/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Kraetzschmar, HJ (2016) Associational Life under Authoritarianism: The Saudi Chamber of Commerce and Industry Elections. Journal of Arabian Studies, 5 (2). pp. 184-205. ISSN 2153-4764 https://doi.org/10.1080/21534764.2015.1129723 This is an author produced version of a paper published in Journal of Arabian Studies. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Associational Life under Authoritarianism: The Saudi Chamber of Commerce and Industry Elections HENDRIK J. KRAETZSCHMAR Abstract: This article is concerned with the dynamics of internal leadership elections in one of Saudi Arabia’s oldest and most prominent network of professional syndicates, the Chambers of Commerce and Industry (CCIs).
    [Show full text]
  • The Invisible Hand Mechanism of Property Appropriation
    On Property Theory1 David Ellerman University of California at Riverside [email protected]; www.ellerman.org Key words: Theory of property; appropriation; invisible hand; responsibility principle, Hume, Locke, employment relation, inalienability of responsible agency. JEL codes: B52, D23, D63, K11, J54 Abstract A theory of property needs to give an account of the whole life-cycle of a property right: how it is initiated, transferred, and terminated. Economics has focused on the transfers in the market and has almost completely neglected the question of the initiation and termination of property in normal production and consumption (not in some original state or in the transition from common to private property). The institutional mechanism for the normal initiation and termination of property is an invisible-hand function of the market, the market mechanism of appropriation. Does this mechanism satisfy an appropriate normative principle? The standard normative juridical principle is to assign or impute legal responsibility according to de facto responsibility. It is given a historical tag of being "Lockean" but the basis is contemporary jurisprudence, not historical exegesis. Then the fundamental theorem of the property mechanism is proven which shows that if "Hume's conditions" (no transfers without consent and all contracts fulfilled) are satisfied, then the market automatically satisfies the Lockean responsibility principle, i.e., "Hume implies Locke." As a major application, the results in their contrapositive form, "Not Locke implies Not Hume," are applied to a market economy based on the employment contract. It is shown the production based on the employment contract violates the Lockean principle (all who work in an employment enterprise are de facto responsible for the positive and negative results) and thus Hume's conditions must also be violated in the marketplace (de facto responsible human action cannot be transferred from one person to another—as is readily recognized when and employer and employee together commit a crime).
    [Show full text]
  • Possession As the Root of Title
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1979 Possession as the Root of Title Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "Possession as the Root of Title," 13 Georgia Law Review 1221 (1979). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POSSESSION AS THE ROOT OF TITLE Richard A. Epstein* I. TM PROBLEM STATED A beautiful sea shell is washed ashore after a storm. A man picks it up and puts it in his pocket. A second man comes along and takes it away from him by force. The first man sues to recover the shell, and he is met with the argument that he never owned it at all. How does the legal system respond to this claim? How should it respond? The same man finds the same shell, only now the state, through its public processes, comes along and insists that the shell belongs to the common fund. It offers the man nothing for it, claiming that the shell was found by luck and coincidence and not by planned and systematic labor. How does the legal system respond to this claim? How should it respond? The questions just put can recur in a thousand different forms in any organized legal system. The system itself presupposes that there are rights over given things that are vested in certain indi- viduals within that system.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bureaucratic Mentality in Democratic Theory and Contemporary Democracy
    The Bureaucratic Mentality in Democratic Theory and Contemporary Democracy Jennifer M. Hudson Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2016 © 2016 Jennifer M. Hudson All rights reserved ABSTRACT The Bureaucratic Mentality in Democratic Theory and Contemporary Democracy Jennifer M. Hudson This project draws attention to a contemporary exaltation of competence and swift decision-making that emphasizes the moment of executive power in democratic political practice and within democratic theory. Drawing on Weber’s concept of rationalization and his opposition between the mentalities of the official and the politician, I develop a distinct conception of bureaucracy as a mode of thought. Bureaucratic thinking involves the application of technical knowledge and skills, with a claim to universality and objectivity, in order to produce results and promote consensus and social harmony. I argue that this conception allows us to better recognize the contemporary diffusion of a flexible, decentralized type of bureaucracy and situate it within the history of affinity and tension between bureaucratic and democratic principles. I focus on a tradition within continental democratic theory, which tends to downplay politics by replacing it with administration and regulation. French political theorist and historian Pierre Rosanvallon is its contemporary representative, building on Hegel and Durkheim as well as Saint-Simon and Léon Duguit. Initially, Rosanvallon offered a theory of participation and democratic legitimacy that would work within the administrative state, taking into account his own strong critiques of bureaucracy. I argue that significant shifts evident in his later works, which respond to new realities, explicitly and/or implicitly mobilize bureaucratic thinking and practice to buttress democratic legitimacy within the nation-state and the European Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Deserving to Own Intellectual Property Lawrence C
    Hollins University Hollins Digital Commons Philosophy Faculty Scholarship Philosophy 1993 Deserving to own intellectual property Lawrence C. Becker Hollins University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.hollins.edu/philfac Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Becker, Lawrence C. "Deserving to Own Intellectual Property." Chicago-Kent Law Review 68 (1993): 609-29. Hollins Digital Commons. Web. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at Hollins Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Hollins Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Becker, Lawrence C. "Deserving to Own Intellectual Property." Chicago- Kent Law Review 68 (1993): 609-29. DESERVING TO OWN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWRENCE C. BECKER* My project in this Article is to examine the notion that people might "ti'ese'rvede!len>e to own the ploductsofpioducts of their intellectual labor in an especially ·~t'''",.~tJr()nlg way-stronger than any way in which they might deserve to own .· of non-intC,lllectualnon-int(.llleetual labor..labor,. Such a project runs counter to stamd;ardsta.nd;:ud philosophical analyses of property lights,rights, which discuss desert­ toi:-laloor arguments in general terms and make little or nothing of the distinc;ticmdis:tin•cticm between. intellectual and non-intellectuallabor.non-intellectual1abor" 1 This Article will show that focusing on desert arguments for intel­ lectual property raises a. disturbing issue that standardstamdard philosophical analyses overlook,overlook. The issue is this: Suppose, as seems highly likely, that there are multiple, equally powerful lines of argument that are relevant to the justification of a syStemsystem o,fo.,f private property.
    [Show full text]
  • Islam and Democracy. Can They Co-Exist?
    Advances in Applied Sociology, 2019, 9, 431-445 https://www.scirp.org/journal/aasoci ISSN Online: 2165-4336 ISSN Print: 2165-4328 Islam and Democracy. Can They Co-Exist? Antonello Canzano University “G. d’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, Pescara, Italy How to cite this paper: Canzano, A. Abstract (2019). Islam and Democracy. Can They Co-Exist? Advances in Applied Sociology, In this article one wonders if the union between democracy and Islam is 9, 431-445. possible and in what form. If we consider democracy as a system inspired by https://doi.org/10.4236/aasoci.2019.99032 the universalism of values typical of the West, can this be compatible with the Received: July 15, 2019 values professed by Islam? Through some authors we have tried to under- Accepted: September 9, 2019 stand if there can be compatibility and by virtue of this compatibility to estab- Published: September 12, 2019 lish a possible relationship with the West. This article analyzes in the light of Copyright © 2019 by author(s) and this if there are paths within Islam that make a possible meeting. Hence the Scientific Research Publishing Inc. question: is it possible to discover another Islam that can weave its fates with This work is licensed under the Creative democracy? Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0). Keywords http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access Politics, Democracy, Islam 1. Introduction At the end of the last century the democratization processes found their maxi- mum expansion. This was expressed on a global scenario that did not spare even the most remote areas of the planet.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Years of Supporting Democracy Worldwide © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2005
    International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance Ten Years of Supporting Democracy Worldwide © International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2005 International IDEA publications are independent of specifi c national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council members. Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or any part of this publication should be made to: Publications Offi ce International IDEA SE -103 34 Stockholm Sweden International IDEA encourages dissemination of its work and will promptly respond to requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications. Graphic design by: Magnus Alkmar Front cover illustrations by: Anoli Perera, Sri Lanka Printed by: Trydells Tryckeri AB, Sweden ISBN 91-85391-43-3 A number of individuals (and organizations) have contributed to the development of this book. Our thanks go, fi rst and foremost, to Bernd Halling, External Relations Offi cer, who coordinated the content development of this book and for all his hard work and support to the book through its many phases. We also thank Ozias Tungwarara, Senior Programme Offi cer, who developed the concept from the beginning and helped in the initial phase of writing and collection of material, as well as IDEA’s Publications Manager, Nadia Handal Zander for her help in the production of this book. Foreword International IDEA was born in 1995 in a world tions—hence the notion of local ownership of the which was optimistic about democratic change. process of reform and development. For signifi - The end of the Cold War had ushered in a period cant political reforms and public policy decisions, of opportunity and innovation with democracy as there needs to be the space and time for knowl- well as more self-critical analysis of the quality and edge to be shared, for information to be circulated, achievements of democracies, old and new.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberty, Gender, and the Family Jennifer Mckitrick University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected]
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy Philosophy, Department of 2006 Liberty, Gender, and the Family Jennifer McKitrick University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub McKitrick, Jennifer, "Liberty, Gender, and the Family" (2006). Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy. 30. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub/30 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in LIBERTY AND JUSTICE, ed. Tibor Machan (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 2006), pp. 83-103. Copyright 2006 Hoover Institution Press. 3 Liberty, Gender, and the Family Jennifer McKitrick DISCUSSIONS OF JUSTICE within the classical liberal, libertarian tradition have been universalist. They have aspired to apply to any human community, whatever the makeup of its member­ ship. Certainly some feminists have taken issue with this, arguing that the classical liberal, libertarian understanding of justice fails to address the concerns of women, indeed, does women an injustice. Among these we find Susan Moller Okin, and it will be my task in this essay to explore whether Okin's criticism is well founded. Susan Moller Okin's justice, Gender, and the Family is a land­ mark feminist discussion of distributive justice that raises issues no political philosophy should ignore.) However, libertarians have tended to ignore it. That is perhaps not surprising as Okin 1. Susan Moller Okin, Justice, Gnukr, and tlu Family (New York: Basic Books.
    [Show full text]