scholarly journals The Dialectics of Sovereignty and Property

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Dellavalle
Keyword(s):  
Social Order ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Individual Property ◽  
Specific Content ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
First Case ◽  
Essential Components ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Private Domain

AbstractRespectively in the public andin the private spheres, both sovereignty and property are expressions of the turn to the primacy of the interests of the individual at the beginning of the Modern Ages: in the first case this primacy is related to the individual state, in the second to the individual economic actor. The centrality of individuality, as the most distinguishing feature of modern thinking, thus lies at the basis of the interconnection between the two concepts. This is developed according to three distinct patterns. In the light of the first pattern, sovereignty degenerates into a mere means in the service of defending private interests, thereby eluding its fundamental public function. On the other hand, from the perspective of the second pattern, individual property leaves the private domain, claiming absoluteness and presuming to replace the public dimension. Both these patterns reflect one-sided relations in which the two terms — sovereignty and property — merge in opposite ways, but always losing their specific content and rationale in the context of the social order. The third pattern is the only one in which sovereignty and property maintain their respective functions, with the two elements synergistically contributing to a social order in which public sphere and private dimension are both recognized as essential components. Here, public sovereignty and private property are co-essential insofar as sovereignty derives from individual will, private property is fundamental for the individual to pursue the personal self-realization that lies at the basis of his/ her legitimation of sovereignty, and — finally — public power is at the service of defending the rights and interests of all individuals.

scholarly journals The Normativity of Habermas’s Public Sphere from the Vantage Point of Its Evolution

2019 ◽  
pp. 47-65
Author(s):  
Maciej Hułas
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Private Property ◽  
The Public ◽  
Age Of Reason ◽  
Unique Character ◽  
Classical Setting ◽  
Bourgeois Culture ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
The Individual

The paper argues that the original normativity that provides the basis for Habermas’s model of the public sphere remains untouched at its core, despite having undergone some corrective alterations since the time of its first unveiling in the 1960s. This normative core is derived from two individual claims, historically articulated in the eighteenth-century’s “golden age” of reason and liberty as both sacred and self-evident: (1) the individual right to an unrestrained disposal of one’s private property; and (2) the individual right to formulate one’s opinion in the course of public debate. Habermas perceives the public sphere anchored to these two fundamental freedoms/rights as an arena of interactive opinion exchange with the capacity to solidly and reliably generate sound reason and public rationality. Despite its historical and cultural attachments to the bourgeois culture as its classical setting, Habermas’s model of the public sphere, due to its universal normativity, maintains its unique character, even if it has been thoroughly reformulated by social theories that run contrary to his original vision of the lifeworld, organized and ruled by autonomous rational individuals.     

Final Report of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure

1941 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 501-506
Author(s):  
James Hart
Keyword(s):  
Attorney General ◽  
Final Report ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
Administrative Procedures ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
Rule Making

What is undoubtedly the most thorough and comprehensive study ever made of Federal administrative procedure was completed with the submission to the Attorney General, in a letter dated January 22, 1941, of the final report of the Committee named. In its investigation and report, the Committee confined its attention to those Federal agencies that substantially affect private interests by their powers of rule-making and adjudication. To the study of their procedures, it assigned a staff of lawyer-investigators, which produced 27 mimeographed monographs, 13 of which have been printed as Sen. Doc. No. 186, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. In its interim report of January 31, 1940, the Committee thus described the methods being employed in the preparation of these monographic studies: “They have involved extended interviews with officials and employees of the agencies involved, with members of the public affected, and with attorneys who have represented clients before these agencies. Members of the Committee's staff have attended numerous hearings and other administrative proceedings as observers, and have closely examined the files of the agencies to discover the methods utilized in disposing of matters arising under the various statutes and regulations. Upon the completion of these investigations, the staff has prepared for the study of the Committee a preliminary report upon each agency, discussing in detail its administrative procedures. The report has been given to the officers of the affected agency for their consideration and comment. Thereafter, the full Committee has met with the agency's officers to discuss with them the facts and problems disclosed by the report.” (Final Report, pp. 254–255). The Committee held public hearings in June and July, 1940. In Chapter IX of its final report, it presents recommendations concerning a number of the individual agencies studied; and in Appendices B through M, it summarizes data collected on significant topics.

scholarly journals Value and Growth: Rethinking Basic Concepts in Lockean Liberalism

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Leigh Bailey ◽  
May Thorseth
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
John Locke ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Collective Good ◽  
Individual Property ◽  
Role Of Government ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Failure To Protect ◽  
The Individual

<p>This article argues that protection of the environment requires reconsidering basic liberal ideas relating to value and growth. It selects a central thinker in the liberal tradition, John Locke, as a starting point. The article first shows how Locke’s political writings at first glance might support a “possessive individualist” position that gives primacy to individuals and their rights to property in a way that blocks governmental action to protect the environment, much as some modern versions of liberalism and libertarianism maintain. However, there are other aspects of Locke’s writings that undermine this position. In particular, a reconsideration of his views on private property in combination with his views on the harm principle, the common good, and future generations can support the position that an individual’s right to exploit nature is indeed limited. These elements of Locke are strengthened considerably if Locke’s view of nature is updated by reconsidering nature as composed of ecosystems and as providing ecosystem goods and services. That land should continue to produce abundantly is foundational to Locke, and the failure to protect the ecosystems that provide key services supporting this abundance harms both the property of others and the viability of society: preservation of these constitute a collective good that transcends the individual good. The protection of ecosystem services also works to protect the value of individual holdings as well as the value of land still held in common. Finally, Locke’s writing supports the view that it is the role of government to act to protect the abundance of nature, even against the wishes of an individual property owner.</p><p><span>Article first published online: 25 Feb 2017</span></p>

Communicating water conservation: how can the public be engaged?

2004 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 33-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Howarth ◽  
S. Butler
Keyword(s):  
Water Conservation ◽  
Water Policy ◽  
Radio Station ◽  
Water Efficiency ◽  
Individual Property ◽  
The Public ◽  
Active Involvement ◽  
Success Stories ◽  
Environment Agency ◽  
The Individual

In 2001 the Environment Agency and Thames Water completed a collaborative research project “The Effectiveness of Marketing Campaigns in Achieving Water Efficiency Savings”. The project attempted to assess the effectiveness of a water efficiency campaign in a residential area of 8000 properties. The results showed that the campaign had no significant effect on water demand both at the individual property level and the total flow into the area. Responses to direct questions about the campaign indicated that at most 5% had noticed it despite the fact that 25% claimed to read the local newspaper and listen to the local radio station used for the campaign, and the fact that a leaflet was sent to all households. The market research provided some clues as to why the customer response to this campaign was so disappointing, principally because the public regard water as low priority compared to other environmental issues. Other research is reviewed that provide additional reasons for the unwillingness of the public to engage on this issue. This paper reviews “success stories” from Phoenix, Arizona and Singapore and identifies the main learning points from these programs. Article 14 of the Water Framework Directive calls for active involvement in water policy. An assessment is made of what this might mean for public participation in water conservation programs.

scholarly journals PUBLIC NEEDS AS CONDITION FOR LIMITATING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHT TO LAND

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellina Khashchina ◽  
Yuriy Ginzburg
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Economic Analysis Of Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Eastern European Countries ◽  
Economic Tools

The article is devoted to the analysis of foreign legislation regulating the conditions for seizure of land plots to meet public needs. The evolution of approaches to understanding the private property right from Antiquity to Modern age as long as the specific character of  property right to land including possibilities of its legal limitation for meeting socially prominent aims are explored. Special attention is paid to the Eastern European countries’ legislation as their statutory regulation of private property out of the command economy is relatively young. Having analyzed the constitutions, land legislation and law enforcement practice of several foreign states a conclusion is made about a similar legal structure of land withdrawal where expropriation is allowed in favor of both public and private subjects if their activity meets socially significant needs of a wide range of people and achieving this goal by any other way is impossible. The American practice of “economic analysis of law” allowing to appreciate the public benefit by the economic tools is positively assessed. It is also stated that it is impossible to envisage a list of specific situations that fall under the concept “public needs” and it is necessary to assess the correlation of public and private interests in each specific case. At the same time, in order to protect the rights of owners such an assessment should be carried out before the seizure including by public hearings.

JACQUES RUEFF AND THE LIBERAL SOCIAL ORDER: A LIBERAL INTERVENTIONIST

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-591
Author(s):  
Marie Daou
Keyword(s):  
Social Order ◽  
Private Property ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
Specific Approach ◽  
Economic Liberalism ◽  
The Individual

Although Jacques Rueff (1896–1978) is known as a liberal thinker, what he means by the term “economic liberalism” should be specified. Indeed, for Rueff, the notion of economic liberalism leads to the notion of the liberal social order: i.e., a situation where the freedom of the individual is maintained and State intervention is justified in order to ensure a harmony of interests. This paper aims to bring out the particularism of the Rueffian liberal social order and to explore the connections between Rueff’s vision of this concept and his specific approach to liberalism, where private property (the pillar of freedom in liberal thinking) may be called into question under certain circumstances.

Critiques of Articles: Some General Questions about Jerman's Study of Problem Solving

1974 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-63
Author(s):  
Leroy G. Callahan
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Research Effort ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Research Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Individual Researcher ◽  
Essential Components ◽  
The Individual

Experimental studies carried out in the laboratory of the public schools invariably are a compromise between the ideally controlled setting and that which is realistically attainable. Generally, when compromises are minimized, useful evidence for consumers of research is maximized. Experimental controls, however, are not the only thing that determines maximum usefulness of evidence. Clarity in formulating and reporting essential components of the research design also contributes to maximizing usefulness of a research effort. This aspect of the research process is clearly under the control of the individual researcher and fewer compromises seem necessary.

General will

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter P. Nicholson
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Political Community ◽  
General Interest ◽  
General Will ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Individual

The fundamental claim for general will is that the members of a political community, as members, share a public or general interest or good which is for the benefit of them all and which should be put before private interests. When the members put the general good first, they are willing the general will of their community. The claim was given special and influential shape by Rousseau. He produced a comprehensive theory of the legitimacy of the state and of government, revolving around the general will. Some contend this solves the central problem of political philosophy – how the individual can both be obliged to obey the state’s laws, and be free. If laws are made by the general will, aimed at the common good and expressed by all the citizens, the laws must be in accordance with the public interest and therefore in the interest of each, and each is obliged by the law yet free because they are its author. Rousseau’s formulation has been much criticized. But others have found it essentially true and have variously adapted it.

scholarly journals At the Intersection of Identities

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-137
Author(s):  
Judit Hidasi
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Multiple Identities ◽  
Human Values ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
Future Trends ◽  
The Public ◽  
Multicultural Environment ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Mental Programming ◽  
Private Domain

Abstract It is assumed that part of today’s societal difficulties, uncertainties and crisis worldwide can be attributed to the competing of multiple identities, to their intersections and their overlapping nature – on the level of nations, on the level of communities and also on the level of the individual. We aim at presenting a typology of identities that come into play in the public and in the private domain of the individual. It is hypothesized that there is a strong interdependence of cultural heritage, human values and social traditions in the competition of identities. These questions, which are interrelated and interconnected with each other through a common denominator, namely “cultural-mental programming” and “reprogramming efforts,” are going to be pondered about in the presentation. In the context of globalization the relevance of this topic is reinforced by the need to adapt to changes within the ever-intensifying shift from intercultural to multicultural environment in communities, in business and in work places. Attempts will be made to articulate some projections with respect to future trends that are to be expected: the way to go from competing identities to establishing a competitive identity (Simon Anholt). The contribution does not offer ready solutions but rather serves as fuel for further discussions.

Impairment Tutorial: Functionally Limiting Upper Extremity Pain: Controversies in Impairment Rating

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
Lorne Direnfeld ◽  
James Talmage ◽  
Christopher Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Illness Behavior ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeon ◽  
First Case ◽  
Clinical Presentations ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Physical Examinations ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract This article was prompted by the submission of two challenging cases that exemplify the decision processes involved in using the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). In both cases, the physical examinations were normal with no evidence of illness behavior, but, based on their histories and clinical presentations, the patients reported credible symptoms attributable to specific significant injuries. The dilemma for evaluators was whether to adhere to the AMA Guides, as written, or to attempt to rate impairment in these rare cases. In the first case, the evaluating neurologist used alternative approaches to define impairment based on the presence of thoracic outlet syndrome and upper extremity pain, as if there were a nerve injury. An orthopedic surgeon who evaluated the case did not base impairment on pain and used the upper extremity chapters in the AMA Guides. The impairment ratings determined using either the nervous system or upper extremity chapters of the AMA Guides resulted in almost the same rating (9% vs 8% upper extremity impairment), and either value converted to 5% whole person permanent impairment. In the second case, the neurologist evaluated the individual for neuropathic pain (9% WPI), and the orthopedic surgeon rated the patient as Diagnosis-related estimates Cervical Category II for nonverifiable radicular pain (5% to 8% WPI).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document