You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
The nature of 'fascism' has been hotly contested by scholars since the term was first coined by Mussolini in 1919. However, for the first time since Italian fascism appeared there is now a significant degree of consensus amongst scholars about how to approach the generic term, namely as a revolutionary form of ultra-nationalism. Seen from this perspective, all forms of fascism have three common features: anticonservatism, a myth of ethnic or national renewal and a conception of a nation in crisis. This collection includes articles that show this new consensus, which is inevitably contested, as well as making available material which relates to aspects of fascism independently of any sort of consensus and also covering fascism of the inter and post-war periods.This is a comprehensive selection of texts, reflecting both the extreme multi-faceted nature of fascism as a phenomenon and the extraordinary divergence of interpretations of fascism.
These leading health economics experts make various recommendations for saving the popular Medicare program and grapple with finding a solution that is realistic, fair, and efficient.
When the Supreme Court's majority ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the PPACA, or Obamacare), it was clear that this major shift in American health care provision was here to stay. For better or worse, the PPACA is now both a target for, and a constraint on, the next wave of reformist ideas. Driven by curiosity about how the American health care regime will continue to evolve in the near and medium term, Dean Michael Schill and Professor Anup Malani of the University of Chicago Law School commissioned fourteen essays from leading scholars of law, economics, medicine, and public health that offer predictions for the most important issues and deb...
None
In the minds of many, the provision of justice and security has long been linked to the state. To ask whether non-state institutions could deliver those services on their own, without the aid of coercive taxation and a monopoly franchise, runs the risk of being branded as naive anarchism or dangerous radicalism. Defenders of the state's monopoly on lawmaking and law enforcement typically assume that any alternative arrangement would favor the rich at the expense of the poor—or would lead to the collapse of social order and ignite a war. Questioning how well these beliefs hold up to scrutiny, this book offers a powerful rebuttal of the received view of the relationship between law and government. The book argues not only that the state is unnecessary for the establishment and enforcement of law, but also that non-state institutions would fight crime, resolve disputes, and render justice more effectively than the state, based on their stronger incentives.