美国的法律家长主义理论与实践

在美国法上,法律家长主义是指法律为了当事人自身的利益而限制其自治。在理论上,对法律家长主义争论主要是从法律经济学和法律价值论两个维度进行的,对家长主义式的规定有无效率、法律是否应保持价值中立和自治这一价值在法律中的地位进行探讨。在实践中,法律家长主义在美国合同法、行政法和宪法中有着广泛的应用,对当事人的缔约自由、表达自由、平等权等进行限制,对市场经济和社会保障中的某些行为予以规制。     

农民、就业与法律父爱主义——以《就业促进法》为例

在现代化转型的大背景下,农民就业成为涉及全局的大问题,也是相关立法必须解决的难题。如果立法中的规定强调政府主导而不注重权利保护,就可能导致法律父爱主义的倾向。《就业促进法》浓厚的法律父爱主义色彩埋下了政府裁量权过大、农民就业权受侵蚀等隐患。为此,应彰显农民的就业权利和自由,以理性、确定和比例三原则来规制政府行为,淡化甚至褪去立法的父爱主义色彩,走出价值悖论的迷宫,使该法善始善终,最终实现其促进就业的目的。     

论淫秽物品犯罪的惩罚根据与认定标准——走出法益理论一元论的独断

在我国有关淫秽物品的刑事立法中，无论是道德主义、家长主义、自由主义还是女权主义，仅凭一己之力都无法解释复杂的立法现象，多元主义具有相对的合理性。有关淫秽物品的刑事立法是在冒犯原则的基础上考虑禁止剥削理论和软家长主义，法益理论中的损害原则无法为立法提供合理的说明。淫秽物品具有诲淫性的正向特征，没有科学价值或艺术价值的反向特征，这两个正反特征都应主要根据冒犯原则进行理解。     

Accountability and global governance: The view from paternalism

A standard view is that global governance institutions require strong accountability mechanisms to perform effectively and legitimately. Yet these institutions are much better at preaching than practicing accountability. A standard explanation for this gap references interests. For various reasons, institutions and their creators would rather be less than more accountable, and they are quite content to live with the hypocrisy. This article points to an alternative possibility: the public interest. An article of faith is that modern governance should be staffed by relatively autonomous experts who use their specialized knowledge for the greater good; accordingly, they cannot be accountable to those who are affected by their decisions. Too much democracy, therefore, can be a source of dysfunction. Yet expert authority's virtues also can become vices; namely, insulation from those affected by their decisions can also be a source of dysfunction, most closely associated with the “iron cage.” Although the possibility that expertise is both a virtue (effectiveness) and a vice (dysfunction) is well known in the literature on domestic governance, it has been neglected in discussions of global governance. Indeed, the dangers of, and dysfunctions associated with the iron cage might be greater in global governance than in domestic governance precisely because of the absence of institutional checks that often are produced by a preexisting social contract between the rulers and the ruled. I probe this possibility in the area of humanitarian governance.     

作为一种法律干预模式的家长主义

作为一种法律干预模式,家长主义的核心特征是为了保护行为人的利益而限制行为人的自由。尽管中国各个部门法领域都不乏家长主义的法律规定,但在中国的法律话语体系中家长主义并未确立起合法地位。在梳理家长主义概念谱系的基础上,通过分析家长主义法律干预的构成条件、正当理据,可以从理论上确立家长主义作为一种独立的法律干预模式的地位。在中国的政治传统和语境下,为防止政府以家长主义之名随意剥夺或限制公民的自由,必须对家长主义法律干预的设立加以严格控制,谨慎地运用家长主义法律干预。     

法律父爱主义与专断医疗行为的正当化

刑法学界对专断的医疗行为正当化的理论根据存在"伤害说"和"非伤害说"的争议,但是无论基于何种立场均未能提供重要的理论支撑。社会个体由于获取信息的局限或者能力的欠缺在某些情形下无法形成有效的决定,国家基于法律父爱主义立场赋予的强制能够避免患者进一步损害自身利益,因而具有正当性的一面。在贯彻法律父爱主义的同时需要区分强制的程度,只是在当事人面对待决事项尚未行使有效同意,国家从最大限度地维护患者最佳利益出发才能作出干预的决定。因此,在刑法教义学视域,需要区分"患者或者家属能表达意志的场合"和"患者或家属不能表达意志的场合"对医生的专断医疗行为进行具体判断。     

When do people accept government paternalism? Theory and experimental evidence

Under what conditions are people willing to accept paternalistic government policies? The use of libertarian paternalism (“nudges”) has gained popularity and captured the attention of scholars and policy-makers alike. A central underlying assumption in advancing governmental nudges is that the public prefers them over classic paternalistic policies, which, unlike nudges, are coercive. This paper studies the extent and circumstances under which this assumption is justified, arguing that the claim for the preeminence of nudges is overstated. I develop a theoretical framework to account for the conditions under which people prefer coercive and non-coercive paternalism, and test it experimentally among a national U.S. sample. I find that in certain theoretically predictable contexts, individuals not only tolerate, but even prefer coercive paternalism over nudges. These attitudes are systematically explained through the interaction between the coercion level and policy domain in question.     

近十年国外助推理论研究述评及进展

助推是行为经济学、社会心理学、政治哲学、公共政策学等多领域社会科学的新兴热点交叉议题,自2008年提出后,备受国外学界关注。公众选择不免会落入认知误区,助推以自由父爱主义为精神内核,利用不同选择架构工具推进助推目标,既为公众自由选择提供了选项,又增加了做出“更好的选择”的几率。但不可否认,助推也在伦理道德上饱受质疑。     

两种自由思想视野下的法律家长主义

以赛亚·伯林在<两种自由概念>中提出了消极自由和积极自由.在19世纪前后,理论和实践中对这两种自由的态度是不断变化的,以至于以自由为核心内容的法律家长主义在现实中的境况也有所不同.这两种自由都有其固有的缺陷,我们能看到法律家长主义的合理之处和不足.     

“Social physical exercise?” Football,industrial paternalism,and professionalism in west Dunbartonshire,Scotland, c. 1870–1900

This article examines the interrelationship of sport, community and industry in west Dunbartonshire during the period 1870–1900. During the early years of the Scottish Football Association (SFA)– the 1870s and 1880s – the county's main football clubs were amongst the SFA's most dominant, regularly challenging Glasgow's major clubs for supremacy in the Scottish Cup. These clubs were part of an industrial landscape, based as they were in shipbuilding and textile communities significantly comprised of Irish and Highland Scottish migrant populations. Local industrialists acted as patrons out of a paternalistic desire to mould the message of football. Their attempts were nevertheless undermined by the existence of professionalism in the game, which in turn encouraged an alternate method of social mobility.