首页> 外文学位 >Eminent domain as enclosure movement: The privatization of law under neoliberalism.
【24h】

Eminent domain as enclosure movement: The privatization of law under neoliberalism.

机译:围护运动的显赫领域:新自由主义下的法律私有化。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Law is a means to an end. The state has always claimed it uses law as a tool to promote social order and progress (the Brazilian National Flag is an example). The use of law to force social change to facilitate capital accumulation for elites in society flies in the face of what the takings clause is supposed to stand for. This research examines the connection between economic development and public good. It focuses on takings because takings lie at the intersection between economics, politics, and social relations. Takings are justified by necessity and public good, but the claim isn't genuine. Takings condone displacement and cause harm. State-authorized condemnation juxtaposes civic duty with social obligation, ownership with license and privilege. The thesis developed here is the state is pushing the law of takings toward the satisfaction of private interests. To that end the public use concept was expanded. Kelo v. City of New London (2005) holds economic development is a public use and in making that fallacious claim the case has ruptured takings law. Public use shouldn't be about private gain. Property should be creative and is when it facilitates productivity, but it's destructive if it erodes personal autonomy. The state claims it promotes social good when it reorders uses, but the claim is false. Instead the state achieves an air of legitimacy, offering a sound rationale for acts of displacement and uses law to support the claim it promotes public good. If an individual doesn't want to part with her property she shouldn't be forced to do so. Taking is use of state power to accomplish ends that can't otherwise be achieved. Taking is a lawful means to displace to benefit private interests. The proof of this is in the pudding of the transformation of law between Berman v. Parker (1954) and Kelo v. City of New London (2005). Berman (1954) required blight. Kelo v. City of New London (2005) eliminated that requirement. This thesis explains how law and state are captured by private interests.
机译:法律是达到目的的手段。该州一直声称使用法律作为促进社会秩序和进步的工具(巴西国旗就是一个例子)。运用法律来强迫社会变革,以促进社会上的精英们积累资本,这与《应收款项》条款所应具有的意义相去甚远。这项研究探讨了经济发展与公共利益之间的联系。它关注收益,因为收益位于经济学,政治和社会关系之间的交汇处。必需品和公共利益证明了收入是合理的,但这种说法并非真实。服从宽恕而造成伤害。国家授权的谴责将公民义务与社会义务并列,所有权与许可和特权并列。这里提出的论点是,国家正在将获取法则推向满足私人利益的方向。为此,扩大了公共使用概念。 Kelo诉新伦敦市(2005)认为,经济发展是一种公共用途,在提出这一谬误的主张时,该案已经破坏了采伐法律。公共用途不应该与私人利益有关。财产应该具有创造力,并能促进生产力,但是如果侵蚀个人自主权,则具有破坏性。国家声称在对使用进行重新排序时会促进社会福利,但这种说法是错误的。相反,国家实现了合法性,为流离失所行为提供了合理的理由,并利用法律来支持其促进公共利益的主张。如果某人不想放弃自己的财产,则不应强迫她这样做。采取是利用国家权力来完成原本无法实现的目标。采取合法手段代替有利于私人利益的手段。伯曼诉帕克案(1954年)与凯洛诉新伦敦市案(2005年)之间的法治转型就证明了这一点。伯曼(Berman(1954))要求枯萎。 Kelo诉新伦敦市(2005)消除了这一要求。本文阐述了私人利益如何捕捉法律和国家。

著录项

  • 作者

    Kleeger, Jeffrey.;

  • 作者单位

    Florida Atlantic University.;

  • 授予单位 Florida Atlantic University.;
  • 学科 Organizational behavior.;Political science.;Economics.;Law.;Social structure.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2015
  • 页码 211 p.
  • 总页数 211
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号