#will kymlicka

[howieabel]

Left-libertarianism' is a new term for an old conception of justice, dating back to Grotius. It combines the libertarian assumption that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership over his person with the egalitarian premiss that natural resources should be shared equally. Right-wing libertarians argue that the right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as unequal amounts of land. According to left-libertarians, however, the world's natural resources were initially unowned, or belonged equally to all, and it is illegitimate for anyone to claim exclusive private ownership of these resources to the detriment of others. Such private appropriation is legitimate only if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if those who appropriate more are taxed to compensate those who are thereby excluded from what was once common property. Historic proponents of this view include Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer, and Henry George. Recent exponents include Philippe Van Parijs and Hillel Steiner.

Will Kymlicka

[necessaryveganism]

The discourse of cruelty does not intend to eliminate "unnecessary suffering" in this sense. Rather, it seeks to ban those forms of animal suffering that violate widely shared social norms about what is *acceptable* suffering to impose in the pursuit of human enjoyment of animal products and services. [...] Insofar as cruelty appeals to majority sentiments of discomfort, it is inevitably going to be triggered more by those (minority) animal practices that are unusual or unfamiliar than by (majority) practices that are customary and familiar. "Necessary suffering" is likely to be whatever we the majority do to animals, whereas "unnecessary suffering" is what you the minority do to animals, particularly if we are not so keen on you the minority in the first place. Anyone who cares about racial and cultural hierarchies should be concerned about this bias in the function of existing animal cruelty laws and norms. And yet, remarkably, the Left has no response to it. The Left worries that embracing animal rights will involve complicity with racial bias, and so remains silent about animal oppression. In reality, it is the opposite: by remaining silent, the Left helps perpetuate a legal and political framework that is inherently biased against minorities.

Will Kymlicka

[necessaryveganism]

"Citizenship, on this view, is not about paying one’s way, but about sociality, the desire to be together. In the post-work society, citizenship would centre on a conception of belonging, not bargaining for mutual advantage - it would be, in other words, a society of those who wish to be together and to remain together in a shared society. Domesticated animals participate, join together, cooperate, and desire to be part of a society with each other, and often with us. In the post-work society they would be entitled to a basic income just like everyone else. And as their forebears played a major role in creating the modern world, they have the same birthright as the rest of us to benefit from the inherited fruits of civilization, and the technological developments which have reduced the need for ‘horse power’." Animal Labour in a Post-Work Society (2019)

[loonylefty]

Arbitrary discrimination in employment is not only unnecessary for the maintenance of male privilege, it is unlikely to occur, for most women will never be in a position to be arbitrarily discriminated against in employment

Will Kymlicka on how societal norms prevent women for attaining same-level status to men in the workplace 

[animalvoices]

Visit Original Link

Zoopolis: Will Kymlicka Puts a Political Spin on Human-Animal Relations

Political philosophy has a lot to say on the topic of governance. So why, wonders Will Kymlicka, has the field had little to say so far about the relationships between humans and the billions of animals in our homes, on farms, in the wild?

Kymlicka and co-author Sue Donaldson hope to remedy that with their book Zoopolis. They examine how concepts like sovereignty and citizenship can be used to think about the responsibilities we owe to different groups of animals — domesticated, wild, and those like raccoons and pigeons, who live in our cities but not with us.

In this interview, we will find out what we can learn from the disability rights movement, which works to enable people to communicate and express themselves in whatever way they best can, and from indigenous rights movements, which expose the dangers of “protection” vs. true sovereignty. We will hear about why some groups like the Amish elect to opt out of certain aspects of citizenship, even as others fight hard for full inclusion.

Join us for a fascinating discussion as Kymlicka shows us a vision of human-animal relations that brings new meaning to the term “political animal”.

[selchieproductions]

Both stateless nations and indigenous peoples reject any idea that they are simply 'minorities' within the larger political community, and insist instead that they form their own distinct and self-governing political community within the boundaries of the larger state. As James Tully argues, the sort of relationship desired by indigenous peoples in Canada must be one based on the recognition of Aboriginal people as 'peoples' or 'nations'. This 'nation-to-nation' relationship is sought by most stateless nations and indigenous peoples around the world. While the ideology of nationalism has typically seen full-fledged independence as the 'normal' or 'natural' end-point, economic or demographic reasons may make this infeasible for some national minorities, particularly for indigenous peoples. Moreover, the historical ideal of a fully sovereign state is increasingly obsolete in today's world of globalised economics and transnational institutions. Hence there is a growing interest among stateless nations and indigenous peoples in exploring other forms of self-government, such as federal or quasi-federal forms of regional autonomy. The precise nature of these arrangements will certainly differ for indigenous peoples and stateless nations, [...] but they raise some common challenges to the theory and practice of Western statehood.

Will Kymlicka, ‘American Multiculturalism and the 'Nations Within'’ in Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2000, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

[beethovensdream]

Visit Original Link

Will Kymlicka on Minority Rights