Afterword

Susan Marks
{"title":"Afterword","authors":"Susan Marks","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780199675456.003.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"If the ‘Paineite’ approach associates the rights of man with popular sovereignty, together with social welfare and decent wages, the ‘Spencean’ approach insists that political revolution needs to be accompanied by social revolution, and remedial measures by efforts to seek out and transform the roots of injustice. It is, of course, the former that has been most important in shaping the course of history (including the history of human rights), and that is most familiar today. This Afterword gives brief consideration to the question of what it might mean to recover the Spencean alternative in a world of ‘new enclosures’ and ‘new commons’.","PeriodicalId":358847,"journal":{"name":"A False Tree of Liberty","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"A False Tree of Liberty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199675456.003.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

If the ‘Paineite’ approach associates the rights of man with popular sovereignty, together with social welfare and decent wages, the ‘Spencean’ approach insists that political revolution needs to be accompanied by social revolution, and remedial measures by efforts to seek out and transform the roots of injustice. It is, of course, the former that has been most important in shaping the course of history (including the history of human rights), and that is most familiar today. This Afterword gives brief consideration to the question of what it might mean to recover the Spencean alternative in a world of ‘new enclosures’ and ‘new commons’.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
后记
如果说“潘恩派”的方法将人权与人民主权、社会福利和体面的工资联系在一起,那么“斯宾塞派”的方法则坚持认为,政治革命需要伴随着社会革命,补救措施需要努力寻找和改变不公正的根源。当然,前者在塑造历史进程(包括人权历史)方面发挥了最重要的作用,这一点今天最为人所熟悉。这篇后记简要地考虑了在一个“新圈地”和“新公地”的世界里,恢复斯宾塞式的选择可能意味着什么。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Afterword
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1