The Neo-Humean Status Quo

2019 ◽  
pp. 21-45
Author(s):  
Neil E. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Fundamental Ontology ◽  
The Core ◽  
Working Through ◽  
The Status ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
The Common

Chapter 2 presents the status quo of contemporary systematic metaphysics, detailing the core elements of the dominant neo-Humean metaphysic. The neo-Humean metaphysic is the foil against which the powers metaphysic is developed. Working through the more familiar framework helps readers appreciate metaphysical commitments they might have whilst demonstrating how a metaphysic is developed from a fundamental ontology. Popular neo-Humean accounts of possibility, properties, laws of nature, and causation are presented. The penultimate section of the chapter runs through some of the common objections to those aspects of the neo-Humean metaphysic presented in the previous sections.

Der arbeitsrechtliche Schutz der Crowdworker

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Walzer
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Employment Law ◽  
Work Organisation ◽  
Commercial Law ◽  
The Core ◽  
General Terms ◽  
The Status ◽  
Core Elements

The work organisation model of crowdwork almost paradigmatically stands for "work 4.0". Networking and digitalisation accelerate the already-existing tendency towards an "escape from the restrictions of German employment law", away from hierarchy and back to the market. The thesis addresses the disruptive dimension of this development and asks for adequate protection for crowdworkers. The protection of crowdworkers is examined on the basis of the leading German crowdwork platforms. As a first step, the thesis provides an overview of the fundamentals, as well as the factual and legal framework of crowdwork. Subsequently, it assesses the general terms and conditions of the platforms examined on the basis of general civil and commercial law. The core elements of the thesis are the analysis of the status quo of employment law protection de lege lata, as well as the examination whether and to what extent the legal protection for this form of employment can and must be extended de lege ferenda.

The Powers Metaphysic

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil E. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Potential Interaction ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Repeated Application ◽  
Fundamental Ontology ◽  
The World ◽  
The Status ◽  
Foundational Ontology ◽  
Interaction Types

Systematic metaphysics is defined by its task of solving metaphysical problems through the repeated application of a single, fundamental ontology. The dominant contemporary metaphysic is that of neo-Humeanism, built on a static ontology typified by its rejection of basic causal and modal features. This book offers and develops a radically distinct metaphysic, one that turns the status quo on its head. Starting with a foundational ontology of inherently causal properties known as ‘powers’, a metaphysic is developed that appeals to powers in explanations of causation, persistence, laws, and modality. Powers are properties that have their causal natures internal to them: they are responsible for the effects in the world. A unique account of powers is developed that understands this internal nature in terms of a blueprint of potential interaction types. After the presentation of the powers ontology, it is put to work in offering solutions to broad metaphysical puzzles, some of which take on different forms in light of the new tools that are available. The defence of the ontology comes from the virtues of metaphysic it can be used to develop. Particular attention is paid to the problems of causation and persistence, simultaneously solving them as it casts them in a new light. The resultant powers metaphysic is offered as a systematic alternative to neo-Humeanism.

Accommodations

Outsiders ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 111-134
Author(s):  
Zachary Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Meaningful Change ◽  
Common Experience ◽  
Exchange Of Information ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
Vexing Problem

Accommodations are a common feature of life, but a vexing problem in civil rights law. To accommodate is to disrupt the status quo, to regard another, to recognize one’s needs and humanity. Accommodations can be a powerful thing. Even brief accommodations are an exchange of information, which become crucial experiences, as they force us to reckon with a harsh truth: The idea that all people are created equal is a legal command, not a practical description. We all have different needs and capabilities, different beliefs and wants. We accommodate not to erase these differences but to respect them. As a vehicle to realize our ambitions, and a functional means to make equality real for everyone in need of respect, accommodations are a way to bring outsiders in. As a result, accommodation is the antidote to modern discrimination. As we turn inward, as individuality becomes the common experience, accommodation is the right tool for our time. It is a means of making meaningful change.

Blocking Coalitions and Fairness in Asset Markets and Asymmetric Information Economies

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anuj Bhowmik ◽  
Maria Gabriella Graziano
Keyword(s):  
Asymmetric Information ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Veto Power ◽  
Asset Markets ◽  
The Core ◽  
Information Models ◽  
The Status ◽  
Initial Improvement ◽  
Core Allocations ◽  
Asymmetric Information Economies

AbstractThis paper analyses two properties of the core in a two-period exchange economy under uncertainty: the veto power of arbitrary sized coalitions; and coalitional fairness of core allocations. We study these properties in relation to classical (static) and sequential (dynamic) core notions and apply our results to asset markets and asymmetric information models. We develop a formal setting where consumption sets have no lower bound and impose a series of general restrictions on the first period trades of each agent. All our results are applications of the same lemma about improvements to an allocation that is either non-core or non-coalitionally fair. Roughly speaking, the lemma states that if all the members of a coalition achieve a better allocation in some way (for instance, by blocking the status quo allocation or because they envy the net trade of other coalitions) then an alternative improvement can be obtained through a perturbation of the initial improvement.

Social Imperialism and Wilhelmine Germany

1979 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian L. D. Forbes
Keyword(s):  
Political System ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Domestic Policy ◽  
The Political ◽  
Social Democrat ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Interpretive Scheme

In recent times the historiography of the Wilhelmine Reich has clearly reflected the influence of Eckart Kehr and of later historians who have adopted and developed his work. The Rankean dogma of the Primat der Aussenpolitik (primacy of foreign policy) has been replaced by a new slogan, Primat der Innenpolitik (primacy of domestic policy). The resultant interpretive scheme is by now quite familiar. The social structure of the Bismarckean Reich, it is said, was shaken to its foundations by the impact of industrialization. A growing class of industrialists sought to break the power of the feudal agrarian class, and a rapidly developing proletariat threatened to upset the status quo. The internecine struggle between industrialists and agrarians was dangerous for both and for the state, since the final beneficiary might be the proletariat. Consequently agrarians and industrialists closed their ranks against the common social democrat enemy and sought to tame the proletariat, which had grown restive under the impact of the depression, by means of a Weltpolitik which would obviate the effects of the depression, heal the economy, and vindicate the political system responsible for such impressive achievements. Hans-Ulrich Wehler and others call this diversionary strategy against the proletarian threat social imperialism; and this, it is said, is the domestic policy primarily responsible for Wilhelmine imperialism.

scholarly journals Why Voting? A Welfare Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz Drexl ◽  
Andreas Kleiner
Keyword(s):  
Decision Rule ◽  
Welfare Analysis ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Majority Voting ◽  
Qualified Majority ◽  
Monetary Transfers ◽  
The Status ◽  
Common Objection ◽  
The Common ◽  
Strategy Proof

A committee decides collectively whether to accept a given proposal or to maintain the status quo. Committee members are privately informed about their valuations and monetary transfers are possible. According to which rule should the committee make its decision? We consider strategy-proof and anonymous mechanisms and solve for the decision rule that maximizes utilitarian welfare, which takes monetary transfers to an external agency explicitly into account. For regular distributions of preferences, we find that it is optimal to exclude monetary transfers and to decide by qualified majority voting. This sheds new light on the common objection that criticizes voting for its inefficiency. (JEL D71, D72, D82)

scholarly journals Valuing Compromise for the Common Good

Daedalus ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 142 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Gutmann ◽  
Dennis Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Institutional Reforms ◽  
Short Supply ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Common Mistake ◽  
Permanent Campaign ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common

Pursuing the common good in a pluralist democracy is not possible without making compromises. Yet the spirit of compromise is in short supply in contemporary American politics. The permanent campaign has made compromise more difficult to achieve, as the uncompromising mindset suitable for campaigning has come to dominate the task of governing. To begin to make compromise more feasible and the common good more attainable, we need to appreciate the distinctive value of compromise and recognize the misconceptions that stand in its way. A common mistake is to assume that compromise requires finding the common ground on which all can agree. That undermines more realistic efforts to seek classic compromises, in which each party gains by sacrificing something valuable to the other, and together they serve the common good by improving upon the status quo. Institutional reforms are desirable, but they, too, cannot get off the ground without the support of leaders and citizens who learn how and when to adopt a compromising mindset.

scholarly journals The Role of Anger in Motivating Leadership

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iona Heath ◽  
Anna Stavdal ◽  
Johann Agust Sigurdsson
Keyword(s):  
Structural Violence ◽  
Core Values ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
The Core ◽  
The World ◽  
The Status ◽  
Working Day

As doctors, we see every working day the pervasive effects of different forms of structural violence and discrimination that undermine the hopes and aspirations of those on the losing side. This leads to powerlessness, fear and anger. Anger is not only forward facing but also directed toward, systems, institutions, governments—rather than individuals. At its best it is a protest against the status quo. We point out that leadership is one of the core values of our professionalism. In the light of what we see and hear, we have a responsibility to use the anger that this engenders within us to speak truth to power: this speaking is leadership. Our message is: feel the fear and the anger, use it to change the world, and enfold leadership in hope and the pursuit of justice.

Euroconstitutionalism and its Discontents

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Gerstenberg
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
National Level ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Civil Society Organizations ◽  
Nation State ◽  
Final Word ◽  
Common View ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common ◽  
Domestic Level

This book addresses the question of social constitutionalism, especially with regard to its role in the contemporary European project. For reasons of history and democracy, Europeans share a deep commitment to social constitutionalism. But at the same time, Europeans are concerned about an overconstitutionalization and the balancing-away of less-favoured rights, leading to the entrenchment of the status quo and stifling of the living constitutionalism and democracy. The book challenges the common view that constitutionalization means de-politicization. Without claiming for themselves the final word, courts can exert a more indirect—forum-creative and agenda-setting—role in the process of an ongoing clarification of the meaning of a right. In exerting this role, courts rely less on a pre-existing consensus, but a potential consensus is sufficient: courts can induce debate and deliberation that leads to consensus in a non-hierarchical dialogue in which the conflicting parties, state actors, civil society organizations, and the diverse stakeholders themselves develop flexible substantive standards that interpret constitutional requirements, often over repeat litigation. The CJEU and the ECtHR—as courts beyond the nation state—in their constitutionalizing jurisprudence are able to constructively re-open and re-politicize controversies that are blocked at the national level, or which cannot be resolved at the domestic level. But, crucially, the understanding of constitutional framework-principles is itself subject to revision and reconsideration as the experience of dealing with the diverse national contexts of discovery and application accumulates. This democratic-experimentalist process lies at the heart of the distinctive model of contemporary Euroconstitutionalism.

Desperately seeking the good society

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 636-654
Author(s):  
Gill Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Social Structures ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Good Society ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common ◽  
Northern City

Working towards the ‘good society’ is an important aspiration to hold, but equally its subjectivity complicates the realisation for all – each person’s view of what ‘good’ means in relation to society differs. The notion is also open to statutory appropriation and mainstreaming using rhetoric to suggest its centrality to governmental thinking, but the reality reveals policy and practice, which undermines the accomplishment of social justice and thus a good society. This paper seeks to explore this complexity through dissecting the processes of representation of the ‘good society’ in theory and in practice. The paper will argue that the ‘good society’ might be termed a doxic construct. Bourdieu used ‘doxa’ to explain how arbitrariness shapes people’s acceptance of their place in the world, the covert process is ‘internalised’, seemingly objectively, into the ‘social structures and mental structures’, producing a universal and accepted knowledge of something (Bourdieu, 1977 ). The possibility of difference is undermined; thus, the varied needs and contexts of people’s lived realities are consumed within prevailing normative narratives. Foucault (cited in Simon, 1971 : 198) referred to a ‘system of limits’ and Bourdieu (1977: 164) ‘ sense of limits’, both authors will assist in seeking to uncover how such invisible practices limit and constrain the imagining of possibilities beyond the taken-for-granted. The paper argues that community development can be a catalyst to challenge this invisibility by utilising Freire’s ( 1970 ) conscientisation, enabling people to recognise structural oppression to challenge the status quo. This paper will draw on examples offered within a northern city to build on Knight’s, 2015 research, which posed the question ‘[w]hat kind of society do we want?’, identifying, when asked, a hunger for change. The paper explores whether there is a desire to overturn the predominant individualism of the neoliberal era to reignite the notion of the common good.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document