Within Rawls’s theory of justice lies an endorsement of a ‘Property-Owning Democracy’ as a regime-type which has the capacity to meet the institutional demands of justice. In contrast, ‘Welfare...Show moreWithin Rawls’s theory of justice lies an endorsement of a ‘Property-Owning Democracy’ as a regime-type which has the capacity to meet the institutional demands of justice. In contrast, ‘Welfare-State Capitalism’, characterised by redistributive practices, is dismissed as incapable of realising the values of justice as fairness. This thesis presents a challenge to the alleged superiority of a ‘Property-Owning Democracy’ over welfare state regimes. Through an exploration of the concept of predistribution, it is demonstrated that there is conceptual space between ‘Property-Owning Democracy’ and ‘Welfare-State Capitalism’ for a ‘Predistributionist Welfare State’. It is then argued that when a Rawlsian normative framework, consisting of accounts of the values of political liberty, equality of opportunity, reciprocity and social equality, is invoked to evaluate the opposing regime-types, a ‘Predistributionist Welfare State’ performs at least as well as a ‘Property-Owning Democracy’. This leads to the conclusion that Rawlsian philosophers lack a decisive set of reasons to reject the welfare state outright in favour of a ‘Property-Owning Democracy’.Show less
Research master thesis | Arts and Culture (research) (MA)
closed access
In the sixteenth century, Rome embarked its most sumptuous epoch, and with it, hosted splendid building projects initiated by the church and the papal court, which ranged from sacred spaces to...Show moreIn the sixteenth century, Rome embarked its most sumptuous epoch, and with it, hosted splendid building projects initiated by the church and the papal court, which ranged from sacred spaces to profane architecture. Display of property and wealth became the crucial factor for success among the curial members, who advertised their rank and prestige through such display. However, the papal court and its extensive exploitation of imperial Rome, its achievements and its foundation for the glory of Renaissance Rome and the Catholic Church soon encountered disapproval. The removal from the modest life of Christ and his Apostles but also from spiritual concerns, the increasing paganism and the profligacy, all became major threats for the Roman Curia by the beginning of the sixteenth century. Criticism came from various sides. Humanists turned against the common practices of the church. Protestant reformers raised their voices, but judgement also came from within the own ranks, the Catholic clerics. The critics attacked not only the church’s religious and spiritual programme, but, by that, its secular conduct and its outward. The papal court and its worldliness, grandeur and excessive expenditures were only some of the indicators that triggered criticism and prompted a re-assessment of the role of the pope and his court by the sixteenth century. However, the clergy’s commissions were flourishing, serving not only to embellish the cityscape of Rome and its surroundings, but enhancing the cardinals’ social status. It is striking that at around 1550–1570 (the peak of reformatory criticism) it appears that the most sumptuous and monumental properties of such kinds belonged to the clergy. And that to such an extent that not even the aristocratic Roman families had the means to compete with the high level of expenditure and patronage of cardinals from papal and noble families. It thus remains thus crucial to explore how the Catholic Church and thus the clergy justified wealth, excessive expenditure—for both ecclesiastical and secular purposes—especially by the eve of Reformation and how those (apparent) discrepancies between lush lifestyles and ecclesiastical renovation were perceived among the curia or how they were broadcasted and towards a larger audience.Show less
Abstract: Since four decades actual liberal democracies are characterized by the development that material wealth increasingly concentrates in the hands of a small fraction of society. This...Show moreAbstract: Since four decades actual liberal democracies are characterized by the development that material wealth increasingly concentrates in the hands of a small fraction of society. This development is especially problematic for the most central value of liberal societies: liberty. This is because individuals enjoy liberty only if they are guaranteed equal democratic codetermination. In the first chapter I argue, that massive concentrations of material wealth undermine the democratic process because material power can be transferred to political power. To safeguard liberty new economic institutions have to be found that guarantee equal political codetermination necessitating the prevention of massive concentrations of wealth in the hands of a minority of society. In the second chapter I introduce Alan Thomas’ proposal that aims at giving a feasible solution for liberal societies that face the threat of a loss of liberty by dominating economic elites. Thomas suggests rearranging the economic institutions such that democratic equality is guaranteed. This he sees met by the institutions of a property-owning democracy that characterises especially by the widespread dispersion of capital among citizens. Thomas claims that a property-owning democracy is superior to other types of economic organization because it is not only structuring social interaction such that outcomes are just, but he also sees it mastering the task to reconcile economic efficiency with democratic equality. The feasibility of Thomas’ proposal to safeguard liberty are centre of the discussion in the third chapter.Show less
