Neorepublicanism and the Domination of Posterity

Katz, Corey

doi:10.1080/21550085.2017.1374034

“…Relational egalitarianism holds that what we should seek to equalize is not how benefits are distributed across generations but how generations relate to one another, such that all generations be treated as equals by preceding cohorts and relations of exploitation (Liberto, 2014) or domination (Katz, 2017) be avoided. The view may be apt for relations among overlapping generations (Bidadanure, 2016a).…”

Section: Theories Of Intergenerational Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Intergenerational Justice and Institutions for the Long Term

González-Ricoy

2024

Preprint

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutions to address short-termism in public policymaking and to more suitably discharge our duties toward future generations have elicited much recent normative research, which this chapter surveys. It focuses on two prominent institutions: insulating devices, which seek to mitigate short-termist electoral pressures by transferring authority away to independent bodies, and constraining devices, which seek to bind elected officials to intergenerationally fair rules from which deviation is costly. The chapter first discusses sufficientarian, egalitarian, and prioritarian theories of our duties toward future generations, and how an excessive focus on the short term in policymaking may hinder that such duties be suitably fulfilled. It then surveys constraining and insulating devices, and inspects their effectiveness to address the epistemic, motivational, and institutional drivers of political short-termism as well as their intra- and intergenerational legitimacy.

show abstract

“…There is an inherent power asymmetry between existing and future people: Existing people seem to hold power over future people that future people cannot control. Some, but not all, republicans thus hold that republicanism captures intergenerational domination and can thereby ground intergenerational duties (Beckman, 2016;Katz, 2017;Smith, 2013).…”

Section: Conclusion and New Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Freedom in Political Philosophy

Schmidt¹

2022

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Freedom is among the central values in political philosophy. Freedom also features heavily in normative arguments in ethics, politics, and law. Yet different sides often invoke freedom to establish very different conclusions. Some argue that freedom imposes strict constraints on state power. For example, when promoting public health, there is a limit on how far the state can interfere with individual freedom. Others, in contrast, argue that freedom is not just a constraint but also an important goal of state power and collective action. Good public health policy, for example, promotes people’s freedom. Of course, different arguments often draw on different theories of freedom. So, to evaluate such arguments, we need to analyze these different theories and their implications and assess their plausibility. The broadly liberal tradition views freedom as being about external options. Such theories typically start with an account of when someone has a specific freedom or unfreedom to do something. For example, some argue that only a narrow set of interpersonal interferences count as constraints on freedom. Others argue that a far broader set of factors, including ill health and natural constraints, can reduce one’s freedom. Since the 1980s and 1990s, scholarship has increasingly recognized that to use liberal freedom in normative arguments, one must move beyond specific freedom and unfreedom. Most laws and policies both subtract and add specific freedoms. What matters is how a person’s freedom is affected overall. Philosophers and economists have thus engaged in intricate debates about how to measure overall freedom. Moreover, policies and law affect not only one person at one point in time but also multiple persons across time. So, liberal freedom-based arguments also require distributive criteria for intertemporal and interpersonal distributions of freedom. In the early 21st century, republicanism has developed into a prominent alternative to liberal theories. Republicans argue that being a free person is not just, or not even primarily, about liberal option-freedom. Freedom requires being free from dominating power. Republicans and liberals have engaged in a lively debate on who offers the better theory. In developing the republican ideal, republicans also engage in intramural debates. For example, is domination primarily an interpersonal or structural phenomenon? And what economic institutions does republicanism imply? Theorizing around freedom has become richer and moved from narrower questions regarding specific freedom and unfreedom to overall freedom and to republican theories of nondomination. But recent theorizing also seeks to extend its focus and scope. Historically, theorizing started with the freedom of able-bodied male citizens within nation states. Recent theorizing shifts the focus to include issues around gender, disability, freedom at the international level, and the freedom of nonhuman animals and future generations. Beyond fascinating implications of existing theories, a more inclusive focus is likely to also yield important lessons on how current theories can be improved.

show abstract

“…Relational egalitarianism holds that what we should seek to equalize is not how benefits are distributed across generations but how generations relate to one another, such that all generations be treated as equals by preceding cohorts and relations of exploitation (Liberto, 2014) or domination (Katz, 2017) be avoided. The view may be apt for relations among overlapping generations (Bidadanure, 2016a).…”

Section: Theories Of Intergenerational Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Intergenerational Justice and Institutions for the Long Term

González‐Ricoy

¹

2020

The Oxford Handbook of Time and Politics

1

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutions to address short-termism in public policymaking and to more suitably discharge our duties toward future generations have elicited much recent normative research, which this chapter surveys. It focuses on two prominent institutions: insulating devices, which seek to mitigate short-termist electoral pressures by transferring authority away to independent bodies, and constraining devices, which seek to bind elected officials to intergenerationally fair rules from which deviation is costly. The chapter first discusses sufficientarian, egalitarian, and prioritarian theories of our duties toward future generations, and how an excessive focus on the short term in policymaking may hinder that such duties be suitably fulfilled. It then surveys constraining and insulating devices, and inspects their effectiveness to address the epistemic, motivational, and institutional drivers of political short-termism as well as their intra- and intergenerational legitimacy.

show abstract

Neorepublicanism and the Domination of Posterity

Cited by 7 publications

References 49 publications

Intergenerational Justice and Institutions for the Long Term

Intergenerational Justice and Institutions for the Long Term

Freedom in Political Philosophy

Intergenerational Justice and Institutions for the Long Term

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About