Mills' Doubts about Freedom under Socialism

1979 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 231-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Arneson
Keyword(s):  
Social Organization ◽  
Private Property ◽  
John Stuart Mill ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Future Time ◽  
Political Tradition ◽  
Property System ◽  
The Right

John Stuart Mill is one of the very few philosophical representatives of the liberal political tradition to have given a detailed and sympathetic examination of the socialist critique of private property. While endorsing many of the extreme criticisms of the existing property system that serve as premises in arguments for socialism, Mill is definitely opposed to recommending socialism as an expedient for the present and inclined to be skeptical of the idea that at some future time socialism will be the right form of social organization. Prominent among the various reasons which incline Mill to this skepticism is a concern that socialism poses a threat to individual liberty. That concern I propose to examine in this essay.

Traditional property rights, common property, and mobility in semi-arid African pastoralist systems

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
RACHAEL E. GOODHUE ◽  
NANCY McCARTHY
Keyword(s):  
Social Welfare ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Grazing Land ◽  
Traditional System ◽  
Property System ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
Management Institutions ◽  
The Right

ABSTRACTTraditional pastoralist land management institutions in sub-Saharan Africa have been stressed by an increasing human population and related forces, including private enclosure of grazing land; government-sponsored privatization; and the increasing prevalence of violent conflicts and livestock theft. We model the incompleteness and flexibility of traditional grazing rights using fuzzy set theory. We compare individual and social welfare under the traditional system to individual and social welfare under a private property system and a common property system. Whether the traditional system is preferred to private property depends on whether the value of mobility, as defined by the traditional system, is more valuable than the right of exclusion inherent in private property. We find that under some conditions the imprecision which characterizes traditional rights can result in higher social returns than a common property regime characterized by complete symmetric rights across all members of the user group and complete exclusion of non-members.

Rights to Liberty in Purely Private Matters: Part II

1990 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Riley
Keyword(s):  
Religious Faith ◽  
John Stuart Mill ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Economic Power ◽  
Free Society ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Drugs And Alcohol ◽  
Reading Materials ◽  
The Right ◽  
Modern Mass

A claim that certain purely private matters should be beyond the reach of society's laws, moral rules, and other customs is central to the distinctive liberalism of John Stuart Mill. On Liberty, perhaps the most eloquent defense of individual liberty ever written, laments the hostility allegedly displayed in modern mass societies toward “the right of each individual to act [in private matters] as seems good to his judgement and inclinations” (1859, p. 271n.). In Mill's view, a free society must design its institutions with due regard for what he terms “individuality.” That is, public authority, whether in the form of law, customary opinion, or economic power, must be self-limiting so that it does not interfere with the rights of individuals to choose as they like with respect to such private concerns as religious faith, reading materials, living companions, and consumption of drugs and alcohol. Individuals and voluntary groups should be permitted to do whatever they prefer within their private spheres even if everyone else in society dislikes what they do, is annoyed by them, and actually chooses not to be around them or to befriend them (1859, pp. 276–91).

Der Spielraum bei der Vermarktung von Waldleistungen ist eingeschränkt (Essay) | The scope for the commercialization of forest services is limited (essay)

2009 ◽  
Vol 160 (8) ◽  
pp. 228-231
Author(s):  
Hansruedi Walther
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Wood Products ◽  
Forest Owner ◽  
Free Access ◽  
School Class ◽  
Market Niche ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

A forest owner can only commercialize non-wood products and services within a tightly restricted market niche. On account of free access being permitted to the forest it is impossible to deny to third parties the consumption of many non-wood products and services: everybody has the right to be in the forest for recreation. As a result many non-wood services cannot be commercialized by the forest owner, or not exclusively. What would seem unthinkable elsewhere on private property seems to be taken for granted in the forest: third parties may take products from the forest and even sell them without being the forest owners. For certain nonwood services or products, such as the installation of rope parks or for burial in the forest, the organizer must conclude an agreement with the forest owner or draw up a contract for servitude or benefit. In addition, for these activities a permit from the Forestry Department is necessary. On the other hand, for an itinerant school class or for the production of forest honey neither a binding regulation with the forest owner nor a permit from the Forestry service is necessary, provided that no constructions are erected in the forest. The only exclusive right which remains to the forest owner, besides the sale of his property, is the exploitation of his trees within the legal framework.

De zaak van Rechter Grootaert en de strijd om het Nederlands in Belgisch-Congo. Een symbooldossier uit de jaren vijftig

2008 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-46
Author(s):  
Bert Govaerts
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Free State ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
In De Praktijk ◽  
French Speaking ◽  
Congo Free State ◽  
The Right ◽  
Belgian Congo

In 1908 verwierf België de souvereiniteit over de voormalige Congo Vrijstaat, die particulier bezit van koning Leopold II was geweest. De nieuwe kolonie kreeg een soort grondwet, het Koloniale Charter. Artikel 3 daarvan bepaalde dat er in Belgisch-Congo taalvrijheid heerste, maar ook dat de Belgen er dezelfde taalrechten en -bescherming zouden genieten als in het moederland. Uiterlijk tegen 1913 moesten speciale decreten de taalregeling in rechtszaken en in de administratie vastleggen. Die afspraak werd niet gehonoreerd. De decreten kwamen er niet en de kolonie werd in de praktijk exclusief Franstalig. Een klein aantal Vlaamse koloniale ambtenaren verzette zich daar tegen en boekte ook beperkte successen, op plaatselijk niveau. Een doorbraak kwam er pas in de nadagen van de kolonie, toen een Vlaams magistraat, Jozef Grootaert, het recht opeiste om in het Nederlands te vonnissen. Pas na een lang en bitter gevecht, uitgevochten tot op regeringsniveau en mee gekleurd door allerlei persoonlijke motieven, werd uiteindelijk in 1956, meer dan veertig jaar later dan afgesproken, een decreet over het gebruik van de talen bij het koloniale gerecht goedgekeurd. Over een decreet i.v.m. bestuurzaken raakte men het niet meer eens voor de onafhankelijkheid van de kolonie in 1960. In het onafhankelijke Congo was er voor het Nederlands geen (officiële) plaats.________The Case of Judge Grootaert and the struggle for Dutch in the Belgian CongoIn 1908 Belgium acquired the sovereignty over the former Congo Free State, which had been the private property of king Leopold II. The new colony was granted a kind of constitution, the Colonial Charter. Article 3 of this charter provided not only that there would be freedom of language in the Belgian Congo, but also that the Belgians in that country would enjoy the same rights and protection of their language as they had in their motherland. The language regulation for court cases and the administration was to be laid down in special decrees by 1913 at the latest. That agreement was not honoured. The decrees failed to be drawn up and in practice the colony became exclusively French speaking. A small number of Flemish colonial officials resisted against this situation and in fact obtained some limited successes on a local level. A breakthrough finally occurred in the latter years of the colony, when a Flemish magistrate, Jozef Grootaert claimed the right to pronounce judgement in Dutch. Only after a long and bitter struggle that was fought out until the bitter end on a governmental level and that was also characterized by all kinds of personal motives, a decree about the use of languages at the colonial court was finally approved in 1956, more than forty years after it had been agreed. It proved to be no longer possible to reach agreement about a decree concerning administrative matters before the independence of the colony in 1960. In the independent Congo Republic no (official) role was reserved for Dutch.

The Right to Private Property. Jeremy Waldron

Ethics ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 201-204
Author(s):  
Hillel Steiner
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
The Right

scholarly journals Toleration as the Balance Between Liberty and Security

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Elisabetta Galeotti ◽  
Federica Liveriero
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Harm Principle ◽  
Social Tolerance ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Harm Principle

AbstractTraditionally, an adequate strategy to deal with the tension between liberty and security has been toleration, for the latter allows the maximization of individual liberty without endangering security, since it embraces the limits set by the harm principle and the principle of self-defense of the liberal order. The area outside the boundary clearly requires repressive measures to protect the security and the rights of all. In this paper, we focus on the balance of liberty and security afforded by toleration, analyzing how this strategy works in highly conflictual contexts and sorting out the different sets of reason that might motivate individual to assume a tolerant attitude. We contend that toleration represents a reliable political solution to conflicts potentially threatening social security when it is coupled with social tolerance. Hence, we examine the reasons the agents may have for endorsing toleration despite disagreement and disapproval. In the range of these reasons, we argue that the right reasons are those preserving the moral and epistemic integrity of the agent. The right reasons are however not accessible to everyone, as for example is the case with (non-violent) religious fundamentalists. Only prudential reasons for toleration seem to be available to them. And yet, we argue that an open and inclusive democracy should in principle be hospitable towards prudential and pragmatic reasons as well, which may potentially lay the grounds for future cooperation. We conclude therefore that the tolerant society has room for the fundamentalists, granted that they do not resort to violence.

Governmental Censorship in War-Time

1942 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 837-849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byron Price
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Free Enterprise ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
News Stories ◽  
Radio Industry ◽  
Democratic Principles ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Right ◽  
Free People ◽  
Magazine Articles

To a free people, the very word “censorship” always has been distasteful. In its theory, it runs counter to all democratic principles; in practice, it can never be made popular, can never please anyone.Everything the censor does is contrary to all that we have been taught to believe is right and proper. The Post Office Department, for example, has two proud mottoes: “The mail must go through,” and “The privacy of the mail must be protected at all hazards.” But censorship stops the mail, it invades the privacy of the mail, it disposes of the mail as may seem best. The same thing holds true in the publishing business. Censorship limits the lively competition and free enterprise of reporters. It relegates many a scoop to the waste basket. It wields a blue pencil—both theoretical and actual—on news stories, magazine articles, advertisements, and photographs. Censorship also enters the radio industry, where it may edit scripts and in some cases stop entire programs.Yet even the most vociferous critics of the principle of censorship agree that in war-time some form and amount of censorship is a necessity. It then becomes not merely a curtailment of individual liberty, but a matter of national security. It is one of the many restrictions that must be imposed on people fighting for the right to throw off those restrictions when peace returns.

THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY RELATIONS ON THE INSTITUTIONS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vugar Nazarov ◽  
◽  
Jamal Hajiyev ◽  
Vasif Ahadov ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Development ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Scale Transformation ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Property Relations ◽  
Property System ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Impact

Local and foreign scientists are now paying growing attention to various issues of property and the philosophical and ethical, political, economic, institutional, social, psychological, and other aspects of its formation, taking into account the requirements of large-scale transformation, which primarily concern post-industrial areas of social development. In consequence, as modern studies rightfully point out, considering property relations, two general restrictions should be taken into account: this is an attempt to explain the absoluteness of their roles, the presence and content of all aspects of socio-economic relations by property relations; and the denial of the role of property as one of the most important factors determining the direction of social development in the present and future.This situation forces a new look at the economic policy of the state in this area, because any financial and monetary measures taken by the government will be doomed to failure if their implementation will be without interaction with the mechanisms of the private property system. The article defines the entrepreneurial sector of the region, its interaction with the institutions of the market system operating in all sectors and spheres of the region's economy, and also shows the influence of the development of property relations on the institutions of entrepreneurship.

Political, Interparty and Moral Crisis of the “War Communism” Policy in Kazakhstan 1920-1922

2016 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-155
Author(s):  
Erlan Medeubayev
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Public Life ◽  
Culture War ◽  
Commodity Money ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Moral Crisis ◽  
Bourgeois Culture ◽  
The Right ◽  
Sense Of Justice ◽  
The City

The article deals with the implementation of the complex of political and socio-economic measures of the Soviet state, called the policy of “war communism” in the cities of the Steppes and Turkestan in 1918-1921. Based on materials gleaned from various sources, the author endeavours to explore the processes of socialization and municipalization of private houses and dwellings, the nationalization of private property, which took place in the cities of the KazASSR and tassr; highlight some of the issues related to the subject policy of “war communism” in the cities of Kazakhstan. Various restrictive decrees and orders of the Soviet power in this period, aimed at limiting commodity-money relations and the prohibition of the right to private property put people into a rigid framework of survival. Approved in the sphere of public life, the ideology of “war communism” inevitably left its mark on the life of the city. This ideology was a special sociocultural phenomenon, strengthening other social psychology and ethics which propagandized the need to destroy the old “bourgeois” culture and create a new “proletarian culture”. “War Communism” as opposed to “bourgeois individualism” principles of the socialist community, broske vital foundations of society. A characteristic feature of this period is the legitimization of violence and its use as a universal remedy of solving all problems. Under the pressure of revolutionary changes the sense of justice in society underwent considerable transformation. The right to inviolability of private property was completely ignored. The ruling regime no longer recognized the existing legal mechanisms, replacing them with the amorphous concept of “revolutionary legality.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document