Tibor R. Machan – författare

Government interference in free enterprise is growing. Should they intercede in business ethics and corporate responsibility; and if so, to what extent? The Morality of Business: A Profession for Human Wealthcare goes beyond the utilitarian case in discussing the various elements of business ethics, social policy, job security, outsourcing, government regulation, stakeholder theory, advertising and property rights."Professor Machan has done it again! Profit seeking behavior by business is ethical and prudent, but it only can be ethical when a person is free, and that depends upon having private property rights. Business ethics is not about ‘corporate citizenship,’ as so many others seem to believe. The contemplative life, so highly valued by many in academe, is made possible by the success of those in commerce. Which one lives a more ethical life? Read Machan’s, The Morality of Business for his answer."-Don Booth, Chapman University, California, USA

In Classical Individualism, Tibor R. Machan argues that individualism is far from being dead. Machan identifies, develops and defends what he calls classical individualism - an individualism humanised by classical philosophy, rooted in Aristotle rather than Hobbes.This book does not reject the social nature of human beings, but finds that every one has a self-directed agent who is responsible for what he or she does. Machan rejects all types of collectivism, including communitarianism, ethnic solidarity, racial unity, and gender identity. The ideas expressed here have important social and political implications, and will be of interest to anyone concerned with the notion of individuality and individual responsibility.

In Classical Individualism, Tibor R. Machan argues that individualism is far from being dead. Machan identifies, develops and defends what he calls classical individualism - an individualism humanised by classical philosophy, rooted in Aristotle rather than Hobbes.This book does not reject the social nature of human beings, but finds that every one has a self-directed agent who is responsible for what he or she does. Machan rejects all types of collectivism, including communitarianism, ethnic solidarity, racial unity, and gender identity. The ideas expressed here have important social and political implications, and will be of interest to anyone concerned with the notion of individuality and individual responsibility.

In The Passion for Liberty, Tibor R. Machan defends a libertarian conception of a free society, one in which individuals are sovereign, self-governing beings, not subject to others' will without their consent. In the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and Robert Nozick, Machan argues that such a society—far from being hedonistic, licentious, or disorderly—is the best possible ideal for humans. In doing so, he addresses specific issues such as affirmative action, abortion, military intervention, and torture in light of the relationship between liberty and democracy.As freedom takes on a new urgency, The Passion for Liberty reminds us of the importance of individual liberty and why it needs to be defended.

Libertarianism: For and Against offers dueling perspectives on the scope of legitimate government. Tibor R. Machan, a well-known political philosopher with libertarian convictions, argues for a minimal government devoted solely to protecting individual rights to life, liberty, and property. Stressing the sovereignty of each individual, Machan argues in favor of limiting democracy's scope and against the redistribution of wealth, or any other sort of taxation. In opposition to libertarianism, philosopher Craig Duncan defends democratic liberalism, which aims to ensure that all citizens have fair access to a life of dignity. This requires measures to protect equality of opportunity, as well as measures to ensure all have access to a decent minimum standard of living. In a dynamic exchange of arguments, critiques, and rebuttals, the two philosophers cut to the heart of this important debate, articulating and defending competing conceptions of such core values as political freedom and equality.

Libertarianism: For and Against offers dueling perspectives on the scope of legitimate government. Tibor R. Machan, a well-known political philosopher with libertarian convictions, argues for a minimal government devoted solely to protecting individual rights to life, liberty, and property. Stressing the sovereignty of each individual, Machan argues in favor of limiting democracy's scope and against the redistribution of wealth, or any other sort of taxation. In opposition to libertarianism, philosopher Craig Duncan defends democratic liberalism, which aims to ensure that all citizens have fair access to a life of dignity. This requires measures to protect equality of opportunity, as well as measures to ensure all have access to a decent minimum standard of living. In a dynamic exchange of arguments, critiques, and rebuttals, the two philosophers cut to the heart of this important debate, articulating and defending competing conceptions of such core values as political freedom and equality.

Ever since the publication in 1974 of Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia, libertarianism has been much discussed within political philosophy, science and economy circles. Yet libertarianism has been so strongly identified with Nozick's version of it that little attention has been devoted to other than Nozick's ideas and arguments. While Nozick's version of libertarianism has preoccupied the academic discussion Nozick himself did not respond to the many criticisms raised and yet other defenders of libertarianism have not remained silent. Jan Narveson, Loren Lomasky, Eric Mack, Douglas Rasmussen, Douglas Den Uyl and many others have contributed impressive arguments of their own in support of the libertarian idea that a political system is just when it successfully secures the rights of individuals understood within the Lockean classical liberal tradition. In this book Tibor R. Machan analyses the state of the debate on libertarianism post Nozick. Going far beyond the often cursory treatment of libertarianism in major books and other publications he examines closely the alternative non-Nozickian defenses of libertarianism that have been advanced and, by applying these arguments to innumerable policy areas in the field, Machan achieves a new visibility and prominence for libertarianism.

It is well known that the radical libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick sharply distinguished his vision of the free society from egalitarian liberals such as John Rawls. Less remarked upon is the distinction he drew between the free society governed by a strictly limited government, commonly referred to as 'minarchism', and the society without any government at all - anarchism. In this volume, the editors, Long - an anarchist - and Machan - a minarchist - have brought together a selection of specially commissioned essays from key theorists actively involved in this debate. Each tackles the question of whether or not a government forms a legitimate part of a free society or whether anarchy/minarchy is merely a distinction without a difference.

For some time there has been no direct critique of Marx's ideas from those who value the position he most harshly attacked, bourgeois capitalism. The few who did criticize Marx were economists such as Thomas Sowell, Eugen Böhm-Bawerk, and Ludwig von Mises. Others attacked Marx's ideas, but did not actually defend the concept of capitalism. In 1987, shortly before the fall of the Soviet Union, David Conway published his Farewell to Marx, which offered a philosophical critique of Marx. This work, however, developed, in part, from a position that uncritically embraces economism, or what the author calls the "homo economicus conception of human life." In Revisting Marxism, Tibor Machan contrasts Marx's historicist collectivism with a neo-Aristotelian individualism as presented by, among others, David L. Norton and Ayn Rand. It criticizes Marxism based on this position, the one he most directly disparaged. Also included in this volume is an exchange between the author and the late Sidney Hook, perhaps the most sympathetic social democratic champion of Marx's ideas.

The Pseudo-Science of B.F. Skinner was Professor Tibor Machan's first book. Now, nearly forty years after its initial publication and after three dozen additional books published by Machan, it is available again through University Press of America. This study is still alive with its initial inquiry into the work of B.F. Skinner, and it is just as influential upon young students today as it was forty years ago.Was Skinner a bona fide scientist or an amateur metaphysician? Was Skinner correct to hold that only what can be observed matters when it comes to understanding ourselves? Was he correct that free will is fictional and morality is pre-scientific? Professor Machan's fascinating inquiry into Skinner's radical studies is a salute and a challenge to the corpus of his work.

The question of objectivity is whether human beings are capable of knowing reality just as it is, or whether there is some necessary distortion in our grasp of the nature of things imposed either by the very nature of our cognitive mechanism, or by such factors as language, culture, personal ambitions, psychological disorders, and class interests. Could it be that we do not see the world at all, since we see it from a particular point of view? Can we ever satisfactorily establish that our understanding of reality is accurate, or must that always remain in doubt? In this book Professor Machan defends objectivity in philosophy, science, and everyday life from its many critics. Objectivity stands in need of a defence because it is a difficult ideal to serve, especially in an era of multiculturalism, deconstructionism, feminism, and diversity. People from different cultures report having radically different experiences, indeed radically different worlds. They usually claim that their experiences are as true as anyone else‘s. Deconstructionists tell us that we know nothing determinate beyond language, i.e., that we don‘t know what we are talking about. Feminists often maintain that women and men see the world in significantly different ways. The idea of diversity gains much of its plausibility from the idea that people from diverse backgrounds all have their own valid ways of seeing the world. The most prominent movements in Anglo-American and continental philosophy are against objectivity. Such figures as Richard Rorty and Jacques Derrida unambiguously deny that human beings are capable of knowing the world as it is. This book considers and responds to these and similar challenges to objectivity.

To find more information about Rowman and Littlefield titles, please visit www.rowmanlittlefield.com.

This work is a classic dialogue between two philosophers, with the unusual twist that it was actually conducted, not fabricated, by two different philosophers. It presents in a conversational tone the various crucial and not so crucial aspects of the topic of political liberty and what if any value it has for us. The topics covered range from the main theme to such others as the nature of goodness, the open question argument (G.E. Moore), the nature of conceptual knowledge, whether being rational might be the highest moral good and what it entails, how to judge theories of mortality, the difference between goodness and moral goodness, and much more. Both undergraduate and graduate students of philosophy and in particular political philosophy, will find this book invaluable.

These original essays by seven leading contemporary political philosophers spanning the political spectrum explore the possibility of achieving agreement in political theory. Each philosopher defends in a principal essay his or her own view of social justice and also comments on two or more of the other essays. The result is a lively exchange that leaves the reader to judge to what degree the contributors achieve agreement or reconciliation.

These original essays by seven leading contemporary political philosophers spanning the political spectrum explore the possibility of achieving agreement in political theory. Each philosopher defends in a principal essay his or her own view of social justice and also comments on two or more of the other essays. The result is a lively exchange that leaves the reader to judge to what degree the contributors achieve agreement or reconciliation.

Has Marxism finally shown itself to be a bankrupt social philosophy? Why should we strive for economic democracy? Are individual human rights to be protected only so long as no one is inconvenienced? Are radical measures needed in the defence of our freedoms? Can competitive, profit-oriented free market capitalism coincide with heart-felt public concern for the social welfare of others? Why do so many people harbour anti-business attitudes? Have we become a nation of moral eunuchs who won't, or can't stand up for their own rights? Is there is right to health care? Has society really been corrupted by public education, pornography, show business, and the like? This extraordinary array of piercing social questions is just a tasty sampling of the intellectual hors d'oeuvres offered to whet the appetites of those who seek a more satisfying and practical approach to contemporary social problems. In "Liberty & Culture", Tibor Machan, one of America's leading libertarian authors, compiles more than 130 of his articles and editorials from leading newspaper columns and nationally recognised magazines.

It is well known that the radical libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick sharply distinguished his vision of the free society from egalitarian liberals such as John Rawls. Less remarked upon is the distinction he drew between the free society governed by a strictly limited government, commonly referred to as 'minarchism', and the society without any government at all - anarchism. In this volume, the editors, Long - an anarchist - and Machan - a minarchist - have brought together a selection of specially commissioned essays from key theorists actively involved in this debate. Each tackles the question of whether or not a government forms a legitimate part of a free society or whether anarchy/minarchy is merely a distinction without a difference.

The question of objectivity is whether human beings are capable of knowing reality just as it is, or whether there is some necessary distortion in our grasp of the nature of things imposed either by the very nature of our cognitive mechanism, or by such factors as language, culture, personal ambitions, psychological disorders, and class interests. Could it be that we do not see the world at all, since we see it from a particular point of view? Can we ever satisfactorily establish that our understanding of reality is accurate, or must that always remain in doubt? In this book Professor Machan defends objectivity in philosophy, science, and everyday life from its many critics. Objectivity stands in need of a defence because it is a difficult ideal to serve, especially in an era of multiculturalism, deconstructionism, feminism, and diversity. People from different cultures report having radically different experiences, indeed radically different worlds. They usually claim that their experiences are as true as anyone else‘s. Deconstructionists tell us that we know nothing determinate beyond language, i.e., that we don‘t know what we are talking about. Feminists often maintain that women and men see the world in significantly different ways. The idea of diversity gains much of its plausibility from the idea that people from diverse backgrounds all have their own valid ways of seeing the world. The most prominent movements in Anglo-American and continental philosophy are against objectivity. Such figures as Richard Rorty and Jacques Derrida unambiguously deny that human beings are capable of knowing the world as it is. This book considers and responds to these and similar challenges to objectivity.

Government interference in free enterprise is growing. Should they intercede in business ethics and corporate responsibility; and if so, to what extent? The Morality of Business: A Profession for Human Wealthcare goes beyond the utilitarian case in discussing the various elements of business ethics, social policy, job security, outsourcing, government regulation, stakeholder theory, advertising and property rights."Professor Machan has done it again! Profit seeking behavior by business is ethical and prudent, but it only can be ethical when a person is free, and that depends upon having private property rights. Business ethics is not about ‘corporate citizenship,’ as so many others seem to believe. The contemplative life, so highly valued by many in academe, is made possible by the success of those in commerce. Which one lives a more ethical life? Read Machan’s, The Morality of Business for his answer."-Don Booth, Chapman University, California, USA

Especially when there is a lot of political rhetoric in the air, those of us with strong political convictions are inclined to reflect on just why we hold certain views even as others who are basically like us hold very different ones. Social scientists and other thinkers struggle to explain it, but the puzzle remains—in part because they, too, disagree so much with one another. Whether the arena is politics, religion, business, scientific research, or education, individuals who operate in the same environment and experience the same conditions may have radically different interpretations of the facts and diametrically opposed convictions about how to react to them. When faced with a fundamental disagreement, we ask ourselves: Why are these folks so wrong? And how can they be so convinced that we are wrong? In this provocative monograph, Tibor Machan explores the principles of truth, reason, and ideology, with particular respect to the profound political, economic, and social crises gripping the world today. In so doing, he not only sheds light on the nature of “truth” but also suggests a framework for embracing differences to come up with creative solutions.