Hayek

Il lettore non cada in equivoco: benchè il titolo di questo saggio sia alquanto puntuto, on di velenoso pamphlet si tratta, ma di libro ragionato, riflettuto, che non indulge mai al gusto invasato della provocazione e che sempre, al contrario, muove rilievi ed appunti all'"anomalo" liberalismo di Hayek derivandoli da uno studio minuzioso dei suoi testi, scomposti e frugali anche nei loro più appartati diverticoli. Il tutto, peraltro, dispiegato senza torbide tortuosità, senza burbanze erudite e con il piglio di una conversazione diretta, immediata, che coinvolge il lettore e fin da subito lo rende partecipe di questa analisi critica. Che poi, in fondo, è l'analisi che si conviene ad un "grande" come Hayek non già per abbassarlo ma per intenderlo meglio.

"The paper traces three readings (respectively by Poggio Bracciolini, Friedrick August von Hayek
and Maurizio Viroli) of the famous maxim of Cicero «Legum … omnes servi sumus ut liberi esse
possimus» (Cic. Pro Cl. 53.146), highlighting the complex lines of influence that Cicero has had
on modern political and legal thought.

"L'articolo si propone di ripercorrere tre letture politiche della celebre massima ciceroniana '… legum … omnes servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus' (Cluent. 53.146), rispettivamente da parte di Poggio Bracciolini, di Friedrick August von Hayek e di Maurizio Viroli. 
La frase, di sicuro effetto quanto – e, probabilmente, proprio in quanto – generica, andando a definire il ruolo della legge nella vita associata ma anche nella libertà individuale, ha del resto goduto – anche rispetto a più nutrite riflessioni, contenute soprattutto nel de legibus  – di straordinaria ‘fortuna’.
L’analisi condotta porta a osservare come la massima, generica e utilizzata dal suo autore in contesto processuale, si ponga, per le sue caratteristiche stesse e per una lunga tradizione, al centro di una casistica complessa. Ciò contribuisce a sottolineare l’influenza che Cicerone ha avuto sul pensiero politico e giuridico moderno, influenza che si afferma non da ultimo attraverso le ‘non citazioni’. Tale influenza, sebbene sottolineata dalla critica più recente con sempre maggiore incisività, non parrebbe ancora a rischio di sopravvalutazioni.""

"http://books.google.co.jp/books/about/Australian_Economy_and_Neo_liberalism.html?id=vUPnXsIXIZwC&redir_esc=y

オーストラリア経済は、長い間、新自由主義的な統治、海外からの投資への依存、穀物・資源・エネルギーが多くを占める輸出、そして海外の多国籍企業主導の産業構造に代表されてきた。これらすべての要因は、安定成長や製造業部門の強化に常に貢献してきていた訳ではない。さらにこれらは、地域的、国際的様式への統合においてオーストラリアにとって常に最良の成果を及ぼしてきた訳ではない。本論文ではこれらのテーマに焦点をあて、経済的正統性とその効果の分析を示している。""

I argue that social-contract theory cannot succeed because reasonable people may always disagree, and that social-contract theory is irrelevant to the problem of the legitimacy of a form of government or of a system of moral rules. I note the weakness of the appeal to implicit agreement, the conflation of legitimacy with stability, the undesirability of “public justification” and the apparent blindness to the evolutionary critical-rationalist approach of Hayek and Popper. I employ that approach to sketch answers to the theoretical, historical and practical questions about the legitimacy of government or of systems of moral rules.

Liberalism is a term employed in a dizzying variety of ways across the humanities and social sciences. This essay seeks to reframe how the liberal tradition is understood. I start by delineating different types of response – prescriptive, comprehensive, explanatory – that are frequently conflated in answering the question “what is liberalism?” I then discuss assorted methodological strategies employed in the existing literature: after rejecting “stipulative” and “canonical” approaches, I outline a contextualist alternative. On this (comprehensive) account, liberalism is best characterised as the sum of the arguments that have been classified as liberal, and recognised as such by other self-proclaimed liberals, over time. In the remainder of the article I present an historical analysis of shifts in the meaning of liberalism in Anglo-American political thought between 1850 and 1950, focusing in particular on how John Locke came to be seen as a liberal. I also explore the emergence of the category of "liberal democracy". I argue that the scope of the liberal tradition was massively expanded during the middle decades of the twentieth century, such that it came to be seen by many as the constitutive ideology of the West. This capacious (and deeply confusing) understanding of liberalism was produced by a conjunction of the ideological wars fought against “totalitarianism” and assorted developments in the social sciences. Today we both inherit and inhabit it.

The autograph heading „Volck's Lied“ (folk song) on the score of Joseph Haydn’s Emperor Hymn "Gott! erhalte" (premiered on 12 February 1797) is highly irritating: Since Johann Gottfried Herder coined the term, a „Volkslied“ is regarded as the anonymous, quasi-spontaneous creation of „the“ people (or nation). To understand Haydn’s use of this word, we must reconstruct the enlightenment concept of „Volkslied“ which – contradicting Herder explicitly – propagated a „Volkslied“ to be forced upon the people to „nobilitate“ its manners and taste. This language use was rather common in the later eighteenth and earlier nineteenth centuries, not only with regard to Haydn’s „Gott! erhalte“ (as a list of such „Volkslieder“ in the appendix demonstrates). German adaptations of „God save the King“ did play a key role here, as can be demonstrated by Johann Christoph Kühnau’s "Preußisches Volkslied" (Prussian Folksong, 1787). A more direct influence on the origin of "Gott! erhalte" may have been the "Volkslied" (1796) by Andreas Chrisogon Eichler (text) and Anton Wittaßeck (music). Haydn‘s "Volck’s Lied" in its turn was not only often used as a contrafact for many divergent occasions and contexts, it was also the barely concealed blueprint for the "Baierische Volkslied zum Gebrauch bei königlichen Festtagen" (Bavarian Folksong for the Use on Royal Festivities“ (before 1824?) by a "Dr. Loose" (text) and Nikolaus Stößel (music). But "Folksongs" of such kind could not be used to pay homage to the authorities, but also as a propaganda weapon against the Napoleon regime and even during the 1848 revolution – also using Haydn’s melody.

L'autore cerca di analizzare l'ambiguo senso dei termini legge e costume con riferimento al problema della articolazione inlinguistica della legge, per giungere alla considerazione contro intuitiva di rivalutare i valori della 'modernità' giuridica, in polemica con il nainstream dominante che piazzerebbe uno Jus inventato al di spray della Legge, quale strumento di egemonia di ceti di giuristi privi ormai sostanzialmente di qualsiasi legittimazione. Tutto ciò in un contesto di definitiva spoliticizzazione del mondo.

Ideology analysts tend to overlook US libertarianism, considering it conceptually impoverished and incapable of innovation. In this article, I argue that this view misses the ideology’s sources of strategic and conceptual contestation as well as the contingent accommodations that shape its policy positions. I do so by demonstrating how since the late 1990s libertarian thinkers and organizations like the Cato Institute and the Ludwig von Mises Institute have responded to issues in Internet politics. In particular, I show how in order to support their newfound opposition to intellectual property rights and continuing opposition to privacy rights they have revised their theorisations within the core natural rights framework and adopted new adjacent political concepts. I conclude with a plea for analysts to pay closer attention to content of libertarian ideology and disentangle their discussions of it from comparisons with ideologies in the liberal family. More appropriate analogies with ideologies such as Marxism would better illuminate the manner in which it evinces ideological evolution.

""ABOUT THIS BOOK:

- Links methodological individualism and the enactive paradigm of the cognitive science

- Uses the theory of mind as complex self-organizing system to defend the interpretative approach of methodological individualism

- Criticizes the idea that hermeneutical approach and scientific explanation are two alternative approaches, thus defending the unity of science

- Focuses on the non-atomistic variant of methodological individualism 
"""

From a broad philosophical framework, this paper addresses the relation  between freedom and economic performance. It argues  for the thesis that, although a liberal system does not guarantee  absolute harmony, is the only "convenient" and morally valid for a  modern society. The core of this argument is the acceptance of the  permanent  uncertainty about the great results of the world and  the inability of a central entity to control them.

This essay begins the work of mapping out critical ways in which selfishness has been historically conceived and re-conceived as an economic and personal virtue in neo-conservative thinking. In the spirit of Raymond Williams it responds to a requirement to understand discursive shifts in public language politically through an analysis of the changing usage of keywords. Williams’s own analysis of the public deployment of terms such as ‘underprivileged’ usefully highlighted how dominant groups seek to enforce ‘correct’ interpretations of language; interpretations which in themselves enable the policing of conduct. Following Williams, others have tackled equally fraught vocabulary including ‘dependency’, ‘underclass’, ‘choice’ and ‘terror’.  Alongside these examples we suggest here that selfishness and its less contentious counterpart self-interest are increasingly significant words in the lexicon of  public dispute about the deserving and undeserving citizen and the relationship of the state to them both. Following Williams we show how some usages problematically bind together certain behaviours and attitudes for either endorsement or rebuke. In this piece we also focus more closely on the endorsement of selfishness as part of the growing argument against  the financial support of struggling citizens in the age of austerity. For the sake of clarity we have divided this into two, far from discrete,  inventories of selfishness:  in terms of the economic field and the field of individual character.