Abstract This paper focuses on the Deliberative Model's ability to support various concepts of autonomy advanced by Gerald Dworkin, Dan W Brock and S. I. Benn.
This is an argument for the libertarian conception of self-ownership as the foundation for democracy, as opposed to other values such as republican non-domination and deliberative democracy, with treatment of empirical work on the phenomenon of voter igno
Abstract This paper looks at the notion of western democracy, and how by its very definition, impinges on our everyday lives. The author defines democracy, and looks at what democracy was intended to be, and how, as government expanded, and its influence expanded that democracy has had the opposite affect, and is not limiting our freedoms. The author also suggest ways in which we can regain the benefits that democracy was designed to provide.
From the Paper "Indeed, if we did otherwise, we would be treating people not as full members of the community among equals, but as sheep unto a shepherd, or a child unto a parent. While such relationships are certainly appropriate between the incompetent and the competent, they can hardly be countenanced for the competent, who are entitled to their own private sphere in which they can determine the meaning of their experiences and define their own ends. After all, since people are different, and even individuals change through time, no one can better know his own conception of the good and his unique set of ends better than the individual himself. The state, far removed from the individual, is in no position to make that determination, and therefore, must be neutral to conceptions of the good. The state's disallowing one to choose for himself the sort of life he leads is, in fact, a principal criterion by which we can judge its goodness."
Tags:deliberative, democracy, domination, libertarianism, non, republican, republicanism
Abstract This paper claims that patients' autonomy can be meaningfully enhanced through physicians' beneficence. Drawing on the deliberative model and the concept of autonomy, the paper argues that a patient is more active and hence autonomous when the physician is also active.
Abstract This paper briefly outlines the reasons why judges should not make laws in Canada. Specifically, the paper assesses the dangers of having unaccountable officials in the role of law-makers. It also examines how special interests can insinuate their way into the deliberative process courtesy of judicial activism. Finally, the paper explores how the credibility of the courts as a bastion of even-handedness can be damaged by judicial activism.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Unaccountable Public Officials Acting As Elected Officials
Special Interests
Judicial Activism Creates Appearance Of Subjectivity, Not Objectivity
Proposal For Reform
Conclusion
From the Paper "The easiest way in which Canadians can cut down on judicial activism is to borrow from American practices. Specifically, nominated justices should attend public hearings and be asked about their political philosophy towards various aspects of the law. At the same time, the entire vetting process should be made available to all parties and not simply to the ruling party (or the Prime Minister's Office). Additionally, albeit it is a more controversial point, justices who appear to offer fanciful interpretations of the law should be subject to recall - either for outright incompetence or for a lack of integrity. If these measures are done, Canadians will have a cost-effective way of curtailing irresponsible activism which might lead to some groups being deliberately favored over others by the courts."
Abstract The paper examines what a democracy is in order to determine whether the UK's democratic government is capable of endorsing the rule of law. The paper then considers the ways in which the deliberative model of democracy may benefit the citizen, while also taking a realistic, critical approach of why this theory may not succeed using Joseph Schumpeter's market theory of democracy as a main source. Finally, the paper determines whether the rule of law does in fact limit or enhance the UK's democracy and argues that the rule of law is limiting democratic rule.
Outline:
Introduction
What Comprises a Democracy
Models of Democracy Disputed
The Relevance of the Rule of Law within a Democracy
Conclusion:
From the Paper "The importance of understanding what form legitimate government should take is, according to Lock and Hobbes, in order to realise the "conditions for security, peace and freedom." ("Held 78) Although the concept of democracy has existed for thousands of years it has only recently reasserted itself within the United Kingdom's contemporary governmental domain. During the fifteenth to the eighteenth century "two different forms of political regime were dominant in Europe: 'the absolute' monarchies of France, Prussia, Austria...and the 'constitutional' monarchies and republics of England." (Held 70) Paradoxically, from this absolutist regime emerged a democratic government since "as the state's administrative centres became more powerful...the increase in administrative power increased the state's dependence on cooperative forms and social relations". (Held72) This founding of democracy legitimizes Locke's concern that the democratic government is egoistic because the concentration of power is focused more on the state than the citizen."
