Economic Exceptionalism? Justice and the Liberal Conception of Rights

IF 0.9 Q3 ETHICS
H. Sauer
{"title":"Economic Exceptionalism? Justice and the Liberal Conception of Rights","authors":"H. Sauer","doi":"10.1515/mopp-2018-0047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Are political and economic rights equally basic? This is one of the main issues liberal egalitarians and classical liberals disagree about. The former think political rights should be more strongly protected than economic ones; classical liberals thus accuse them of an unjustified and politically biased ‘economic exceptionalism’. Recently, John Tomasi has developed a special version of this challenge, which is targeted against Murphy and Nagel’s account of the relationship between property rights and just taxation. In this paper, I analyze this challenge, and provide an account of its limitations. Tomasi’s strategy to drive Murphy and Nagel’s account into an overgeneralization problem brings to light that liberals weren’t guilty of any kind of economic exceptionalism in the first place. However, this also shows that classical liberalism and libertarians do not disagree as much as it might seem.","PeriodicalId":37108,"journal":{"name":"Moral Philosophy and Politics","volume":"13 1","pages":"151 - 167"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Moral Philosophy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2018-0047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Are political and economic rights equally basic? This is one of the main issues liberal egalitarians and classical liberals disagree about. The former think political rights should be more strongly protected than economic ones; classical liberals thus accuse them of an unjustified and politically biased ‘economic exceptionalism’. Recently, John Tomasi has developed a special version of this challenge, which is targeted against Murphy and Nagel’s account of the relationship between property rights and just taxation. In this paper, I analyze this challenge, and provide an account of its limitations. Tomasi’s strategy to drive Murphy and Nagel’s account into an overgeneralization problem brings to light that liberals weren’t guilty of any kind of economic exceptionalism in the first place. However, this also shows that classical liberalism and libertarians do not disagree as much as it might seem.
经济例外论?正义与自由主义权利观
政治权利和经济权利是否同样基本?这是自由平等主义者和古典自由主义者不同意的主要问题之一。前者认为政治权利应比经济权利得到更强有力的保护;古典自由主义者因此指责他们是一种不公正的、带有政治偏见的“经济例外论”。最近,约翰·托马西(John Tomasi)提出了这个挑战的一个特殊版本,针对的是墨菲和内格尔关于产权与公正税收之间关系的解释。在本文中,我分析了这一挑战,并提供了其局限性的说明。托马西将墨菲和内格尔的解释归结为一个过度概括的问题的策略,揭示了自由主义者一开始就没有任何经济例外主义。然而,这也表明古典自由主义和自由意志主义并不像看起来那么不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Moral Philosophy and Politics
Moral Philosophy and Politics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信