殷海光、徐复观政治思想之比较

殷海光与徐复观的政治哲学主要体现为对自由主义的认识和对自由主义与传统儒学关系的处理。他们对自由主义的根本见解是相当契合的。他们之间最大的分歧,发生在传统儒学究竟对自由主义起到何等作用。思想的离合造成了他们亦敌亦友的情感纠葛。殊途探索的得失,留下了值得后人深思的课题。     

“五四”后中国两种宪政观的比较及启示

＂五四＂后中国自由主义者的宪政观存在着以抽象人权取代人的现实生存权,试图脱离自由主义经济基础而构建宪政上层建筑的倾向。实际上,宪政总是包含＂限政＂与民主这两个向度,自由主义者强调了宪政的＂限政＂这一向度,继而强调了一种消极意义上的人权;毛泽东则强调了宪政的＂民主＂这一向度,从而看到了国家权力与公民权利之间的同一性,为发展出一种积极意义上的人权提供了可能。     

“新古典自由主义”思潮与美国的金融危机

目前,美国正在经历一场百年一遏的金融危机。对于这场危机,大部分学者认为主要是美国金融监管制度的缺失造成的。但是,笔者认为,这场危机与西方“新古典自由主义”思潮有着密切的联系,是美国政府自上世纪80年代以来极端奉行“新古典自由主义”经济政策带来的必然恶果。     

微观经济领域和宏观经济领域干预主义与自由主义论争的比较

微观经济领域和宏观经济领域中干预主义都涉及市场失灵的问题。微观经济领域和宏观经济领域中的自由主义都对政府干预经济的能力和效果表示质疑。无论是在微观经济领域,还是在宏观经济领域,干预主义与自由主义的争论还会持续下去。     

当代社群主义对罗尔斯自由主义的批评

当代社群主义对以罗尔斯为代表的自由主义进行了激烈的批评。这些批评主要集中在普遍主义、自我观以及共同体观念等方面。社群主义反对罗尔斯自由主义的普遍主义,反对其超验和先验的自我观,强调一种共同体决定个人的身份与特性的社群主义观念。社群主义的批评虽然并非都可得到合理的辩护,但它推进了当代西方政治哲学的发展。     

人文精神的自由主义权利观

自由主义权利的兴起与人文主义有着密不可分的历史联系,通过选择用权利的话语来阐述人文精神。权利观念改造有一个历史过程,即权利的政治化、道德化和法律化。从自由主义权利的角度对中国的传统人文思想进行了反思,揭示人权观念的引入对中国的社会转变的重要意义。     

The impossibility of a paretian loyalist

Amartya Sen has argued the impossibility of the Paretian liberal. While his abstract argument is compelling, the concrete significance of the conclusion is in some doubt. This is because it is not clear how important liberalism in his sense is; in particular it is not clear that the sort of liberalism required for the impossibility result is a compelling variety. We show that even if the argument cannot be used to establish the inconsistency of Paretianism and common-or-garden liberalism, it can be adapted to prove a parallel impossibility. This is the impossibility of combining the Pareto criterion with a loyalty constraint involving certain claim-rights rather than liberty-rights. The impossibility of the Paretian loyalist is of interest in itself but it is also interesting for the light it throws on the source of Sen-style impossibilities.     

Finding the ‘Neo’ in Neoliberalism

‘Liberalism’ and ‘neoliberalism’ have become important shorthand terms in critical work that seeks to incorporate issues of economics into ideological and epochal analyses. Yet, these terms incorporate theoretical histories and refer to historical contexts so vast that they can seem ambiguous and boundaryless. This ambiguity threatens to reduce the analytical usefulness of the terms liberalism and neoliberalism. In this paper, I map the legacies and meanings of the terms liberalism and neoliberalism and diagram the complexity and specificity of what neoliberalism is today. First, I engage a small set of definitions and uses of these terms to try to make sense of liberalism and neoliberalism as historical-theoretical concepts. Second, I group current academic uses of the term neoliberalism into Foucauldian, Marxist and epochalist camps, explaining the limits of each. Third, drawing on a fourth minor strand of work on neoliberalism that opens a path to better defining and using the term, I present my own definition of neoliberalism that distinguishes between a theoretical mode and an articulation mode. I conclude by proposing that what is new in neoliberalism is what I call corporism, the privileging of the form and position of corporations.     

王船山经济自由主义思想简论

王船山主张自发秩序、反对国家干预,彰显了其经济自由主义思想。王船山继承了老子＂无为＂思想,认为政府对经济进行过多的干预,其结果可能适得其反。王船山对商人和商贸的作用进行了充分地肯定,反对国家对贸易的垄断,呼吁国内、国际之间实行毫无阻碍的自由贸易。     

‘Entering the territory of incitement’: oppositionality and Africa South

Africa South was an anti‐apartheid journal edited by Ronald Segal which was published in South Africa in the late 1950s and early 1960s. This article explores the historical and political significance of Africa South and considers its implications for an understanding of ‘oppositionality’ in the post‐apartheid present. The central challenge which Africa South offered to its own context was its transnational perspective. Africa South was an important meeting place in the global routes of the developing pan‐African movement. It is also noteworthy for its effort to bring disparate areas of history and experience – both within the African continent and across the African diaspora – into revealing alignment with one another. The principle of conjuncture, I argue, initiated an important analytical move: the opportunity for illuminating comparison, the re‐conceptualisation of an often fragmented political and social landscape and an unusual glimpse of the whole. In tension with this totalising vision is the journal’s generic eclecticism, its flexible political identity and its collaborative construction. In both its unity and its fragmentation, Africa South offers an important point of departure for activist journalism and oppositional intellectual endeavours in the present.