重新思考美国自由的历史

M. Klarman
{"title":"重新思考美国自由的历史","authors":"M. Klarman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.223776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay looks at three issues concerning freedom in American history. First, it examines competing conceptions of freedom--positive/negative and individual/political-and considers whether the equal validity of these competing conceptions makes freedom such a malleable concept that it is vacuous. In other words, freedom apparently can be invoked with equal plausibility on either side of any significant political dispute. Second, the essay seeks to identify the circumstances or conditions under which particular freedoms prosper and expand. Third and finally, it considers the complex and sometimes paradoxical role that courts have played in the history of American freedom.","PeriodicalId":75324,"journal":{"name":"William and Mary law review","volume":"42 1","pages":"265"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking the History of American Freedom\",\"authors\":\"M. Klarman\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.223776\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay looks at three issues concerning freedom in American history. First, it examines competing conceptions of freedom--positive/negative and individual/political-and considers whether the equal validity of these competing conceptions makes freedom such a malleable concept that it is vacuous. In other words, freedom apparently can be invoked with equal plausibility on either side of any significant political dispute. Second, the essay seeks to identify the circumstances or conditions under which particular freedoms prosper and expand. Third and finally, it considers the complex and sometimes paradoxical role that courts have played in the history of American freedom.\",\"PeriodicalId\":75324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"William and Mary law review\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"265\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"William and Mary law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.223776\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"William and Mary law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.223776","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

这篇文章着眼于美国历史上有关自由的三个问题。首先,它考察了自由的竞争概念——积极/消极和个人/政治——并考虑这些竞争概念的同等有效性是否使自由成为一个可塑的概念,以至于它是空洞的。换句话说,自由显然可以在任何重大政治争端的任何一方以同样的理由被援引。其次,本文试图确定特定自由繁荣和扩展的环境或条件。第三,也是最后,它考虑了法院在美国自由历史上所扮演的复杂的、有时是矛盾的角色。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rethinking the History of American Freedom
This essay looks at three issues concerning freedom in American history. First, it examines competing conceptions of freedom--positive/negative and individual/political-and considers whether the equal validity of these competing conceptions makes freedom such a malleable concept that it is vacuous. In other words, freedom apparently can be invoked with equal plausibility on either side of any significant political dispute. Second, the essay seeks to identify the circumstances or conditions under which particular freedoms prosper and expand. Third and finally, it considers the complex and sometimes paradoxical role that courts have played in the history of American freedom.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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