Fair Share Or Freeride

“A curious thing has happened within American culture,” Aziz Rana writes. “The language of freedom has been claimed almost entirely by the political right.” Can it be reclaimed Freedom has a dual legacy. On the one hand, it stands for the great struggles long associated with the left, from abolition and anticolonialism to women’s and queer liberation. On the other hand, it has long been the watchword of an exclusionary right—playing a central role in the politics of neoliberalism and resurgent white nationalism. Rejecting this view of freedom as an exclusively right-wing concern, this issue reclaims freedom as a fundamental political value essential to any vision of a more just world. Aziz Rana leads a forum on the path to a different politics of freedom. In the United States, he argues, reactionary uses of freedom at home have been emboldened by U.S. imperial power abroad. But the language of freedom can be genuinely liberating by building emancipatory institutions of collective agency and self-rule. Featuring eleven respondents—including Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Jefferson Cowie, political theorists Adom Getachew, Lea Ypi, and Nancy Hirschmann, and philosophers Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò and Philippe Van Parijs—the forum clarifies how both political messaging and institution building are essential to extending real freedom to all. Plus essays on the legacy of Cold War liberalism, fifty years of liberation theology, violence in Israel/Palestine, and the Stop Cop City movement; reviews of M. E. O’Brien’s Family Abolition, Melissa Kearney’s The Two-Parent Privilege, Helen Hester and Nick Srnicek’s After Work, and Paul Lafargue’s The Right to Be Lazy; an interview on Black existentialism; and prose poetry.

Why immunization must be made mandatory in times of vaccine hesitancy, and how we can design and implement immunization policies in a practical, trustworthy, and democratic way. We live in perilous times when a significant number of citizens are either defiantly antivaccination or hesitant to accept vaccinations for themselves or for their children. In Inducing Immunity?, legal philosopher Roland Pierik and bioethicist Marcel Verweij, explore ways to regulate collective immunization in as democratic a manner as possible. Approaching the problem as a matter of a conflict between the responsibility of government to protect public health and the basic right to freedom of citizens, Pierik and Verweij argue that John Stuart Mill’s harm principle—the idea that individuals should be free to act so long as their actions do not harm others—offers a strong basis for coercive immunization policies. Covering childhood immunization policies, as well as vaccination programs aimed at adult citizens, the authors argue that a coercive immunization policy in any liberal democracy must first satisfy the principle of proportionality. This leads them to an in-depth exploration of the role of exemptions, the nature of coercion, and the contents of vaccination programs. In the final part of the book, the authors also discuss the importance and scope of freedom of speech, given how the current spread of misinformation has undermined confidence in vaccines. Offering an in-depth analysis in bioethics and legal philosophy, Inducing Immunity? is a sensible and applicable guide for health professionals, policymakers, and academics alike on how we can—and must—do better with our immunization policies.

The new edition of this award-winning volume reflects the latest events in the in global environmental politics and sustainable development, while providing balanced coverage of the key institutions, environmental issues, treaties, and policies. The book highlights global environmental institutions, major state and non-state actors, and includes a wide range of cases such as climate change, biodiversity, hazardous chemicals, ozone layer depletion, nuclear energy and resource consumption.

The adversary professions--law, business, and government, among others--typically claim a moral permission to violate persons in ways that, if not for the professional role, would be morally wrong. Lawyers advance bad ends and deceive, business managers exploit and despoil, public officials enforce unjust laws, and doctors keep confidences that, if disclosed, would prevent harm. Ethics for Adversaries is a philosophical inquiry into arguments that are offered to defend seemingly wrongful actions performed by those who occupy what Montaigne called "necessary offices." Applbaum begins by examining the career of Charles-Henri Sanson, who is appointed executioner of Paris by Louis XVI and serves the punitive needs of the ancien régime for decades. Come the French Revolution, the King's Executioner becomes the king's executioner, and he ministers with professional detachment to each defeated political faction throughout the Terror and its aftermath. By exploring one extraordinary role and the arguments that can be offered in its defense, Applbaum raises unsettling doubts about arguments in defense of less sanguinary professions and their practices. To justify harmful acts, adversaries appeal to arguments about the rules of the game, fair play, consent, the social construction of actions and actors, good outcomes in equilibrium, and the legitimate authority of institutions. Applbaum concludes that these arguments are weaker than supposed and do not morally justify much of the violation that professionals and public officials inflict. Institutions and the roles they create ordinarily cannot mint moral permissions to do what otherwise would be morally prohibited.

We are pleased to welcome you to the eleventh edition of the Middleware c- ference. The program this year is a sign of the robustness, activity, and cont- ued growth of the Middleware community. As computing technology around us has evolved rapidly over the past decade, our notions of middleware have also adapted so that we stay focused on the most challenging and relevant problems for the present and future. As a result, this year’s program features papers that belong to both tra- tional areas as well as new directions. Cloud computing, social middleware, and transactional memory are some of the vanguard areas that you will ?nd in this year’s selection of papers. In addition, topics that have always been central to the community are also prominent this year, including publish-subscribe, mul- cast,reliability, legacy,location-awareness,trust, and security.The community’s wise evolutionre?ects the dynamic role that middleware continues to play in the development of current software systems. The program underscores the competitive selection process applied by us and the technical programcommittee: out of 116 papers submitted this year,we accepted 18 for regular publication. In addition Middleware 2010 also includes a new category of “Big Ideas Papers,” which are bold white papers with the potentialtodrivelonger-terminnovationinthe?eld.Weselectedone“bigideas” paper this year. Our industrial track once againbrings forth papers that explore middleware foundations in the context of industrial practice. Finally, multiple workshops and a doctoral symposium round o? Middleware this year, making it an attractive conference for students, faculty, researchers, and practitioners.

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice aims to answer the questions: why is prejudice so persistent? How does it affect people exposed to it? And what can we do about it? Providing a comprehensive examination of prejudice from its evolutionary beginnings and environmental influences through to its manifestations and consequences, this Handbook is an essential resource for scholars and students who are passionate about understanding prejudice, social change, collective action, and prejudice reduction. Featuring cutting-edge research from top scholars in the field, the chapters provide an overview of psychological models of prejudice; investigate prejudice in specific domains such as race, religion, gender, and appearance; and develop explicit, evidence-based strategies for disrupting the processes that produce and maintain prejudice. This Handbook challenges researchers and readers to move beyond their comfort zone, and sets the agenda for future avenues of research, policy, and intervention.

NATO has endured beyond the end of the Cold War by shifting its focus from collective defense to out of area operations. NATO exists only through the voluntary contributions of its members. The United States provides a very large proportion of NATO forces and resources and, thus, has been very interested in getting members to contribute more. In his seminal book, The Logic of Collective Action, Mancur Olsen found that smaller alliance members tend to freeride after meeting the minimum cost, while larger members contribute disproportionately large shares to the collective good. Most studies of NATO burden sharing measure the proportion of GDP spent on defense. The problem with this measurement is that it evaluates members based on how much they spend on their own national defense, not on how much they contribute to the alliance. Thus, the question is, do NATO members contribute adequately to the alliance? Alternative ways to measure NATO member contributions were investigated to answer that question. Proportionality is the most important principle for defining how member nations share the burden. Members can only be rightfully accused of freeriding if they fail to provide their apportioned share, but NATO does not have a formal system for determining shares. Bases for apportionment were created to determine fair shares based on national capacity in terms of GDP and population. By comparing financial contributions to NATO common funding and troop contributions NATO's three largest out of area operations (Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan) to GDP and population-based shares, clear trends emerged in contemporary NATO burden sharing. Analysis of the various alternative measures leads to the conclusion that despite the failure of most NATO member nations to spend the agreed two percent of GDP on defense, they do contribute effectively and proportionally toward NATO funding and operations. Collective action theory only partially applies to NATO; the smallest members tend to contribute equal or greater amounts, proportionally, than their larger counterparts. Furthermore, all members, especially the United States, tend to adjust contributions based upon national interests. Finally, if NATO wishes to better assess and distribute the burden, it must first develop a formal system to apportion it.

Sharing instead of owning is one of the major trends in modern (business) life. By changing how people consume, the rise of the sharing economy has the potential to redefine the role of owners, consumers and producers, change their mode of transaction, create innovative business models, disrupt existing industries, and challenge political and regulative institutions. In addition to these practical implications, the sharing economy phenomenon represents a novel playground for theoretical advancement, attracting a multitude of research and researchers from different disciplines. While this can potentially open up new avenues for practice and theory to stimulate each other, they do not seem to go hand-in-hand at the moment. This volume brings together research from a wide variety of theoretical backgrounds and disciplines to encourage academic discourse on the sharing economy phenomenon. It comprises contributions that are grounded in different theoretical perspectives, including business history, economics, strategic management, organization studies, information systems, political science, legal studies, linguistics, and semantics. While all contributions focus on the sharing economy phenomenon, they examine the subject from different disciplinary angles. Together, they provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of research on the sharing economy.

Imagine: You are designing a society, but you don't know who you'll be within it—rich or poor, man or woman, gay or straight. What would you want that society to look like? This is the revolutionary thought experiment proposed by the twentieth century's greatest political philosopher, John Rawls. As economist and philosopher Daniel Chandler argues in this hugely ambitious and exhilarating manifesto, it is by rediscovering Rawls that we can find a way out of the escalating crises that are devastating our world today. Taking Rawls's humane and egalitarian liberalism as his starting point, Chandler builds a powerful case for a new progressive agenda that would fundamentally reshape our societies for the better. He shows how we can protect free speech and transcend the culture wars; get money out of politics; and create an economy where everyone has the chance to fulfil their potential, where prosperity is widely shared, and which operates within the limits of our finite planet. This is a book brimming with hope and possibility—a galvanizing alternative to the cynicism that pervades our politics. Free and Equal has the potential to offer a touchstone for a modern, egalitarian liberalism for many years to come, cementing Rawls's place in political discourse, and firmly establishing Chandler as a vital new voice for our time.

The United States of America has been the most powerful country in the world for over seventy years, but recently the U.S. National Security Strategy declared that the return of great power competition with Russia and China is the greatest threat to U.S. national security. Further, many analysts predict that America's autocratic rivals will have at least some success in disrupting-and, in the longer term, possibly even displacing-U.S. global leadership. Brilliant and engagingly written, The Return of Great Power Rivalry argues that this conventional wisdom is wrong. Drawing on an extraordinary range of historical evidence and the works of figures like Herodotus, Machiavelli, and Montesquieu and combining it with cutting-edge social science research, Matthew Kroenig advances the riveting argument that democracies tend to excel in great power rivalries. He contends that democracies actually have unique economic, diplomatic, and military advantages in long-run geopolitical competitions. He considers autocratic advantages as well, but shows that these are more than outweighed by their vulnerabilities.Kroenig then shows these arguments through the seven most important cases of democratic-versus-autocratic rivalries throughout history, from the ancient world to the Cold War. Finally, he analyzes the new era of great power rivalry among the United States, Russia, and China through the lens of the democratic advantage argument. By advancing a "hard-power" argument for democracy, Kroenig demonstrates that despite its many problems, the U.S. is better positioned to maintain a global leadership role than either Russia or China. A vitally important book for anyone concerned about the future of global geopolitics, The Return of Great Power Rivalry provides both an innovative way of thinking about power in international politics and an optimistic assessment of the future of American global leadership.