The Samaritan State and Social Welfare Provision

被引:0
作者
Steven J. Wulf
机构
[1] Lawrence University,
来源
Res Publica | 2018年 / 24卷
关键词
Coercion; Equality; Justice; Liberty; Samaritanism; Welfare;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Christopher Wellman and some allied scholars argue that a ‘samaritan theory’ can justify state coercion. They also suppose that states may provide robust, social egalitarian welfare provisions for a variety of reasons that would arise within samaritan states. However, the most promising reasons—samaritanism itself, natural socialism, relational equality, and anti-crime paternalism—cannot support robust provision without discarding the strong presumption favoring individual liberty (including both personal rights and private property rights) which must motivate the samaritan theory. Consequently, a samaritan state cannot be a robust social welfare state.
引用
收藏
页码:217 / 236
页数:19
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
Anderson Elizabeth S(1999)What is the point of equality? Ethics 109 287-337
[2]  
Delmas Candice(2014)Samaritanism and civil disobedience Res Publica 20 295-313
[3]  
Delmas Candice(2014)Samaritanism and political legitimacy Analysis 74 254-262
[4]  
Dubrow Joshua Kjerulf(2010)Cross-national measures of political inequality of voice ASK: Research and Methods 19 93-110
[5]  
Engle John(2012)A defense of political consent theory through an analysis of socio-cultural political covenants International Journal of Political Science and Development 2 309-313
[6]  
Engle Chloe(2014)Against elections: The lottocratic alternative Philosophy & Public Affairs 42 135-178
[7]  
Guerrero Alexander A(2003)Samaritanism and political obligation: A response to Christopher Wellman’s ‘a liberal theory of political obligation’ Ethics 113 835-840
[8]  
Klosko George(2012)Good samaritans and good government Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 112 161-178
[9]  
Knowles Dudley(2009)Libertarianism and the possibility of the legitimate state Libertarian Papers 1 1-12
[10]  
Maloberti Nicolás(1995)The challenge to the U.S. postal monopoly, 1839–1851 Cato Journal 15 1-24