Advertisement

Isocracy pp 1-35 | Cite as

A Good Place to Live

  • Nicolò BellancaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism book series (PASTCL)

Abstract

The book is part of the renewed debate on equality. In the wake of a leftist libertarian approach, equal freedom is in my opinion the fundamental characteristic of a “good place” to live is equal freedom. However, if someone is subordinate to the power of others, he is not free; and if someone leads others, exercising his power, he cannot enjoy the interaction with free people. Therefore, an effective equal freedom requires equality of power. Isocracy is a society where nobody commands or obeys; a place where there is order without power, where cooperation is non-hierarchical. More precisely, in order to prevent someone from prevailing over others, his power must be neutralised by another power. Isocracy is a society in which institutions try to facilitate the mutual balancing of the various forms of power. Even without reaching the perfect and definitive levelling of powers, those who come to lead within a certain sphere cannot prevail also in other spheres, without bearing costs, ultimately dominating overall.

References

  1. Acemoglu, Daron K. 2003. Why Not a Political Coase Theorem? Social Conflict, Commitment, and Politics. Journal of Comparative Economics 31: pp. 620–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, Elizabeth S. Anderson. 1993. Value in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bakunin, Michail. 1866. Revolutionary Cathechism. In Sam Dolgoff (eds.), Bakunin on Anarchy. New York: Vintage Books, 1972.Google Scholar
  4. Barzel, Yoram. 2002. A Theory of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bobbio, Norberto. 1995. Eguaglianza e libertà. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  6. Bobbio, Norberto. 1999. Teoria Generale della Politica. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  7. Bowles, Samuel, Richard Edwards, and Frank Roosvelt. 2005. Understanding Capitalism, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, Norman O. 1959. Life Against Death, 2nd ed. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  10. Burchardt, Tanya. 2010. Time, Income and Substantive Freedom: A Capability Approach. Time & Society 19 (3): pp. 318–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cagé, Julia. 2015. Saving the Media. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
  12. Centola, Damon. 2015. The Social Origins of Networks and Diffusion. American Journal of Sociology 120 (5): pp. 1295–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Centola, Damon, and Michael Macy. 2007. Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties. American Journal of Sociology 113 (3): pp. 702–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, John P. 2013. The Impossible Community: Realizing Communitarian Anarchism. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  15. Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Colombo, Eduardo. 2014. El Espacio Politico de la Anarquía. Madrid: Klinamen.Google Scholar
  17. Dobb, Maurice. 1937. Political Economy and Capitalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Elster, Jon. 1992. Local Justice: How Institutions Allocate Scarce Goods and Necessary Burdens. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. Elster, Jon. 2007. Agir contre Soi. La Faiblesse de Volonté. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
  20. Emerson, Richard M. 1962. Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review 27: pp. 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ezra, Ovadida. 2015. Distributive Justice. In Andrew Fiala (eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Political Philosophy. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 75–93.Google Scholar
  22. Fishkin, Joseph. 2014. Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Forst, Rainer. 2007. Radical Justice: On Iris Marion Young’s Critique of the “Distributive Paradigm”. Constellations 14 (2): pp. 260–265. Google Scholar
  24. Friedberg, Erhard. 1993. Le Pouvoir et la Règle. Dynamique de l’Action Organisée. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  25. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1983. Hermann Heinrich Gössen: His Life and Work in Historical Perspective. In H. H. Gössen (eds.), The Laws of Human Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gneezy, Uri, Stephen Meier, and Pedro Rey-Biel. 2011. When and Why Incentives (Don’t) Work to Modify Behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives 25 (4): pp. 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodin, Robert E., James Mahmud Rice, Anti Parpo, and Lina Erikson. 2008. Discretionary Time: A New Measure of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. von Hayek, Friedrich A. 1948. Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. von Hayek, Friedrich A. 1960. The Constitution of Liberty, ed. Ronald Hamowy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.Google Scholar
  30. Hirschman, Albert O. 1984. Against Parsimony: Three Easy Ways of Complicating Some Categories of Economic Discourse. In Jeremy Adelman (eds.), The Essential Hirschman. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  31. Hirschman, Albert O. 1986. The Concept of Interest, From Euphemism to Tautology. In Jeremy Adelman (eds.), The Essential Hirschman. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  32. Hirschman, Albert O. 1991. The Rethoric of Reaction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jaeggi, Rahel. 2015. Towards an Immanent Critique of Forms of Life. Raisons Politiques. Revue de Théorie Politique 57 (1): pp. 13–29. Google Scholar
  34. La Grassa, Gianfranco. 1996. Lezioni sul capitalismo. Bologna: CLUEB.Google Scholar
  35. Lapavitsas, Costas. 2013. Profiting Without Producing: How Finance Exploits Us All. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  36. Lukes, Steven. 2005. Power: A Radical View, 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lunghini, Giorgio. 2001. I nuovi compiti dello Stato. In Michel Aglietta and Giorgio Lunghini (eds.), Sul capitalismo contemporaneo. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
  38. Mann, Michael. 1986. The Sources of Social Power, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marglin, Stephen A. Marglin. 1984. Knowledge and Power. In Frank H. Stephen (eds.), Firms, Organization and Labour: Approaches to the Economics of Work Organization. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Marx, Karl. 1867. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1. New York: Penguin Books, 1976.Google Scholar
  41. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1845–1846. The German Ideology. New York: Prometheus Books, 1967.Google Scholar
  42. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1848. The Communist Manifesto. In Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Selected Writings, ed. David McLellan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  43. Miller, David. 1995. Complex Equality. In David Miller and Michael Walzer (eds.), Pluralism, Justice, and Equality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Napoleoni, Claudio. 1988. Nella Storia non c’è Salvezza. In Claudio Napoleoni, Cercate ancora, ed. Raniero La Valle. Roma: Editori Riuniti, 1990.Google Scholar
  45. Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice, rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  46. Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism Against Populism. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  47. Rorty, Richard. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Rorty, Richard. 1998. Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Russell, Bertrand. 1938. Power, a New Social Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Sandel, Michael. 2009. Justice. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
  51. Sartori, Giovanni. 1987. Elementi di Teoria Politica. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  52. Schlosser, Markus. 2015. Agency. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/agency/. Accessed September 15, 2017.
  53. Screpanti, Ernesto. 2001. The Fundamental Institutions of Capitalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Sen, Amartya. 1977. Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioural Foundations of Economic Theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs 6 (4): pp. 317–344.Google Scholar
  55. Stigler, George J., and Gary S. Becker. 1977. De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum. American Economic Review 67 (2): pp. 76–90.Google Scholar
  56. Taylor, Michael. 1982. Community, Anarchy and Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tobin, James. 1970. On Limiting the Domain of Inequality. Journal of Law and Economics 13 (2): pp. 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vallentyne, Peter. 2007. Distributive Justice. In Robert E. Goodin, Philip Pettit and Thomas Pogge (eds.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, 2nd ed. London: Blackwell, pp. 548–562.Google Scholar
  59. Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of Justice. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  60. Walzer, Michael. 2007. Thinking Politically: Essays in Political Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wartenberg, Thomas E. 1990. The Forms of Power: From Domination to Transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Wicksteed, Philip H. 1914. The Scope and Method of Political Economy in the Light of the ‘Marginal’ Theory of Value and Distribution. In Philip H. Wicksteeed (eds.), The Common Sense of Political Economy, vol. 2. London: Routledge, 1933.Google Scholar
  63. Wilde, Oscar. 1891. The Soul of Man Under Socialism. http://libcom.org/library/soul-of-man-under-socialism-oscar-wilde. Accessed September 15, 2017.
  64. Wrong, Dennis H. 1979. Power: Its Forms, Bases and Uses. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  65. Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations