A tolerant society is not one that is only tolerant of the right kind of diversity but tolerant of a wide variety of beliefs and practices. To an important degree, the more a society is tolerant, the more it is liberal.
But this statement is true only up to a point. Beyond this point, into the realm of harming and threatening others, and undermining justice and security, we could in fact say the more tolerant a society is, the less liberal the society is. Or to put this another way, toleration matters a great deal, but it is not the only thing that matters. And while the practice of toleration lies at the heart of liberalism, it is but one component.
La cécité aux inégalités sociales condamne et autorise à expliquer toutes les inégalités, particulièrement en matière de réussite scolaire, comme inégalités naturelles, inégalités de dons.
La reproduction des inégalités sociales par l’école vient de la mise en œuvre d’un égalitarisme formel, à savoir que l’école traite comme “égaux en droits” des individus “inégaux en fait” c’est-à-dire inégalement préparés par leur culture familiale à assimiler un message pédagogique.
>All social primary goods – liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect – are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored.
If the state did not exist would it be necessary to invent it? Would one be needed, and would it have to be invented? These questions arise for political philosophy and for a theory explaining political phenomena, and are answered by investigating the “state of nature,” to use the terminology of traditional political theory. The justification for resuscitating this archaic notion would have to be the fruitfulness, interest, and far-reaching implications of the theory that results. For the (less trusting) readers who desire some assurance in advance, this chapter discusses reasons why it is important to pursue state-of-nature theory, reasons for thinking that theory would be a fruitful one. These reasons necessarily are somewhat abstract and metatheoretical. The best reason is the developed theory itself.
Libertarianism, in the strict sense, is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. In a looser sense, libertarianism is any view that approximates the strict view. This entry will focus on libertarianism in the strict sense.
For the purposes of this essay, I propose to define as libertarian any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals. This definition draws the boundaries of libertarianism rather more expansively than is customary, and includes under the libertarian aegis a number of conflicting positions. For example, my definition does not specify whether this redistribution of power is to be total or merely substantial, and so allows both anarchists and nonanarchists to count as libertarians; it also does not specify whether the criteria for “voluntary association” can be met by communal cooperatives, or market exchanges, or both, and so grants the libertarian label indifferently to socialists (of the anti-statist variety) and capitalists (of the anti-statist variety).
Libertarian Socialism: Not an oxymoron. In fact, the term “libertarian” was first used by a French anarcho-communist back in 1857 to describe himself (an anarchist). The modern term libertarianism (economic freedoms) was originally called liberalism. The term “libertarian” describes liberty (thus, the term is also used to describe metaphysical liberty within philosophy and metaphysics), and the term socialism describes a society in which wealth is fairly distributed. Thus, it is neither a literal nor a practical contradiction.
A libertarian socialist would argue that a society based on such huge disparities of wealth is unfree. If you wish to enter into employment, you choose first and take orders later (as with liberal democracy). Libertarian socialists believe in voluntary association and economic democracy. This will allow the individual to reach his/her full potential.
There is only one reason for being a revolutionary – because it is the best way to live.
We don’t know if we’ll win: history is made by human beings, and where human beings are concerned, nothing is inevitable. But because people do make history, we know that it is possible to build a new world, and we strive to realize that possibility.