Welfarism under a different name, a more respectable name and an attempt, again, to fool the American people into thinking that this is a form of benevolence when it&aposs just the form of welfarism in the form of socialism.
|
|
In England (and much of Europe), Brutalism is associated with welfarism and the vast public housing blocks that often dominate the suburbs of big cities.
|
|
Many of the systemic socialists in the West turned to various forms of social democracy and welfarism after finally realizing that state economic planning disincentivized entrepreneurship, innovation and modernization.
|
|
"Subnational" pride, caste identity and social welfarism will be at the heart of the 2019 general election, as much as Mr Modi's election campaign of 2014 had aimed to transcend them.
|
|
Margaret Thatcher reinterpreted "one-nation Conservatism" once again, demonising Butler's one-nation welfarism as an excuse for giving in—that is conceding too much power to trade unionists, civil servants and other agents of decline—and instead resurrecting the old idea of a property-owning democracy.
|
|
The American philosopher Tom Regan writes that abolitionists want empty cages, not bigger ones. This is contrasted with animal welfare, which seeks incremental reform, and animal protectionism, which seeks to combine the first principles of abolitionism with an incremental approach, but which is regarded by some abolitionists as another form of welfarism or "New Welfarism".Francione, Gary L. and Garner, Robert. The Animal Rights Debate.
|
|
Garner 2005, p. 15; However, it has been argued that both welfarism and animal liberation only make sense if it is assumed that animals have "subjective welfare".
|
|
He conceives of the debates as a political problematisation in which (drawing upon Lacanian psychoanalysis) animal cruelty was blamed on certain "other" groups (such as Jews and Sami). He argues that animal welfarism was not the natural continuation of an old anti-cruelty discourse, but that Sweden's 1937 regulation of slaughter and 1944 animal protection laws served to reconstitute, reaffirm, and expand speciesist relations, paving the way for animal exploitation's expansion.Svärd, Per-Anders (2014). "Slaughter and Animal Welfarism in Sweden 1900–1944".
|
|
Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 123–134. . ;"Slaughter and Animal Welfarism in Sweden 1900–1944", Per-Anders Svärd Svärd, taking a more empirical approach than many other contributors, explores laws surrounding animal welfare in early 20th-century Sweden. He seeks to offer an empirical grounding for the argument that animal welfarism is problematic for animals, entrenching harmful use and speciesism. He analyses all official documentation from the Riksdag from 1900–1944 on the subject of animal slaughter and welfare drawing upon Foucauldian policy analysis and poststructuralist discourse analysis.
|
|
Law professor Gary Francione has called it "legal welfarism," namely that the welfare of animals is viewed as important only insofar as it benefits human beings.Francione, Gary. Animals, Property, and the Law, Temple University Press, 1995, p. 6.
|
|
Welfarism, he writes, rules out impersonal ideals – those whose value does not lie wholly in their contributions to individual wellbeing – and many of our most important ideals, such as that of fairness, justice, knowledge, beauty, and truth are impersonal. Of course, even if welfarism were false, it could still be the case that there is no respect in which leveling down the better off improves a situation. Temkin, however, thinks there is a respect in which this improves a situation – it does so with respect to equality. That, of course, does not mean that leveling down the better off would make things better all things considered.
|
|
He states that one of the best attempts to clarify this position is given by Robert Nozick:Garner, Robert. (2005). Animal Ethics. Polity Press. p. 72 Welfarism is often contrasted with the animal rights and animal liberation positions, which hold that animals should not be used by humans and should not be regarded as human property.
|
|
Animal welfare often refers to a utilitarian attitude towards the well-being of nonhuman animals. It believes the animals can be exploited if the animal suffering and the costs of use is less than the benefits to humans. This attitude is also known simply as welfarism. An example of welfarist thought is Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's meat manifesto.
|
|
Two fundamental views in welfare economics, welfarism and paternalism, differ in their conceptual treatment of 'demerit goods'. Simply, welfarism takes the individual's own perception of the utility of a good as the final judgement of the utility of the good for that person, and thereby disallows the concept of a 'demerit good' (while allowing the analysis of negative externalities). As an extreme example, if a heroin addict purchases heroin, they must have done so because heroin makes them better off, and this transaction is viewed as a net social positive (assuming that the addict does not commit any other crimes as the result of their addiction). Paternalism, on the other hand, judges that heroin "isn't good for you", and feels free to override the judgement of the addicts themselves.
|
|
"Folha de S.Paulo Reports: Lula Government Inflates Agrarian Reform Numbers". February 19, 2007, MST site, available at The MST also criticised Lula's administration to call mere land redistribution by means of handing out of small plots land reform, when it was simply a form of welfarism (assistencialismo) unable to change the productive system.William C. Smith,ed., Latin American democratic transformations: institutions, actors, and processes.
|
|
Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement is a 1996 book by American legal scholar Gary L. Francione. The basic premise of the book is that there is a fundamental difference between those that call for animal welfare reform and those that call for the complete abolition of animal use (called 'welfarism' and 'abolitionism'), and that animals have a fundamental right to not be exploited.
|
|
The Animal Welfare Act, passed in 1966 and amended in 1985, is heralded as a victory by welfare advocates, but is useless according to Francione, and is indistinguishable from the status quo. Francione claims that the methodology of new welfarists in pursuing welfare reform cannot result in the abolition of their legal property status, which he argues is what matters most. Further, he argues that the short and long term goals of new welfarism are in direct conflict.
|
|
In defense of this appearance, Vohra stated; "I'll take a racist who opposes government schools over a public school teacher who endorses them any day. If I have to pick between racism and welfarism, I'll pick racism in a second." On July 3, 2018, Vohra lost his re-election bid to be vice-chair of the LP to Alex Merced. However, on the same day, he announced that he will seek the Libertarian Party's nomination for president in 2020.
|
|
A Comment on the Commentaries and a Fragment on Government, edited by J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart. London: The Athlone Press. 1977. p. 393. He became a leading theorist in Anglo-American philosophy of law, and a political radical whose ideas influenced the development of welfarism. He advocated individual and economic freedoms, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and (in an unpublished essay) the decriminalising of homosexual acts.
|
|
In so doing, Singer is effectively sanctioning the harmful treatment of nonhuman animals on the basis of a species-characteristic which does not justify violent treatment. He also provides a critique of the abolitionist views of Gary L. Francione and Joan Dunayer, who argue that animal rights supporters should not pursue a welfarist approach. A defense of suffering-reduction laws and a discussion of the logical problems of anti-welfarism are featured in Sztybel's article "Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism".
|
|
He argues that this objection derives much of its force from a widespread assumption – welfarism – according to which nothing matters morally except insofar as it impacts individual wellbeing. That view, Temkin argues, is counter-intuitive. It seems bad, after all, for sinners to fare better than saints even if there is no respect in which that is worse for the sinners or the saints. In general, Temkin argues that we value fairness and justice beyond the extent to which they are good for people.
|
|
The Pigou–Dalton principle (PDP) is a principle in welfare economics, particularly in cardinal welfarism. Named after Arthur Cecil Pigou and Hugh Dalton, it is a condition on social welfare functions. It says that, all other things being equal, a social welfare function should prefer allocations that are more equitable. In other words, a transfer of some defined variable (for example utility or income) from the rich to the poor is desirable, as long as it does not bring the rich to a poorer situation than the poor.
|
|
He labeled state welfare officials investigating his policies "Gestapo officials". The New York Times began covering the controversy in May, and on June 29 it published a front-page editorial arguing that Mitchell had brought the "Dark Ages" to Newburgh, and that "cruelty anywhere is the concern of mankind everywhere". Senator Barry Goldwater praised Mitchell for his "stand against welfarism". While welfare advocates had quickly rallied against the Newburgh program, however, Mitchell also found a wealth of support among Americans discontented with what they saw as the overreach of the contemporary welfare system.
|
|
Look magazine remarked that a "visible wave of resentment" of generous welfare policies had gripped the nation. The Wall Street Journal praised Mitchell's "effort to correct flagrant welfare abuse", and conservative senator Barry Goldwater, the subsequent Republican presidential nominee, met him in person in July 1961 to congratulate his "stand against welfarism". Young Americans for Freedom organized a demonstration in support of Mitchell, and in October 1961 a Gallup poll showed "wide-spread public approval" of his plan for Newburgh. Much of the controversy focused on the racial motivations of Mitchell's program.
|
|
By 2016, the decline of the pink tide saw an emergence of a "new right" in Latin America, with The New York Times stating "Latin America's leftist ramparts appear to be crumbling because of widespread corruption, a slowdown in China's economy and poor economic choices", with the newspaper elaborating that leftist leaders did not diversify economies, had unsustainable welfare policies and disregarded democratic behaviors. In mid-2016, the Harvard International Review stated that "South America, a historical bastion of populism, has always had a penchant for the left, but the continent's predilection for unsustainable welfarism might be approaching a dramatic end".
|
|
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) is a centrist, welfarist, and nationalist political party a mainstream political programme of supporting the "Third Way" and "welfarism". In the midst of election campaign, the PTI's chairman, Imran Khan, called for an inter-party elections for the leadership of the PTI. Many renowned individuals were defeated in the intra-party elections, such as Arif Alvi who was replaced by Pervez Khattak as secretary- general and Ejaz Chaudhary who defeated Ahsan Rasheed. Imran informed the media that no-one from his party will be eligible to hold the post of the party chairman for more than two terms.
|
|
New welfarism was coined by Gary L. Francione in 1996. It is a view that the best way to prevent animal suffering is to abolish the causes of animal suffering, but advancing animal welfare is a goal to pursue in the short term. Thus, for instance, new welfarists want to phase out fur farms and animal experiments but in the short-term they try to improve conditions for the animals in these systems, so they lobby to make cages less constrictive and to reduce the numbers of animals used in laboratories. Within the context of animal research, many scientific organisations believe that improved animal welfare will provide improved scientific outcomes.
|
|
Robert Garner of the University of Leicester, a leading academic protectionist, argues that animal use may in some circumstances be justified, though it should be better regulated, and that the pursuit of better treatment and incremental change is consistent with holding an abolitionist ideology. Gary Francione, professor of law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark and a leading abolitionist, calls this approach "new welfarism." He regards it as counter- productive because it wrongly persuades the public that the animals they use are being treated kindly, and that continued use is therefore justifiable. Francione regards the abolitionist position as the only one that can properly be called animal rights.
|
|
New welfarists are those that argue the best path to animal rights or abolition is through welfare reform and believe that welfare reform will make humans more receptive to inherently valuing animals. Francione argues that new welfarism does not work, and actually prolongs animal exploitation. Francione describes the welfarist or new welfarist movement as simply advocating for "longer chains for the slaves". Francione describes the differing philosophies of Peter Singer and Tom Regan toward animal use. He criticises heavily the utilitarian position of Singer, who believes that animal use is acceptable so long as their interests are given equal consideration to humans, and praises Regan’s deontological position of giving all animals rights.
|
|
Giroux's philosophy is antispeciesist, in that she argues against discriminating against sentient beings because they lack human species membership. She asserts that cognitive capacity, or lack thereof, for antispeciesists has no moral relevance, stating "[y]ou can't use these characteristics to place more or less value on individuals; the proof is that we do not grant more fundamental rights to the most intelligent human beings." Giroux is opposed to welfarism and considers herself to be an abolitionist when it comes to animal rights. She opposes Alasdair Cochrane's position on the right to freedom of non-human animals, for whom animals have only an interest in being free when the absence of freedom is the cause of suffering for them.
|
|
It argues that those who focus on the failures of European integration, the mixed record in the achievement of common European policies, and disagreements among European leaders, are missing the bigger picture: that a combination of history and the rise of the European Union have helped encourage Europeans to develop common positions on a wide range of issues. Europeanism today can be equated with reduced identification with the state, secularism, welfarism, cosmopolitanism, communitarianism, multiculturalism, civilian power, and multilateralism. His 2013 book Why Europe Matters makes the case for the European Union, and attempts to address the rising tide of euroscepticism by outlining the achievements of the European Union in promoting peace, democracy, open markets, and a new approach to international relations.
|
|
One of the key criticisms that Francione makes of welfarists and new welfarists is that welfarism reform simply doesn’t work, and in fact is harmful to the cause as welfare reform is argued to make people more comfortable with animal exploitation, and therefore less likely to stop using animals. Welfare reform is also claimed to make the animal exploitation industry more efficient.Francione, Rain Without Thunder, pg 12 Carcass damage occurs when food animals are improperly slaughtered and bruise themselves in their deathroes. Welfare reform to slaughter animals more humanely reduces the likelihood of this occurring, improving profits and public image for animal slaughterers. Francione argues that advocating for welfare reform does nothing to challenge the ‘research establishment’, and in fact that the livestock industry already advocates welfare reform.
|
|
New welfarists argue that there is no logical or practical contradiction between abolitionism and "welfarism". Welfarists think that they can be working toward abolition, but by gradual steps, pragmatically taking into account what most people can be realistically persuaded to do in the short as well as the long term, and what suffering it is most urgent to relieve. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, for example, in addition to promoting local improvements in the treatment of animals, promote vegetarianism. Although some people believe that changing the legal status of nonhuman sentient beings is a first step in abolishing ownership or mistreatment, there may be ample evidence that this is not the case if the consuming public has not already begun to reduce or eliminate its exploitation of animals as their own food.
|
|
In its mission statement, the group claims that two of the most urgent problems facing the United Kingdom - the need to "unleash more enterprise and innovation" across the economy, and to tackle "entrenched welfarism and social inequality" - are fundamentally linked. It advocates an Enterprise Economy in partnership with greater Social Mobility, praising the role of technology and enterprise in creating new opportunities to tackle these issues and rejecting "the stale dogmas of both old left and right in the search for solutions for our generation". Re-elected with a Conservative majority in 2015, the group continues to develop themes for the new intake of Conservative MPs, defining what its calls "a One Nation Conservatism for the 21st Century". The Group was described by Michael Crick as a "Cameron supporters club" when David Cameron was Prime Minister.
|
|
In 1992, the Obafemi Awolowo Foundation was founded as an independent, non-profit, non-partisan organisation committed to furthering the symbiotic interaction of public policy and relevant scholarship with a view to promoting the overall development of the Nigerian nation. The Foundation was launched by the President of Nigeria at that time, General Ibrahim Babangida, at the Liberty Stadium, Ibadan. However, his most important bequests (styled Awoism) are his exemplary integrity, his welfarism, his contributions to hastening the process of decolonisation and his consistent and reasoned advocacy of federalism-based on ethno-linguistic self- determination and uniting politically strong states-as the best basis for Nigerian unity. Awolowo died peacefully at his Ikenne home, the Efunyela Hall (so named after his mother), on 9 May 1987, at the age of 78 and was laid to rest in Ikenne, amid tributes across political and ethno-religious divides.
|
|
Often in collaborations, Prince has made substantive contributions to understanding, in the Canadian context, expenditure and revenue budgeting by governments; disability politics and policy; instruments of governing, including regulation and the regulatory state; and the history and contemporary state of social policy. He has elaborated on the concept of stealth as a reform process and articulated a political theory of universality in relation to income security, health care and social services. Among the concepts he has developed are Aristotle’s benchmarks, blue rinse politics, civic regulation, déjà vu discourse, directed incrementalism, fiscalization of social policy, gently coercive governing, the Hobbesian prime minister, regulatory welfarism, and supply side social policy. With respect to intergovernmental relations or multi-level governance, Prince has theorized notions of actuarial federalism, deliberative federalism, provincial spending power and sociopolitical province building and, for Aboriginal peoples and their political organizations, the hide-and-seek politics of federalism.
|
|
The Spectator was criticised for an editorial which appeared in the magazine on 16 October 2004 following the death of British hostage Kenneth John "Ken" Bigley in Iraq, in which it was claimed that the response to Bigley's killing was fuelled by the fact he was from Liverpool, and went on to criticise the "drunken" fans at Hillsborough and call on them to accept responsibility for their "role" in the disaster: > The extreme reaction to Mr Bigley's murder is fed by the fact that he was a > Liverpudlian. Liverpool is a handsome city with a tribal sense of community. > A combination of economic misfortune—its docks were, fundamentally, on the > wrong side of England when Britain entered what is now the European > Union—and an excessive predilection for welfarism have created a peculiar, > and deeply unattractive, psyche among many Liverpudlians. They see > themselves whenever possible as victims, and resent their victim status; yet > at the same time they wallow in it.
|
|
Samuel Goldman, assistant professor of political science at George Washington University, states in The American Conservative that Sanders' platform is not socialist and is better described as "welfarism" reminiscent of the 1950s that aims to regulate rather than to replace capitalism. Goldman notes that Sanders does not advocate public ownership of the means of production nor does he seek to abolish the profit system, both of which Goldman considers to be defining characteristics of socialism. Lane Kenworthy, professor of sociology at the University of California at San Diego, has stated that Sanders is a social democrat and not a democratic socialist, and that the two ideologies are fundamentally different from each other. Kenworthy points out that social democracy does not aim to abolish capitalism, and argues that Sanders' use of the term "socialism" when he actually advocates "social democracy" is causing more confusion than it is adding value, and might unnecessarily have a negative impact on his presidential campaign.
|
|
Boris Johnson, then-editor of The Spectator and future Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, was criticised for an editorial, written by Simon Heffer, which appeared in the magazine on 16 October 2004 following the death of Bigley in Iraq, in which it was claimed that the response to Bigley's killing was fuelled by the fact he was from Liverpool, and went on to criticize the "drunken" fans at Hillsborough and call on them to accept responsibility for their "role" in the Hillsborough stadium disaster in 1989: > The extreme reaction to Mr Bigley’s murder is fed by the fact that he was a > Liverpudlian. Liverpool is a handsome city with a tribal sense of community. > A combination of economic misfortune — its docks were, fundamentally, on the > wrong side of England when Britain entered what is now the European Union — > and an excessive predilection for welfarism have created a peculiar, and > deeply unattractive, psyche among many Liverpudlians. They see themselves > whenever possible as victims, and resent their victim status; yet at the > same time they wallow in it.
|
|