The Experts below are selected from a list of 128991 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Philip T. Hackney - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Political Justice and Tax Policy: The Social Welfare Organization Case
Texas A&M Law Review, 2021Co-Authors: Philip T. HackneyAbstract:In addition to valuing whether a tax policy is equitable, efficient, and administrable, I argue we should ask if a tax policy is Politically just. Others have made a similar case for valuing Political Justice as democracy in implementing just tax policy. I join that call and highlight why it matters in one arena—tax exemption. I also further that discussion by arguing that Politically just tax policy does the least harm to the democratic functioning of our government and may ideally enhance it. I argue that our right to an equal voice in collective decision-making is the most fundamental value of Political Justice. To test this case, I evaluate our choice to exempt “social welfare organizations” from the U.S. income tax. In addition to efficiency and equity, I also ask whether the policy is Politically just in a democratic sense. I examine three models of democratic Justice: liberal, republican, and deliberative. In making the democratic case, I try to find commonalities among the three in order to further what an agreed upon notion of democratic Justice might look like in the tax context. I contend that the notion of democratic Justice must exist at the substantive level of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”). This Code-level application demonstrates that the typical criteria of efficiency and fairness do not provide sufficient criteria to evaluate the Justice of tax-exempt policy. Political Justice provides additional important evaluative criteria. There are likely significant other parts of income tax policy that need to be considered from the value of Political Justice as democracy as well.
M.ed. Phil. Dewi Candraningrum - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Political Justice Reflected in Robert K. Tanenbaums' True Justice (2000) : A Sociological Approach
2020Co-Authors: Bayu Arif Wijayanto, M.ed. Phil. Dewi CandraningrumAbstract:The purpose of this research is to study Political Justice discussed in the novel True Justice by Robert K. Tanenbaum using sociology. The method used in this research is descriptive qualitative research. In this research, descriptive qualitative research is used to evaluate and consider the politics discussed in Robert Keen's True Justice novel by Robert K. Tanenbaums, using sociology. The data in this study were obtained from a novel entitled True Justice (2000), a novel by Robert K. Tanenbaums. Data collection techniques used in this study were read and recorded. To get data that is more relevant to the data collected, the authors use triangulation techniques, namely data validity checking techniques that use something else outside of the data for checking or use purposes. The results of this study show that the social conditions depicted in the novel depicting the amount that occurred in New York City, both in society and the bureaucracy, are characterized by several conditions, such as the following: high crime rates, illegal use of firearms, moral damage among people young, bad, social and bad bureaucracy. Based on the results of analyzes conducted on social and Political inJustice between those who are rich and poor. For rich families, they can do whatever they want and can bargain, including the law. Because they are poor, living with difficulties and poverty. They look for food and even support people
Wijayanto, Bayu Arif - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Political Justice Reflected in Robert K. Tanenbaums' True Justice (2000) : A Sociological Approach
2020Co-Authors: Wijayanto, Bayu ArifAbstract:The purpose of this research is to study Political Justice discussed in the novel True Justice by Robert K. Tanenbaum using sociology. The method used in this research is descriptive qualitative research. In this research, descriptive qualitative research is used to evaluate and consider the politics discussed in Robert Keen's True Justice novel by Robert K. Tanenbaums, using sociology. The data in this study were obtained from a novel entitled True Justice (2000), a novel by Robert K. Tanenbaums. Data collection techniques used in this study were read and recorded. To get data that is more relevant to the data collected, the authors use triangulation techniques, namely data validity checking techniques that use something else outside of the data for checking or use purposes. The results of this study show that the social conditions depicted in the novel depicting the amount that occurred in New York City, both in society and the bureaucracy, are characterized by several conditions, such as the following: high crime rates, illegal use of firearms, moral damage among people young, bad, social and bad bureaucracy. Based on the results of analyzes conducted on social and Political inJustice between those who are rich and poor. For rich families, they can do whatever they want and can bargain, including the law. Because they are poor, living with difficulties and poverty. They look for food and even support peopl
Hackney Philip - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Political Justice and Tax Policy: The Social Welfare Organization Case
Scholarship@PITT LAW, 2021Co-Authors: Hackney PhilipAbstract:In addition to valuing whether a tax policy is equitable, efficient, and administrable, I argue we should ask if a tax policy is Politically just. Others have made a similar case for valuing Political Justice as democracy in implementing just tax policy. I join that call and highlight why it matters in one arena – tax exemption. I argue that Politically just tax policy does the least harm to the democratic functioning of our government and may ideally enhance it. I argue that our right to an equal voice in collective decision making is the most fundamental value of Political Justice. To test this case, I evaluate our choice to exempt ‘social welfare organizations’ from the U.S. income tax. In addition to efficiency and equity, I also ask whether the policy is Politically just in a democratic sense. I examine three models of democratic Justice: liberal, republican, and deliberative. In making the democratic case I try to find commonalities among the three in order to further what an agreed upon notion of democratic Justice might look like in the tax context. I contend that the notion of democratic Justice must exist at the substantive level of Code. This Code level application demonstrates that the typical criteria of efficiency and fairness do not provide sufficient criteria to evaluate the Justice of tax-exempt policy. There are likely significant other parts of income tax policy that need to be considered from the value of Political Justice as democracy as well
Ozgur Yalcin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A defence of public reason: A Kantian reading of Rawls’s Ideal Theory
2016Co-Authors: Ozgur YalcinAbstract:The thesis defends Rawls’s idea of public reason as a purely normative basis of critical Political judgment against its various criticisms by democratic theories of Justice from normative deliberative democracy to radical democracy. The thesis focuses on the basic criticism of Rawls’s idea of public reason as a legitimating basis of a conservative Political doctrine that serves to perpetuate inJustice and relations of domination. Criticisms of Rawls’s idea of public reason are developed on the basis of an interpretation of Rawls’s idea of stability in terms of a notion of Political stability as concerned with the preservation of existing constitutionally guaranteed rights. Such criticisms argue that such a notion of Political stability is the basic motivation of Rawls’s development of a freestanding Political conception that can be the basis of an overlapping consensus, and for those critiques, his idea of public reason functions as a regulative principle to secure Political actors’ claims of Justice to be articulated within the limits of overlapping consensus over the existing Political values. The thesis argues against such criticisms of Rawls’s idea of public reason on the basis of reconstructing Rawls’s Political conception of Justice in terms of Kantian Political philosophy. The thesis argues that the basic contrast between critics of Rawls’s Political conception of Justice and Rawls relies on their fundamental disagreement over the question of the subject of Political Justice. The thesis contends that critics of Rawls have a conception of Political Justice as collective self-determination of common ends of a Political community. In contrast to such conceptions of democratic Justice, the thesis argues that Kantian Political philosophy conceives Political Justice as securing the conditions of co-existence of freedom of choice of individuals, and therefore, the ideal of equal freedom of external action regardless of the worth or ends of these actions is the regulative idea of Political Justice. In this context, the thesis reformulates Rawls’s idea of stability in terms of Kantian Political philosophy. The thesis argues that the question of stability that interests Rawls is not
-
A defence of public reason: A Kantian reading of Rawls’s Ideal Theory
2015Co-Authors: Ozgur YalcinAbstract:The thesis defends Rawls’s idea of public reason as a purely normative basis of critical Political judgment against its various criticisms by democratic theories of Justice from normative deliberative democracy to radical democracy. The thesis focuses on the basic criticism of Rawls’s idea of public reason as a legitimating basis of a conservative Political doctrine that serves to perpetuate inJustice and relations of domination. Criticisms of Rawls’s idea of public reason are developed on the basis of an interpretation of Rawls’s idea of stability in terms of a notion of Political stability as concerned with the preservation of existing constitutionally guaranteed rights. Such criticisms argue that such a notion of Political stability is the basic motivation of Rawls’s development of a freestanding Political conception that can be the basis of an overlapping consensus, and for those critiques, his idea of public reason functions as a regulative principle to secure Political actors’ claims of Justice to be articulated within the limits of overlapping consensus over the existing Political values. The thesis argues against such criticisms of Rawls’s idea of public reason on the basis of reconstructing Rawls’s Political conception of Justice in terms of Kantian Political philosophy. The thesis argues that the basic contrast between critics of Rawls’s Political conception of Justice and Rawls relies on their fundamental disagreement over the question of the subject of Political Justice. The thesis contends that critics of Rawls have a conception of Political Justice as collective self-determination of common ends of a Political community. In contrast to such conceptions of democratic Justice, the thesis argues that Kantian Political philosophy conceives Political Justice as securing the conditions of co-existence of freedom of choice of individuals, and therefore, the ideal of equal freedom of external action regardless of the worth or ends of these actions is the regulative idea of Political Justice. In this context, the thesis reformulates Rawls’s idea of stability in terms of Kantian Political philosophy. The thesis argues that the question of stability that interests Rawls is not a question of how actual constituents of a Political order can maintain their allegiance to the existing social and Political institutional structures of a polity. Rather, Rawls’s idea of stability is a question of normative stability, as it emerges within the ideal theory of Justice. In this respect, the thesis argues that Rawls’s idea of overlapping consensus does not concern the justification of the content of Political Justice. Rather, the idea of overlapping consensus shows only the possibility of each citizen’s acceptance of the priority of demands of Justice as in accord with their reasonable comprehensive doctrines. In this context, the thesis argues that the normative content of Rawls’s idea of public reason is not given by the existing Political values over which there is an actual consensus, however widely shared it may be. Rather, the thesis claims that the normative content of idea of public reason is specified on the basis of those principles of Justice justifiable in the ideal theory of a fictional well-ordered society. Rawls’s idea of public reason provides a critical standpoint of Political judgment for both public officials and private citizens on the basis of which those existing Political structures and their organizing principles can be judged and transformed. When conceived in terms of a coercive system of laws as guaranteeing reciprocal freedom of actions within ideal theory, the thesis argues that Rawls’s idea of public reason cannot be criticized for being normatively deficient, indeterminate or Politically impotent regarding the questions of Political Justice. The thesis also argues that Rawls’s Political conception of Justice with its idea of public reason is necessary for identifying actual instances of inJustice. On this basis, the thesis shows that Rawls’s idea of public reason is the normative ground on the basis of which Political actors can judge whether both their own claims and public laws are justifiable by the ideal of equal freedom.