自由与儒学

王海明认为,自由是能够按照自己的意志——而不是自己的想望——进行的行为。在一些情况下,由于缺失利用自由能力的条件,自由行为仍然不能实现。接下来,王海明引进了对自由的传统的经典理解,即"积极自由"和"消极自由"。通过王海明对自由概念的分析,我们可以以一种新的理解方式去诠释自由:即将自由分解为内在自由和外在自由。从自由的角度去解读儒家的本体——天理和良知,寻求在自由精神支配下的民主和科学在现代新儒学中的定位。     

自由及其限度——关于自由的两种面相

自由是西方政治哲学中的一个核心概念,从古希腊、古罗马肇始以来便对西方发展产生了深远的影响,同时也引起了无数的争论.这些争论源于自由本身所固有的限度,由于这些限度自由先天地具有两种面相.要准确理解自由,我们就必须把握好绝对自由与相对自由、消极自由与积极自由、单一自由与多元自由这些概念及其关系.基于这些认识,才能使得对自由的追求在新的时期更加健康、持久地发展.     

Freedom, Interference and Domination

Interference and domination make persons less free. This paper discusses how they do so. It considers and rejects two influential recent accounts of freedom, one that holds that freedom is best understood in terms of non-interference and one that holds that freedom is best understood in terms of non-domination. Against these accounts, the paper argues that both interference and domination play an important role in reducing freedom and that neither concept can be reduced to the other. To bolster this argument, the paper presents and defends an account of freedom that relates both concepts back to a common source. This account shows that while interference and domination have independent significance for judgments of freedom both reduce freedom by obstructing the ability of persons to plan their lives.     

自由幻象

在货币哲学视域中,货币是独立于现实世界的一种魔力,可左右人的生存与自由。自由是人的内在本质与发展诉求,追求自由是人生命本质的永恒奋斗目标。自由与必然是对立与统一的,并且自由是对必然的超越。在货币经济时代,人类追求的永恒的价值目标变成了对货币的追逐,人的尺度的评价标准被货币尺度所取代,自由异化了。     

民间金融：自由与规制

民间金融具有存在的客观必然性,我国法律应对民间金融采取消极自由和利益平衡的价值取向。对具有较大影响的全国性民间金融组织予以立法规制,达到民间金融秩序法制化。民间金融本质是财产自由和金融民主,应引导民间金融良性发展,强化民间金融监管,防范金融风险,培育民间金融市场。     

Freedom of Expression and National Security

Society - The threat from terror and religious extremism has seen liberal democracies adopt a raft of measures are intended to restrict freedom of expression. Yet very little focus has been spent...     

Freedom of Information and Parliamentary Departments

This article examines whether freedom of information (FOI) legislation should apply to those agencies working to support parliaments. In the past, FOI legislation was characterized as a mechanism to allow greater scrutiny of the executive branch by parliament and the community. On this analysis, there was no reason to extend the legislation to the agencies of the legislative branch. But the role of FOI legislation has developed so that it now forms part of a wider integrity framework of government. The need to ensure integrity is a concern for all three branches of government and this article asks whether there are any convincing reasons in principle or practice to exclude the parliamentary departments from the FOI regime.