- Table View
- List View
Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better
by Rob ReichThe troubling ethics and politics of philanthropyIs philanthropy, by its very nature, a threat to today’s democracy? Though we may laud wealthy individuals who give away their money for society’s benefit, Just Giving shows how such generosity not only isn’t the unassailable good we think it to be but might also undermine democratic values and set back aspirations of justice. Big philanthropy is often an exercise of power, the conversion of private assets into public influence. And it is a form of power that is largely unaccountable, often perpetual, and lavishly tax-advantaged. The affluent—and their foundations—reap vast benefits even as they influence policy without accountability. And small philanthropy, or ordinary charitable giving, can be problematic as well. Charity, it turns out, does surprisingly little to provide for those in need and sometimes worsens inequality.These outcomes are shaped by the policies that define and structure philanthropy. When, how much, and to whom people give is influenced by laws governing everything from the creation of foundations and nonprofits to generous tax exemptions for donations of money and property. Rob Reich asks: What attitude and what policies should democracies have concerning individuals who give money away for public purposes? Philanthropy currently fails democracy in many ways, but Reich argues that it can be redeemed. Differentiating between individual philanthropy and private foundations, the aims of mass giving should be the decentralization of power in the production of public goods, such as the arts, education, and science. For foundations, the goal should be what Reich terms “discovery,” or long-time-horizon innovations that enhance democratic experimentalism. Philanthropy, when properly structured, can play a crucial role in supporting a strong liberal democracy.Just Giving investigates the ethical and political dimensions of philanthropy and considers how giving might better support democratic values and promote justice.
Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better
by Rob ReichThe troubling ethics and politics of philanthropyIs philanthropy, by its very nature, a threat to today’s democracy? Though we may laud wealthy individuals who give away their money for society’s benefit, Just Giving shows how such generosity not only isn’t the unassailable good we think it to be but might also undermine democratic values and set back aspirations of justice. Big philanthropy is often an exercise of power, the conversion of private assets into public influence. And it is a form of power that is largely unaccountable, often perpetual, and lavishly tax-advantaged. The affluent—and their foundations—reap vast benefits even as they influence policy without accountability. And small philanthropy, or ordinary charitable giving, can be problematic as well. Charity, it turns out, does surprisingly little to provide for those in need and sometimes worsens inequality.These outcomes are shaped by the policies that define and structure philanthropy. When, how much, and to whom people give is influenced by laws governing everything from the creation of foundations and nonprofits to generous tax exemptions for donations of money and property. Rob Reich asks: What attitude and what policies should democracies have concerning individuals who give money away for public purposes? Philanthropy currently fails democracy in many ways, but Reich argues that it can be redeemed. Differentiating between individual philanthropy and private foundations, the aims of mass giving should be the decentralization of power in the production of public goods, such as the arts, education, and science. For foundations, the goal should be what Reich terms “discovery,” or long-time-horizon innovations that enhance democratic experimentalism. Philanthropy, when properly structured, can play a crucial role in supporting a strong liberal democracy.Just Giving investigates the ethical and political dimensions of philanthropy and considers how giving might better support democratic values and promote justice.
Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better
by Rob ReichThe troubling ethics and politics of philanthropyIs philanthropy, by its very nature, a threat to today’s democracy? Though we may laud wealthy individuals who give away their money for society’s benefit, Just Giving shows how such generosity not only isn’t the unassailable good we think it to be but might also undermine democratic values and set back aspirations of justice. Big philanthropy is often an exercise of power, the conversion of private assets into public influence. And it is a form of power that is largely unaccountable, often perpetual, and lavishly tax-advantaged. The affluent—and their foundations—reap vast benefits even as they influence policy without accountability. And small philanthropy, or ordinary charitable giving, can be problematic as well. Charity, it turns out, does surprisingly little to provide for those in need and sometimes worsens inequality.These outcomes are shaped by the policies that define and structure philanthropy. When, how much, and to whom people give is influenced by laws governing everything from the creation of foundations and nonprofits to generous tax exemptions for donations of money and property. Rob Reich asks: What attitude and what policies should democracies have concerning individuals who give money away for public purposes? Philanthropy currently fails democracy in many ways, but Reich argues that it can be redeemed. Differentiating between individual philanthropy and private foundations, the aims of mass giving should be the decentralization of power in the production of public goods, such as the arts, education, and science. For foundations, the goal should be what Reich terms “discovery,” or long-time-horizon innovations that enhance democratic experimentalism. Philanthropy, when properly structured, can play a crucial role in supporting a strong liberal democracy.Just Giving investigates the ethical and political dimensions of philanthropy and considers how giving might better support democratic values and promote justice.
Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better
by Rob ReichThe troubling ethics and politics of philanthropyIs philanthropy, by its very nature, a threat to today’s democracy? Though we may laud wealthy individuals who give away their money for society’s benefit, Just Giving shows how such generosity not only isn’t the unassailable good we think it to be but might also undermine democratic values and set back aspirations of justice. Big philanthropy is often an exercise of power, the conversion of private assets into public influence. And it is a form of power that is largely unaccountable, often perpetual, and lavishly tax-advantaged. The affluent—and their foundations—reap vast benefits even as they influence policy without accountability. And small philanthropy, or ordinary charitable giving, can be problematic as well. Charity, it turns out, does surprisingly little to provide for those in need and sometimes worsens inequality.These outcomes are shaped by the policies that define and structure philanthropy. When, how much, and to whom people give is influenced by laws governing everything from the creation of foundations and nonprofits to generous tax exemptions for donations of money and property. Rob Reich asks: What attitude and what policies should democracies have concerning individuals who give money away for public purposes? Philanthropy currently fails democracy in many ways, but Reich argues that it can be redeemed. Differentiating between individual philanthropy and private foundations, the aims of mass giving should be the decentralization of power in the production of public goods, such as the arts, education, and science. For foundations, the goal should be what Reich terms “discovery,” or long-time-horizon innovations that enhance democratic experimentalism. Philanthropy, when properly structured, can play a crucial role in supporting a strong liberal democracy.Just Giving investigates the ethical and political dimensions of philanthropy and considers how giving might better support democratic values and promote justice.
Just Hierarchy: Why Social Hierarchies Matter in China and the Rest of the World
by Daniel A. BellA trenchant defense of hierarchy in different spheres of our lives, from the personal to the politicalAll complex and large-scale societies are organized along certain hierarchies, but the concept of hierarchy has become almost taboo in the modern world. Just Hierarchy contends that this stigma is a mistake. In fact, as Daniel Bell and Wang Pei show, it is neither possible nor advisable to do away with social hierarchies. Drawing their arguments from Chinese thought and culture as well as other philosophies and traditions, Bell and Wang ask which forms of hierarchy are justified and how these can serve morally desirable goals. They look at ways of promoting just forms of hierarchy while minimizing the influence of unjust ones, such as those based on race, sex, or caste.Which hierarchical relations are morally justified and why? Bell and Wang argue that it depends on the nature of the social relation and context. Different hierarchical principles ought to govern different kinds of social relations: what justifies hierarchy among intimates is different from what justifies hierarchy among citizens, countries, humans and animals, and humans and intelligent machines. Morally justified hierarchies can and should govern different spheres of our social lives, though these will be very different from the unjust hierarchies that have governed us in the past.A vigorous, systematic defense of hierarchy in the modern world, Just Hierarchy examines how hierarchical social relations can have a useful purpose, not only in personal domains but also in larger political realms.
Just Hierarchy: Why Social Hierarchies Matter in China and the Rest of the World
by Daniel A. BellA trenchant defense of hierarchy in different spheres of our lives, from the personal to the politicalAll complex and large-scale societies are organized along certain hierarchies, but the concept of hierarchy has become almost taboo in the modern world. Just Hierarchy contends that this stigma is a mistake. In fact, as Daniel Bell and Wang Pei show, it is neither possible nor advisable to do away with social hierarchies. Drawing their arguments from Chinese thought and culture as well as other philosophies and traditions, Bell and Wang ask which forms of hierarchy are justified and how these can serve morally desirable goals. They look at ways of promoting just forms of hierarchy while minimizing the influence of unjust ones, such as those based on race, sex, or caste.Which hierarchical relations are morally justified and why? Bell and Wang argue that it depends on the nature of the social relation and context. Different hierarchical principles ought to govern different kinds of social relations: what justifies hierarchy among intimates is different from what justifies hierarchy among citizens, countries, humans and animals, and humans and intelligent machines. Morally justified hierarchies can and should govern different spheres of our social lives, though these will be very different from the unjust hierarchies that have governed us in the past.A vigorous, systematic defense of hierarchy in the modern world, Just Hierarchy examines how hierarchical social relations can have a useful purpose, not only in personal domains but also in larger political realms.
Just Hierarchy: Why Social Hierarchies Matter in China and the Rest of the World
by Daniel Bell Wang PeiA trenchant defense of hierarchy in different spheres of our lives, from the personal to the politicalAll complex and large-scale societies are organized along certain hierarchies, but the concept of hierarchy has become almost taboo in the modern world. Just Hierarchy contends that this stigma is a mistake. In fact, as Daniel Bell and Wang Pei show, it is neither possible nor advisable to do away with social hierarchies. Drawing their arguments from Chinese thought and culture as well as other philosophies and traditions, Bell and Wang ask which forms of hierarchy are justified and how these can serve morally desirable goals. They look at ways of promoting just forms of hierarchy while minimizing the influence of unjust ones, such as those based on race, sex, or caste.Which hierarchical relations are morally justified and why? Bell and Wang argue that it depends on the nature of the social relation and context. Different hierarchical principles ought to govern different kinds of social relations: what justifies hierarchy among intimates is different from what justifies hierarchy among citizens, countries, humans and animals, and humans and intelligent machines. Morally justified hierarchies can and should govern different spheres of our social lives, though these will be very different from the unjust hierarchies that have governed us in the past.A vigorous, systematic defense of hierarchy in the modern world, Just Hierarchy examines how hierarchical social relations can have a useful purpose, not only in personal domains but also in larger political realms.
Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage
by Stephen MacedoThe institution of marriage stands at a critical juncture. As gay marriage equality gains acceptance in law and public opinion, questions abound regarding marriage's future. Will same-sex marriage lead to more radical marriage reform? Should it? Antonin Scalia and many others on the right warn of a slippery slope from same-sex marriage toward polygamy, adult incest, and the dissolution of marriage as we know it. Equally, many academics, activists, and intellectuals on the left contend that there is no place for monogamous marriage as a special status defined by law. Just Married demonstrates that both sides are wrong: the same principles of democratic justice that demand marriage equality for same-sex couples also lend support to monogamous marriage.Stephen Macedo displays the groundlessness of arguments against same-sex marriage and defends marriage as a public institution against those who would eliminate its special status or supplant it with private arrangements. Arguing that monogamy reflects and cultivates our most basic democratic values, Macedo opposes the legal recognition of polygamy, but agrees with progressives that public policies should do more to support nontraditional caring and caregiving relationships. Throughout, Macedo explores the meaning of contemporary marriage and the reasons for its fragility and its enduring significance. His defense of reformed marriage against slippery slope alarmists on the right, and radical critics of marriage on the left, vindicates the justice and common sense of the emerging consensus.Casting new light on today's debates over the future of marriage, Just Married lays the groundwork for a stronger institution.
Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage
by Stephen MacedoThe institution of marriage stands at a critical juncture. As gay marriage equality gains acceptance in law and public opinion, questions abound regarding marriage's future. Will same-sex marriage lead to more radical marriage reform? Should it? Antonin Scalia and many others on the right warn of a slippery slope from same-sex marriage toward polygamy, adult incest, and the dissolution of marriage as we know it. Equally, many academics, activists, and intellectuals on the left contend that there is no place for monogamous marriage as a special status defined by law. Just Married demonstrates that both sides are wrong: the same principles of democratic justice that demand marriage equality for same-sex couples also lend support to monogamous marriage.Stephen Macedo displays the groundlessness of arguments against same-sex marriage and defends marriage as a public institution against those who would eliminate its special status or supplant it with private arrangements. Arguing that monogamy reflects and cultivates our most basic democratic values, Macedo opposes the legal recognition of polygamy, but agrees with progressives that public policies should do more to support nontraditional caring and caregiving relationships. Throughout, Macedo explores the meaning of contemporary marriage and the reasons for its fragility and its enduring significance. His defense of reformed marriage against slippery slope alarmists on the right, and radical critics of marriage on the left, vindicates the justice and common sense of the emerging consensus.Casting new light on today's debates over the future of marriage, Just Married lays the groundwork for a stronger institution.
Just Policing
by Jake MonaghanPolicing is a source of perennial conflict and philosophical disagreement. Though the injustices of our world seemingly require some kind of policing, the police are often sources of injustice themselves. But this is not always a result of intentionally or negligently bad policing. Sometimes it is an unavoidable result of the injustices that emerge from interactions with other social systems. This raises an important question of just policing: how should police respond to the injustices built into the system? Just Policing attempts an answer, offering a theory of just policing in non-ideal contexts. Jake Monaghan argues that police discretion is not only unavoidable, but in light of non-ideal circumstances, valuable. This conflicts with a widespread but inchoate view of just policing, the legalist view that finds justice in faithful enforcement of the criminal code. But the criminal code leaves policing seriously underdetermined; full enforcement is neither possible nor desirable. So, police need an alternative normative framework for evaluating and guiding their exercise of power. Just Policing draws on research in political philosophy and the social sciences to engage a number of current controversies, both scholarly and popular, regarding the police. It critiques popular approaches to police abolitionism while defending normative limits on police power. The book offers a defense of police discretion against common objections and evaluates controversial issues in order maintenance, such as the policing of "vice" and homelessness, democratic control over policing, community policing initiatives, police collaborations and alternatives like mental health response teams, and possibilities for structural reform.
Just Policing
by Jake MonaghanPolicing is a source of perennial conflict and philosophical disagreement. Though the injustices of our world seemingly require some kind of policing, the police are often sources of injustice themselves. But this is not always a result of intentionally or negligently bad policing. Sometimes it is an unavoidable result of the injustices that emerge from interactions with other social systems. This raises an important question of just policing: how should police respond to the injustices built into the system? Just Policing attempts an answer, offering a theory of just policing in non-ideal contexts. Jake Monaghan argues that police discretion is not only unavoidable, but in light of non-ideal circumstances, valuable. This conflicts with a widespread but inchoate view of just policing, the legalist view that finds justice in faithful enforcement of the criminal code. But the criminal code leaves policing seriously underdetermined; full enforcement is neither possible nor desirable. So, police need an alternative normative framework for evaluating and guiding their exercise of power. Just Policing draws on research in political philosophy and the social sciences to engage a number of current controversies, both scholarly and popular, regarding the police. It critiques popular approaches to police abolitionism while defending normative limits on police power. The book offers a defense of police discretion against common objections and evaluates controversial issues in order maintenance, such as the policing of "vice" and homelessness, democratic control over policing, community policing initiatives, police collaborations and alternatives like mental health response teams, and possibilities for structural reform.
Just Price in the Markets: A History
by Charles R. GeisstA concise history of “just price,” from Aristotle to the present day The question of what constitutes a fair price has been at the center of market interactions since the time of Aristotle. Should a seller sell to the highest bidder, or is there some other standard, such as a morally defined price, to be applied? Charles R. Geisst traces the ways that philosophers, religious leaders, and economists have sought to answer that question, from antiquity through the modern era. Aristotle’s thinking on usury influenced the idea of pricing well into the Renaissance. In his view, money was barren and should not be used to beget more money. As trade became more extensive, the strictures placed on pricing by Aristotelian thinking began to fall away, replaced by Roman and common-law conceptions of value and interest. Geisst’s book follows the evolution of that thought—influenced along the way by figures such as Copernicus, Fibonacci, Adam Smith, Marx, Cassel, and Keynes—and charts parallel developments in European and Islamic notions of fair pricing. Today, pricing is seen as an economic inevitability, dictated by the laws of supply and demand. But this has not always been the case. As Geisst argues, the idea of a just price was once a moral concept, long before it was an economic one.
Just Price Theory: A Reassessment
by Joaquín ReyesThis book presents an original theory of the just price, and it is a welcome addition to scholarship on a radically underdeveloped field. This work reassesses the age-old idea that there is a just price of things, one that goes beyond the Scholastic tradition of the just price and its exclusive concern with commutative justice. There is more to just price theory than the concern for keeping equality of value between goods exchanged. Modern concerns over efficiency, autonomy, and distributive justice, can also find a place within a theory of the just price. The book:- Presents a new approach to just price theory through a broad analysis of different values and the incorporation of those conceptions into a wider normative framework- Argues that these different values ground varied conceptions of the just price, and- Promotes a virtue-based approach to price justification as an adequate framework for meeting the challenges that stem from each conceptionPerfect for scholars and students in the fields of jurisprudence, philosophy of private law, contract law, and political theory, this book makes a significant contribution to legal theory and the emerging field of the philosophy of economics.
Just Price Theory: A Reassessment
by Joaquín ReyesThis book presents an original theory of the just price, and it is a welcome addition to scholarship on a radically underdeveloped field. This work reassesses the age-old idea that there is a just price of things, one that goes beyond the Scholastic tradition of the just price and its exclusive concern with commutative justice. There is more to just price theory than the concern for keeping equality of value between goods exchanged. Modern concerns over efficiency, autonomy, and distributive justice, can also find a place within a theory of the just price. The book:- Presents a new approach to just price theory through a broad analysis of different values and the incorporation of those conceptions into a wider normative framework- Argues that these different values ground varied conceptions of the just price, and- Promotes a virtue-based approach to price justification as an adequate framework for meeting the challenges that stem from each conceptionPerfect for scholars and students in the fields of jurisprudence, philosophy of private law, contract law, and political theory, this book makes a significant contribution to legal theory and the emerging field of the philosophy of economics.
Just Property: Volume Two: Enlightenment, Revolution, and History
by Christopher PiersonProperty remains the bedrock of the societies we all inhabit. It underpins our core institutions - including families, states and economies - and it is the medium through which the intensifying politics of inequality is played out. There is plenty of evidence that its importance is increasing in a world of growing wealth inequality and depletion of natural resources. Volume Two of Just Property traces the development of ideas about property in the Western world from the early eighteenth century, through the Enlightenment and the experience of the French Revolution, to the critical stance of socialists and anarchists in the nineteenth century. It ranges across the thought of Bernard Mandeville, David Hume, Adam Smith, Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, the Abbe de Sieyes, Burke, Wollstonecraft, Charles Fourier, Karl Marx, Proudhon and Peter Kropotkin. Many themes persist from an earlier period, as does the influence of Christianity and the Roman Law but there are also many innovations. In general, the authority of God and the natural law recedes and the themes of utility and securing general welfare became more prominent. In the wake of Locke, labour, though sometimes in the form of 'past labour', that is capital, attains a new prominence. For its admirers, a newly-unfettered private property is the means of securing personal freedom, constraining authoritarian governments, promoting the arts and sciences, and delivering an unprecedented improvement in the material condition of the whole population. For its critics, private property is the central component in a new political economy of systemic and unlimited class exploitation. It penetrates everywhere and corrupts everything that it touches. With these arguments, we are clearly on the terrain of modernity, witnessing a set of arguments and counter-arguments with which we all still struggle.
Just Property: Volume Three: Property in an Age of Ideologies
by Christopher PiersonThis third and concluding volume of Just Property brings critical accounts of property right up to the present. The book is made up of five pairs of chapters located in five major ideological traditions of modernity: liberalism, libertarianism, social democracy, conservatism, and feminism. As before, the focus is on particular thinkers and their daring, puzzling and sometimes outrageous views. The concluding chapter returns to the project's opening questions about property and inequality and about property under the imperative of growth to limits. If we are to confront the enormous challenges that loom in front of us, we have, above all else, to think again, and quite radically, about the place of property in our collective lives.
Just Property: Volume Three: Property in an Age of Ideologies
by Christopher PiersonThis third and concluding volume of Just Property brings critical accounts of property right up to the present. The book is made up of five pairs of chapters located in five major ideological traditions of modernity: liberalism, libertarianism, social democracy, conservatism, and feminism. As before, the focus is on particular thinkers and their daring, puzzling and sometimes outrageous views. The concluding chapter returns to the project's opening questions about property and inequality and about property under the imperative of growth to limits. If we are to confront the enormous challenges that loom in front of us, we have, above all else, to think again, and quite radically, about the place of property in our collective lives.
Just Prospering? Plato and the Sophistic Debate about Justice (British Academy Monographs)
by Merrick AndersonJust Prospering? Plato and the Sophistic Debate about Justice introduces new research about the first secular discussions concerning the value of justice from the Western Tradition. In Part I, Anderson addresses the debates of the sophists, a group of politically minded intellectuals from the 5th Century BCE, considering relevant extant texts to produce the following conclusion: some of the sophists argued that being just was bad for the just individual, and that an individual would do well to be unjust instead, whereas others took it upon themselves to defend justice by arguing that the just life was best. Anderson continues in Part II to demonstrate that Plato, writing in the 4th Century, was aware of this debate and wanted to settle the matter himself. In his Republic, one of the great philosophical treatises of all time, he revives the earlier dialogue of the sophists to argue that the just life is the best life for human beings.
Just Prospering? Plato and the Sophistic Debate about Justice (British Academy Monographs)
by Merrick AndersonJust Prospering? Plato and the Sophistic Debate about Justice introduces new research about the first secular discussions concerning the value of justice from the Western Tradition. In Part I, Anderson addresses the debates of the sophists, a group of politically minded intellectuals from the 5th Century BCE, considering relevant extant texts to produce the following conclusion: some of the sophists argued that being just was bad for the just individual, and that an individual would do well to be unjust instead, whereas others took it upon themselves to defend justice by arguing that the just life was best. Anderson continues in Part II to demonstrate that Plato, writing in the 4th Century, was aware of this debate and wanted to settle the matter himself. In his Republic, one of the great philosophical treatises of all time, he revives the earlier dialogue of the sophists to argue that the just life is the best life for human beings.
Just Responsibility: A Human Rights Theory of Global Justice
by Brooke A. AckerlyIt has been well-established that many of the injustices that people around the world experience every day, from food insecurity to unsafe labor conditions and natural disasters, are the result of wide-scale structural problems of politics and economics. These are not merely random personal problems or consequences of bad luck or bad planning. Confronted by this fact, it is natural to ask what should or can we do to mitigate everyday injustices? In one sense, we answer this question when we buy the local homeless street newspaper, decide where to buy our clothes, remember our reusable bags when we shop, donate to disaster relief, or send letters to corporations about labor rights. But given the global scale of injustices related to poverty, environmental change, gender, and labor, can these individual acts really impact the seemingly intractable global social, political, and economic structures that perpetuate and exacerbate them? Moreover, can we respond to injustices in the world in ways that do more than just address their consequences? In this book, Brooke A. Ackerly both answers the question of what should we do, and shows that it's the wrong question to ask. To ask the right question, we need to ground our normative theory of global justice in the lived experience of injustice. Using a feminist critical methodology, she argues that what to do about injustice is not just an ethical or moral question, but a political question about assuming responsibility for injustice, regardless of our causal responsibility and extent of our knowledge of the injustice. Furthermore, it is a matter that needs to be guided by principles of human rights. As she argues, while many understand human rights as political goals or entitlements, they can also guide political strategy. Her aims are twofold: to present a theory of what it means to take responsibility for injustice and for ensuring human rights, as well as to develop a guide for how to take responsibility in ways that support local and global movements for transformative politics. In order to illustrate her theory and guide for action, Ackerly draws on fieldwork on the Rana Plaza collapse in 2013, the food crisis of 2008, and strategies from 125 activist organizations working on women's and labor rights across 26 countries. Just Responsibility integrates these ways of taking political responsibility into a rich theory of political community, accountability, and leadership in which taking responsibility for injustice itself transforms the fabric of political life.
JUST RESPONSIBILITY C: A Human Rights Theory of Global Justice
by Brooke A. AckerlyIt has been well-established that many of the injustices that people around the world experience every day, from food insecurity to unsafe labor conditions and natural disasters, are the result of wide-scale structural problems of politics and economics. These are not merely random personal problems or consequences of bad luck or bad planning. Confronted by this fact, it is natural to ask what should or can we do to mitigate everyday injustices? In one sense, we answer this question when we buy the local homeless street newspaper, decide where to buy our clothes, remember our reusable bags when we shop, donate to disaster relief, or send letters to corporations about labor rights. But given the global scale of injustices related to poverty, environmental change, gender, and labor, can these individual acts really impact the seemingly intractable global social, political, and economic structures that perpetuate and exacerbate them? Moreover, can we respond to injustices in the world in ways that do more than just address their consequences? In this book, Brooke A. Ackerly both answers the question of what should we do, and shows that it's the wrong question to ask. To ask the right question, we need to ground our normative theory of global justice in the lived experience of injustice. Using a feminist critical methodology, she argues that what to do about injustice is not just an ethical or moral question, but a political question about assuming responsibility for injustice, regardless of our causal responsibility and extent of our knowledge of the injustice. Furthermore, it is a matter that needs to be guided by principles of human rights. As she argues, while many understand human rights as political goals or entitlements, they can also guide political strategy. Her aims are twofold: to present a theory of what it means to take responsibility for injustice and for ensuring human rights, as well as to develop a guide for how to take responsibility in ways that support local and global movements for transformative politics. In order to illustrate her theory and guide for action, Ackerly draws on fieldwork on the Rana Plaza collapse in 2013, the food crisis of 2008, and strategies from 125 activist organizations working on women's and labor rights across 26 countries. Just Responsibility integrates these ways of taking political responsibility into a rich theory of political community, accountability, and leadership in which taking responsibility for injustice itself transforms the fabric of political life.
Just Security in an Undergoverned World
by Joris Larik Richard Ponzio William DurchJust Security in an Undergoverned World examines how humankind can manage global problems to achieve both security and justice in an age of antithesis. Global connectivity is increasing, visibly and invisiblyin trade, finance, culture, and informationhelping to spur economic growth, technological advance, and greater understanding and freedom, but global disconnects are growing as well. Ubiquitous electronics rely on high-value minerals scraped from the earth by miners kept poor by corruption and war. People abandon burning states for the often indifferent welcome of wealthier lands whose people, in turn, draw into themselves. Humanity's very success, underwritten in large part by lighting up gigatons of long-buried carbon for 200 years, now threatens humanity's future. The global governance institutions established after World War II to manage global threats, especially the twin scourges of war and poverty, have expanded in reach and impact, while paradoxically losing the political support of some of their wealthiest and most powerful members. Their problems mimic those of their members in struggling to adapt to new problems and maintain trust in norms and public bodies. This volume argues, however, that a properly mandated, managed, and modernized global architecture offers unparalleled potential to midwife solutions to intractable issuesfrom violent conflict and climate change to poverty and pandemic diseasethat transcend borders and the capacities of individual actors. It offers just security as a new framework for charing innovating solutions and strategies for effective and essential global governance.
Just Security in an Undergoverned World
Just Security in an Undergoverned World examines how humankind can manage global problems to achieve both security and justice in an age of antithesis. Global connectivity is increasing, visibly and invisiblyin trade, finance, culture, and informationhelping to spur economic growth, technological advance, and greater understanding and freedom, but global disconnects are growing as well. Ubiquitous electronics rely on high-value minerals scraped from the earth by miners kept poor by corruption and war. People abandon burning states for the often indifferent welcome of wealthier lands whose people, in turn, draw into themselves. Humanity's very success, underwritten in large part by lighting up gigatons of long-buried carbon for 200 years, now threatens humanity's future. The global governance institutions established after World War II to manage global threats, especially the twin scourges of war and poverty, have expanded in reach and impact, while paradoxically losing the political support of some of their wealthiest and most powerful members. Their problems mimic those of their members in struggling to adapt to new problems and maintain trust in norms and public bodies. This volume argues, however, that a properly mandated, managed, and modernized global architecture offers unparalleled potential to midwife solutions to intractable issuesfrom violent conflict and climate change to poverty and pandemic diseasethat transcend borders and the capacities of individual actors. It offers just security as a new framework for charing innovating solutions and strategies for effective and essential global governance.
Just Shelter: Gentrification, Integration, Race, and Reconstruction
by Ronald SundstromThe United States of America is experiencing a housing crisis, which, by some estimates, started in the early 2000s and was made worse by the financial crisis of the 2007-2008 recession. Hundreds of thousands of Americans lack decent and affordable housing or everyday shelter. Instead, they must live in tent encampments stowed in the niches of neighborhoods and under the freeway overpasses of many major U.S. cities, often in unsafe conditions. Signs of this crisis are all around: in the spikes of evictions, in nationwide problems with over- and under-development, and in the growing concerns about the sustainability of this nation's towns and cities in the face of global climate change. This crisis didn't arise from the specific circumstances of the housing market or shortfalls in the construction of new homes or increased labor and material costs. The current housing crisis is the result of state-sponsored discrimination in housing and land-use policy and the enforcement of racial and class-based discrimination by neighborhoods and cities. All of these phenomena have had long-lasting effects on access to housing and educational and economic opportunity. Just Shelter is a work of political philosophy that examines the core injustices of the contemporary U.S. housing crisis and its relation to enduring racial injustices. It examines the harms of segregation, and asks: are desegregation or integration morally required of our communities and societies? Are the concerns that are expressed about gentrification related to the moral and political concerns that we have with segregation? Is there a moral imperative, and would it be politically legitimate, for our communities and society to mitigate or stop gentrification? Just Shelter investigates gentrification, segregation, desegregation, integration, and homelessness. To achieve justice in social-spatial arrangements, federal, state, and local governments must prioritize the crafting and enforcement of housing policy that corrects the injustices of the past. If we do not address the history of racism in housing policy, we will never solve today's housing crisis.
Just Shelter: Gentrification, Integration, Race, and Reconstruction
by Ronald R. SundstromThe United States of America is experiencing a housing crisis, which, by some estimates, started in the early 2000s and was made worse by the financial crisis of the 2007-2008 recession. Hundreds of thousands of Americans lack decent and affordable housing or everyday shelter. Instead, they must live in tent encampments stowed in the niches of neighborhoods and under the freeway overpasses of many major U.S. cities, often in unsafe conditions. Signs of this crisis are all around: in the spikes of evictions, in nationwide problems with over- and under-development, and in the growing concerns about the sustainability of this nation's towns and cities in the face of global climate change. This crisis didn't arise from the specific circumstances of the housing market or shortfalls in the construction of new homes or increased labor and material costs. The current housing crisis is the result of state-sponsored discrimination in housing and land-use policy and the enforcement of racial and class-based discrimination by neighborhoods and cities. All of these phenomena have had long-lasting effects on access to housing and educational and economic opportunity. Just Shelter is a work of political philosophy that examines the core injustices of the contemporary U.S. housing crisis and its relation to enduring racial injustices. It examines the harms of segregation, and asks: are desegregation or integration morally required of our communities and societies? Are the concerns that are expressed about gentrification related to the moral and political concerns that we have with segregation? Is there a moral imperative, and would it be politically legitimate, for our communities and society to mitigate or stop gentrification? Just Shelter investigates gentrification, segregation, desegregation, integration, and homelessness. To achieve justice in social-spatial arrangements, federal, state, and local governments must prioritize the crafting and enforcement of housing policy that corrects the injustices of the past. If we do not address the history of racism in housing policy, we will never solve today's housing crisis.