Julia Maskivker – författare

Dialogues on Democracy offers a panoramic overview of recent and classical debates on the meaning of democracy as a philosophical ideal. It features some of the most central discussions that exist in the literature regarding its value, its purpose, and its (possible) flaws.

Accessibly written and efficiently organized, the book is structured around a fictional conversation involving four participants: a teacher of philosophy and political theory and three of her most notable and dedicated students. Their dialogues capture the essence of some of the most powerful objections and counter objections to democracy and its institutions, allowing the reader to understand the origins and logic of much philosophical thinking concerned with political life. Maskivker provides succinct but highly informative arguments in defense of democracy while deftly addressing serious questions regarding its legitimacy coming from diverse corners of the ideological spectrum. The discussion addresses issues concerned with the justification and institutional plausibility of collective government, citizen equality, political representation, citizen action, civic virtue, and many other themes.

Perfectly suited for a first introduction to the philosophical analysis of democracy, the book covers extensive ground in an instructive and dynamic way. In the book, Maskivker also offers her own novel insights regarding the value of democracy and its distinct interpretations – a contribution that makes the book all the more interesting and complete.

Key Features:

Dialogues on Democracy offers a panoramic overview of recent and classical debates on the meaning of democracy as a philosophical ideal. It features some of the most central discussions that exist in the literature regarding its value, its purpose, and its (possible) flaws.

Accessibly written and efficiently organized, the book is structured around a fictional conversation involving four participants: a teacher of philosophy and political theory and three of her most notable and dedicated students. Their dialogues capture the essence of some of the most powerful objections and counter objections to democracy and its institutions, allowing the reader to understand the origins and logic of much philosophical thinking concerned with political life. Maskivker provides succinct but highly informative arguments in defense of democracy while deftly addressing serious questions regarding its legitimacy coming from diverse corners of the ideological spectrum. The discussion addresses issues concerned with the justification and institutional plausibility of collective government, citizen equality, political representation, citizen action, civic virtue, and many other themes.

Perfectly suited for a first introduction to the philosophical analysis of democracy, the book covers extensive ground in an instructive and dynamic way. In the book, Maskivker also offers her own novel insights regarding the value of democracy and its distinct interpretations – a contribution that makes the book all the more interesting and complete.

Key Features:

In this book, Maskivker argues that there ought to be a right not to participate in the paid economy in a new way; not by appealing to notions of fairness to competing conceptions of the good, but rather to a contentious (but defensible) normative ideal, namely, self-realization. In so doing, she joins a venerable tradition in ethical thought, initiated by Aristotle and developed in the work of important eighteenth and nineteenth century thinkers including Smith, Hume, and Marx.The book engages on-going debates (in both philosophical and real world political and social policy circles) about the provision of basic income grants, necessary to make the possibility of self-realization real for all. Traditional defenses of unconditional welfare benefits emphasize ideals of state neutrality when they claim that society should not discriminate against preferences for leisure in favor of preferences for work. According to these views, the state ought not to interfere with people’s choices about what constitutes the "good life." In contradistinction, Maskivker offers an innovative argument in defense of a particular ideal of the "good life," namely, life-goals directed at the pursuit of self-realization. However, her understanding of self-realization appeals to modern and contemporary values of freedom and pluralism. In a refreshingly new light, the book strikes a balance between fascinating debates on the conditions of human flourishing on the one hand, and heated discussions about the Welfare State on the other.

In this book, Maskivker argues that there ought to be a right not to participate in the paid economy in a new way; not by appealing to notions of fairness to competing conceptions of the good, but rather to a contentious (but defensible) normative ideal, namely, self-realization. In so doing, she joins a venerable tradition in ethical thought, initiated by Aristotle and developed in the work of important eighteenth and nineteenth century thinkers including Smith, Hume, and Marx.The book engages on-going debates (in both philosophical and real world political and social policy circles) about the provision of basic income grants, necessary to make the possibility of self-realization real for all. Traditional defenses of unconditional welfare benefits emphasize ideals of state neutrality when they claim that society should not discriminate against preferences for leisure in favor of preferences for work. According to these views, the state ought not to interfere with people’s choices about what constitutes the "good life." In contradistinction, Maskivker offers an innovative argument in defense of a particular ideal of the "good life," namely, life-goals directed at the pursuit of self-realization. However, her understanding of self-realization appeals to modern and contemporary values of freedom and pluralism. In a refreshingly new light, the book strikes a balance between fascinating debates on the conditions of human flourishing on the one hand, and heated discussions about the Welfare State on the other.