Is the Welfare State Justified?福利国家是合理的吗？ chm umd 阿里云 下载 夸克云 pdf azw3 kindle

In this book, Daniel Shapiro argues that the dominant positions in contemporary political philosophy - egalitarianism, positive rights theory, communitarianism, and many forms of liberalism - should converge in a rejection of central welfare state institutions. He examines how major welfare institutions, such as government-financed and -administered retirement pensions, national health insurance, and programs for the needy, actually work. Comparing them to compulsory private insurance and private charities, Shapiro argues that the dominant perspectives in political philosophy mistakenly think that their principles support the welfare state. Instead, egalitarians, positive rights theorists, communitarians, and liberals have misunderstood the implications of their own principles, which in fact support more market-based or libertarian institutional conclusions than they may realize. Shapiro's book is unusual in its combination of political philosophy with social science. Its focus is not limited to any particular country; rather it examines welfare states in affluent democracies and their market alternatives.

• Argues that supporters of the welfare state should, following their own premises, actually oppose it

• Does comparative institutional analysis: compares real welfare state institutions with real market-based alternatives

• Combines focus on basic principles in political philosophy with social science analysis of institutions

Preface

1. Introduction;

　1.1　Justification in Political Philosophy

　1.2　Internal Versus External Arguments

1.3　Clarifying the Institutional Alternatives

1.4　Coming Attractions

2 Central Perspectives in Political Philosophy

2.1　Justice, Equality, and Fairness

2.2　Basic Rights, Liberty, and Well-Being

2.3　Community and Solidarity

2.4　Public Justification and Epistemic Accessibility

3 Health Insurance, Part I

3.1　The Topic's Importance

3.2　The Institutional Alternatives

3.3　Egalitarianism and NHI

3.4　Risks and Choices: Egalitarian Reasons for MHI

3.5　Rationing, Visibility, and Egalitarian Outcomes: Why Market Allocation Is Better

　3.6　Why the Priority View Agrees with the Egalitarian Support of MHI

2. Central perspectives in political philosophy;

3. Health insurance, part I;

4. Health insurance, part II;

5. Old-age or retirement pensions;

6. Welfare or means-tested benefits, part I;

7. Welfare or means-tested benefits, part II;

8. Conclusion

Select Bibliography

Index

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：Is the Welfare State Justified?福利国家是合理的吗？在线阅读

在线听书地址：Is the Welfare State Justified?福利国家是合理的吗？在线收听

在线购买地址：Is the Welfare State Justified?福利国家是合理的吗？在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

编辑推荐

作者介绍：Daniel Shapiro

　　Daniel Shapiro is Associate Professor of Philosophy at West Virginia University. A specialist in political philosophy and public policy, he has published in Public Affairs Quarterly, Social Philosophy and Policy, Journal of Political Philosophy, and Law and Philosophy. In the spring of 2003, he was a Distinguished Visiting Humphrey Lecturer at the University of Waterloo.

书籍介绍

In this book, Daniel Shapiro argues that the dominant positions in contemporary political philosophy - egalitarianism, positive rights theory, communitarianism, and many forms of liberalism - should converge in a rejection of central welfare state institutions. He examines how major welfare institutions, such as government-financed and -administered retirement pensions, national health insurance, and programs for the needy, actually work. Comparing them to compulsory private insurance and private charities, Shapiro argues that the dominant perspectives in political philosophy mistakenly think that their principles support the welfare state. Instead, egalitarians, positive rights theorists, communitarians, and liberals have misunderstood the implications of their own principles, which in fact support more market-based or libertarian institutional conclusions than they may realize. Shapiro's book is unique in its combination of political philosophy with social science. Its focus is not limited to any particular country; rather it examines welfare states in affluent democracies and their market alternatives.