New Liberalism

Despite being a common phenomenon with significant consequences on our everyday life, strikes (and direct actions in general) are still relatively undertheorized in the philosophical literature. Our paper has a specific focus that is best encapsulated in a question: What is the relationship between liberalism and the right to strike? Liberalism’s cornerstone is the idea that rights and liberties of individuals are of supreme political importance. Rights and liberties, however, are not created equal. The basic liberties are those that are (...) so politically important that legal restrictions upon them are unjustified unless to protect other basic liberties within an overall scheme of liberties, such as under a bill of rights. So, our question becomes: Is the right to strike a basic liberty? Two ongoing disputes are relevant here. The ‘older’ debate concerns the status of economic liberties and their relation to the right to strike. We will focus on a ‘newer’ discussion because it poses a challenge to liberalism itself. Namely, some ‘radical’ critics of liberalism (Gourevitch, Raekstad and Rossi) have argued that there are rights that involve coercing others, exercised during strikes or engagement in other direct action, that do not qualify as liberal basic liberties and that can sometimes take normative precedence over the liberal basic liberties. This criticism, if correct, defeats liberalism. Notice, though: since the weighing of different particular basic liberties against each other in an overall scheme of liberty is integral to high liberalism, the genuine threat that the radical critique poses stems not from the second conjunct (which its proponents have defended) but from its first (which they have merely assumed). For, if (contrary to what the radical work assumes) the right to engage in coercive strike action is a liberal basic liberty then it can, at least in principle, win out over other basic liberties, within an overall scheme of liberties, in situations of prima facie moral conflict. Raekstad and Rossi extend the radical critique, beyond the case of coercive strikes, to other forms of direct action (outside of industrial disputes) that have avowedly moral or political goals. These could include workplace occupations, street blockades, hacktivism, counter-economics, tax resistance and more. In the paper we argue that the ‘radicals’ are not entitled to the assumption that the right to strike is not a liberal basic liberty. Moreover, we suggest, high liberalism has the resources to accommodate not only a general right to engage in non-coercive strike action, but also the right to engage in some forms of coercive direct action, whether as part of an industrial dispute or not. More precisely, we show that liberalism has the resources to accommodate not only (i) a general right to engage in non-coercive strike action, but also (ii) the right to engage in some forms of coercive direct action, whether (iii) as part of an industrial dispute or (iv) not. (shrink)

어떻게 부자와 유명한에 다른 걸릴에 대한? 먼저 해리 포터 소설은 아이들이 세상에 대한 책임을 지기보다는 환상을 믿도록 장려하는 원시적인 미신입니다. JKR은 자신과 세계에 대한 단서가 거의없지만, 평균 미국인보다 약 200배, 평균 중국인보다 약 800배 더 파괴적입니다. 그녀는 이 쓰레기 소설과 모든 침식을 생산하기 위해 30,000 헥타르의 숲을 파괴한 책임이있습니다 (지구상의 모든 사람을 위해 바다에 적어도6 톤과 12 톤 / 년 토양이 아니며 미국인 100 톤, 그리고 Rowling의 책과 이스와그녀의 3 명의 아이들에 대해 연간 약 5000 톤). 지구는 매년 표토의 적어도 (...) 1 %를 잃고, 그래서 그것은 2100 에 가까워지면, 그것의 음식 성장 능력의 대부분은 사라질 것입니다. 그런 다음 책과 영화, 플라스틱 인형 등을 만들고 배포하기 위해 만든 연료와 폐기물의 엄청난 양이있다. 그녀는 수백만 명의 아이들을 가족 계획을 장려하거나 열대 우림을 사들이기보다는 아이들을 생산함으로써 사회적 책임이 부족하다는 것을 보여주고, 영국, 미국, 세계 및 그녀의 후손의 미래를 파괴하는 제 3 세계 패권의 전통적인 자유주의 어리석음을 장려함으로써 그녀의 사회적 책임이 부족하다는 것을 보여줍니다. 물론, 그녀는 다른 7과 다르지 않습니다. 80 억 단서 - 그냥 시끄고 더 파괴적. 무료 런치 문제 영장 큰 입니다. 폭도들은 다른 사람을 해치지 않고 한 사람을 돕는 것과 같은 것이 없다는 것을 알 수 없습니다. 혼잡한 세상에 새로운 참가자에게 주어지는 권리 나 특권은 다른 사람들의 사람들을 희미하게 만들 수있습니다. 매일 어디서나 일어나는 거대한 생태 재해에도 불구하고, 그들은 지난 세기의 인구 증가의 대부분과이 모든 것을 차지하는 "다양한"의 억제되지 않은 모성에 고정 할 수 없습니다. 그들은 산업 문명의 궁극적 인 붕괴에 자원과 기능 사회의 매일 공격을 추정하는 데 필요한 지능, 교육, 경험과 정신의 조합이 부족합니다. 각 식사, 자동차 또는 버스로 각 여행, 신발의 각 쌍은 지구의 관에 또 다른 손톱입니다. 런던에서 샌프란시스코로 가는 비행기의 한 좌석이 약 3 평방 미터의 해빙을 녹이는 약 1 톤의 탄소를 생산한다는 것은 결코 그녀의 마음을 건드리지 않았을 것이며, 그녀가 수백 개의 항공편을 비행했을 가능성이 큽니까. 부유하고 유명한 사람뿐만 아니라 거의 모든 공적 인물, 거의 모든 교사를 포함하여, 정치적으로 올바른 압력을 받고, 이는 서구 민주주의에서, 지금 사회 민주주의를 의미(신마르크스주의자 - 즉, 희석 공산주의자) 자신의 사회와 자신의 후손의 파괴를 위해 일하는 제 3 세계 우월주의자. 그래서,그 부족 of 교육, 경험, 정보 (그리고 기본적인 상식), 전혀 공개 발언을 금지해야, 완전히 모든 미디어를 지배, 지적이고 문명화 된 민주주의, 다양성과 평등을 선호해야한다는 인상을 만드는, 진실은 이들이 문제가 아닌 솔루션이며, 그들 자신은 문명의 주요 원수입니다. 민주주의 2nd 에드 (2019) 및 다른 사람에 의해 내 자살을 참조하십시오. (shrink)

Estados Unidos y el mundo están en el proceso de colapso de un crecimiento excesivo de la población, la mayoría de ella para el siglo pasado, y ahora todo ello, debido a la 3ª gente del mundo. El consumo de recursos y la adición de 4 mil millones más CA. 2100 colapsarán la civilización industrial y traerán hambre, enfermedad, violencia y guerra a una escala asombrosa. La tierra pierde al menos el 1% de su suelo vegetal cada año, por lo (...) que se acerca a 2100, la mayor parte de su capacidad de cultivo de alimentos se habrá ido. Miles de millones morirán y la guerra nuclear es segura. En Estados Unidos, esto está siendo enormemente acelerado por la inmigración masiva y la reproducción de inmigrantes, combinada con los abusos hechos posible por la democracia. La naturaleza humana depravada convierte inexorablemente el sueño de la democracia y la diversidad en una pesadilla de delincuencia y pobreza. China seguirá abrumar a América y al mundo, siempre y cuando mantenga la dictadura que limita el egoísmo. La causa raíz del colapso es la incapacidad de nuestra psicología innata para adaptarse al mundo moderno, lo que lleva a las personas a tratar a las personas no relacionadas como si tuvieran intereses comunes. La idea de los derechos humanos es una fantasía malvada promovida por los izquierdistas para atraer la atención de la destrucción despiadada de la tierra por una maternidad sin restricciones del tercer mundo. Esto, además de la ignorancia de la biología básica y la psicología, conduce a los delirios de ingeniería social de los parcialmente educados que controlan las sociedades democráticas. Pocos entienden que si usted ayuda a una persona a lastimar a alguien más, no hay almuerzo gratis y cada artículo que alguien consume destruye la tierra más allá de la reparación. En consecuencia, las políticas sociales en todas partes son insostenibles y, una por una, todas las sociedades sin estrictos controles sobre el egoísmo se derrumbarán en la anarquía o la dictadura. Los hechos más básicos, casi nunca mencionados, son que no hay suficientes recursos en Estados Unidos o en el mundo para levantar un porcentaje significativo de los pobres de la pobreza y mantenerlos allí. El intento de hacer esto es la quiebra de Estados Unidos y la destrucción del mundo. La capacidad de la tierra para producir alimentos disminuye diariamente, al igual que nuestra calidad genética. Y ahora, como siempre, de lejos el mayor enemigo de los pobres es el de otros pobres y no los ricos. Sin cambios dramáticos e inmediatos, no hay esperanzas de evitar el colapso de América, o cualquier país que siga un sistema democrático. (shrink)

This paper advances the somewhat unphilosophical thesis that “Trump is gross” to draw attention to the need to take matters of taste seriously in politics. I begin by exploring the slipperiness of distinctions between aesthetics, epistemology, and ethics, subsequently suggesting that we may need to pivot toward the aesthetic to understand and respond to the historical moment we inhabit. More specically, I suggest that, in order to understand how Donald Trump was elected President of the United States and in order (...) to stem the damage that preceded this and will ensue from it, we need to understand the power of political taste (and distaste, including disgust) as both a force of resistance and as a force of normalization. (shrink)

To understand fully the contemporary imposition of capitalist class power, we need to consider not only social relations and neoliberal economic doctrines, but also academic and vernacular cultural contexts, including social critique, within which neoliberalism has been ideologically tailored and practically applied. Among the vernacular cultural contexts, religion – related to deepest human identifications, feelings and ideas about the nature of reality – certainly represents such an unavoidable political resource, inseparable from secular ideologies of a given social world. Taking this (...) into account, we will try to show how neoliberalism was built in a specific context, developing governmental approaches relative to elements of progressive critique, and has eventually succeeded to legitimize new mechanisms of capitalist accumulation, linking them, among other things, to specific religious “externalities”. We will suggest that the satisfactory explanation of profound changes in the contemporary religious life, referred to as the emergence of “New Age spirituality”, is only possible if we understand them as an integral part of the processes of neoliberalization. This does not mean that we are trying to reduce a complex multitude of contemporary spiritual practices to a simple one-dimensional reflex of neoliberalization, but rather to suggest that only such an approach can complement the omissions and correct the misconceptions of various inquiries that analyze New Age spirituality using the frameworks of postmodern culture and/or consumer society. By doing this, we wil discuss not only countercultural spirituality, but also neoliberal social epistemology and different critical aproaches to understanding it. (shrink)

Liberalism, historically, is closely associated with increased toleration, so it is unsurprising that a variety of contemporary authors (Hampton, Kukathas, Barry, Ten) consider toleration to be “the substantive heart of liberalism” (Hampton 1989, 802). The precise role of toleration in liberalism, though, is unclear; different liberals have different views. In this essay, I will discuss three sorts of liberal theories and indicate how they approach questions of toleration, arguing that one of them supports toleration of more sorts of activities (including (...) speech acts and lifestyles) than the others. While I think this is reason to favor that sort of theory, I will not defend that claim. Some reasonably think (and defend the view) that though toleration is of value, its limits should be drawn more narrowly. (shrink)

I take a dim view of this absurdly overpraised book, marred as it is is by errors of fact, interpretation and method and surprisingly uniformed (as it appears to be) about Russian history. It shows what can go wrong with Skinnerite intellectual history in the hands of somebody less gifted than Skinner himself.

This article challenges the prevailing notion of feminist freedom rooted in individual choice, influenced by neoliberal ideology. While choice is integral, it argues for a broader perspective acknowledging systemic inequalities shaping women's options. Highlighting the flawed promises of neoliberalism, it discusses how economic disparities and workplace discrimination hinder genuine choice. It advocates for policies promoting economic justice, workplace equality, and reproductive rights as essential for feminist freedom. Ultimately, it calls for collective action to dismantle barriers and create a society where (...) all women have the genuine power to shape their lives. (shrink)