OTHER IMPORTANT PPL

Philippe Van Parijs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Van_Parijs
Interview about Basic Income:
http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plcdib/imprints/vanparijsinterview.html
____________________
BASIC INCOME JOURNAL
http://www.bepress.com/bis/
Awesome page about Philippe van Pariijs - includes his email...
http://www.uclouvain.be/en-11688.html
seminar every year!
Lovanium Seminar in Ethics and Public Policy
2009-10LOVANIUM SEMINAR ETHICS& PUBLIC POLICYJUSTICE AND HEALTH
Toon VANDEVELDE (KuLeuven) & Philippe VAN PARIJS (UCLouvain)
This joint KUleuven-UCLouvain seminar operates in English and takes place alternatively in Leuven and in Louvain-la-Neuve on a number of Thursdays (all day). It starts every year with a compact introduction to the main contemporary ethical theories that are relevant to the discussion of public policies and social institutions.
The rest of the seminar focuses on a special theme that changes from year to year. Past themes include global justice, migration, justice and democracy, ethical limits of the market. In 2009-10, the main focus will be on justice and health.
The issues to be discussed include: What are the main factors of inequalities in health and life expectancy? What principles should guide the designing of institutions and policies in the area of health care and other domains that affect the distribution of illness, invalidity and mortality? What are the respective roles of the state, the market and the family in the provision of health care? Should institutionalized solidarity extend to cosmetic surgery, to fertility treatment, to long-term care?
Should it be sensitive to the age of the patients? In the context of Belgium's federal state, should it ideally be organized at the central level, at the level of each Region or at the level of each Community.
For further information and reading material:Antoon.Vandevelde@hiw.kuleuven.be or philippe.vanparijs@uclouvain.be
Programme for the first semester
Thursday 8 October 2009 (10.30am-5pm, Dupriez 350, 3 Place Montesquieu, LLN)Philippe VAN PARIJS (UcLouvain): “A compact overview of contemporary theories of social justice ”.Comments and complements by Toon VANDEVELDE (K.U.Leuven)Geoffrey CUPIT (University of Waikato, NZ & Hoover Fellow, author of Justice as Fittingness, OUP 1996): “Allocating health resources by age: It may be fair but is it just?”Thursday 22 October 2009 (10.30am-5pm, Raadzaal, 2 Kard. Mercierplein, Leuven)Carine VAN DE VOORDE (K.U.Leuven): Key facts about health inequalities and other facts relevant to justice in health mattersComments and complements by Toon VANDEVELDE (K.U.Leuven)Yvonne DENIER (K.U.Leuven): Daniels on Just Health and other approaches to justice in health careComments and complements by Toon VANDEVELDE (K.U.Leuven)Thursday 5 November 2009 (10.30am-5pm, Raadzaal, 2 Kard. Mercierplein, Leuven)Eszter KOLLAR (Luiss University, Rome, and Hoover Fellow): “Global justice and the trans-national migration of health care workers”Philippe VAN PARIJS (UcLouvain): Just Health Care in a Pluri-National StateCritical comment by Helder DE SCHUTTER (K.U.Leuven)Thursday 3 December 2009 (10.30am-5pm, Dupriez 350, 3 Place Montesquieu, LLN)Enrico BIALE (Università di Milano & Hoover Fellow): “Economic inequalities, health reform and public reason”Philippe SANCHEZ (Univ. catholique de Lille): “Just health care versus just care for the disabled”
Philippe Van Parijs studied philosophy, law, political economy, sociology and linguistics at the Facultés universitaires Saint Louis (Brussels) and the Universities of Louvain, Oxford, Bielefeld and California (Berkeley). He holds doctorates in the social sciences (Louvain, 1977) and in philosophy (Oxford, 1980).
He is professor at the Faculty of economic, social and political sciences of the Catholic University of Louvain (UCL), where he directs the Hoover Chair of economic and social ethics since its creation in 1991. He is also a Visiting Professor at Harvard University's Department of Philosophy since 2004 at at the KuLeuven's Higher Institute for Philosophy since 2006.
He also held visiting positions at the Universities of Amsterdam, Manchester, Siena, Québec (Montréal), Wisconsin (Madison), Maine (Orono), Uruguay (Montevideo) and Aix-Marseille, the European University Institute (Florence), the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Beijing), the Catholic Faculties of Kinshasa (Congo), All Souls College (Oxford), Yale University, Sciences Po (Paris), the Autonomous University of Barcelona and the Ecole normale supérieure (Paris). He was awarderd an honorary doctorate by Laval University (Québec).
He is one of the founders of the Basic Income European Network (BIEN), which became in 2004 the Basic Income Earth Network, and he chairs its International Board. He organizes the annual Ethical Forum of the University Foundationand chairs the steering committee of the programme on Poverty and Social Justice of the King Baudouin Foundation. He coordinates, jointly with Kris Deschouwer, the Pavia Group, which pleads for the creation of a country-wide electoral district in federal Belgium, and, jointly with Paul De Grauwe (K.U.Leuven), the Re-Bel initiative, whose purpose is to radically rethink Belgium's institutions in the European context.
He is a member of Belgium's Royal Academy of Sciences, Letters and Fine Arts, of the International Institute of Philosophy, and of the European Academy of Arts and Sciences and Fellow of the British Academy. In 2001, he was awarded the Francqui Prize, Belgium's most generous scientific prize. In 2007, a post stamp was devoted to him within the framework of a series ("This is Belgium") honouring nine outstanding Belgian scholars.
He is one of the founders of the Basic Income European Network (BIEN), which became in 2004 the Basic Income Earth Network, and he chairs its International Board. He organizes the annual Ethical Forum of the University Foundation and chairs the steering committee of the programme on Poverty and Social Justice of the King Baudouin Foundation. He coordinates, jointly with Kris Deschouwer, the Pavia Group, which pleads for the creation of a country-wide electoral district in federal Belgium, and, jointly with Paul De Grauwe (K.U.Leuven), the Re-Bel initiative, whose purpose is to radically rethink Belgium's institutions in the European context.He is a member of Belgium's Royal Academy...
He is a member of the editorial boards of Ethics, Journal of Political Philosophy, Economics and Philosophy, Politics Philosophy and Economics, Journal of Ethics, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, European Journal of Political Theory, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Ethical Perspectives, European Journal of Philosophy, Philosophical Explorations, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Basic Income Studies, Egalitarian Theory and Political Practice, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Public Reason, Revue de philosophie économique, Raisons politiques, Raison publique, Ethiek en Maatschappij, Econômica and Sin permiso.
His books include Evolutionary Explanation in the Social Sciences (1981), Le Modèle économique et ses rivaux (1990), Qu'est-ce qu'une société juste? (1991), Marxism Recycled (1993), Real Freedom for All (1995), Sauver la solidarité (1995), Refonder la solidarité (1996), Solidariteit voor de XXIste eeuw (1997), Ethique économique et sociale (2000, with C. Arnsperger), What's Wrong with a Free Lunch ? (2001), Hacia una concepcion de la justicia global (2002), L'Allocation universelle (2005, with Y. Vanderborght), Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World (in progress) and Cultural Diversity versus Economic Solidarity (as editor, 2004).
11/05/2009





______________________________
The book I'm currently reading by G.A. Cohen - he just died (this august) I didn't know he was Canadian!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Cohen
Known as a proponent of Analytical Marxism and a founding member of the September Group, Cohen's 1978 work Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence defends an old-fashioned interpretation of Marx's historical materialism often referred to as 'economic determinism' or 'technological determinism' by its critics. In Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality, Cohen offers an extensive moral argument in favour of socialism, contrasting his views with those of John Rawls and Robert Nozick, by articulating an extensive critique of the Lockean principle of self-ownership as well as the use of that principle to defend right –as opposed to left– libertarianism. In If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? (which covers the topic of his Gifford Lectures) Cohen addresses the question of what egalitarian political principles imply for the personal behavior of those who subscribe to them.
Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defense
Cohen's 1978 work is considered a groundbreaking reinterpretation of the Marxist doctrine of historical materialism. He uses the techniques of modern analytic philosophy to construct Marx’s theory of history in a language familiar to liberal and “bourgeois” social theory. The book is sometimes considered to be the first in a school of thought that explores and attempts to reconstruct Marxism using the tools of Anglo-American analytical philosophy and social science, which later came to be known as "Analytical Marxism".
Cohen’s theory was very orthodox in conclusions but its language, premises and method were not traditionally employed by marxists. It was congenial to the rigorous tools used in 1970's social science, as well as the logical and linguistic analysis used in contemporary philosophy.
Analytical Marxism is sometimes called "Rational Choice Marxism", although not all of its proponents affirm, or need affirm, a form of rational choice. According to some, RCM means that all economical and political action and theories should be explained by the action of not just any individuals but by the actions of a certain individual capable of choice and rational agency. Although some believe it is impossible to reconstruct marxism in this way, many marxists today accept that Cohen's work presents a landmark in the (re)interpretation of Marx's philosophy.[1]
In reality, the approach used by the group of scholars who are known as Analytical Marxists draws only in part on neoclassical models. What truly distinguishes Analytical Marxism from many past 'Marxisms' is its rejection of the holistic methodology. That is, 'Analytical Marxists' do not believe that classes or any other entities should be seen as acting in a way that is not the result of the actions of the individuals that make up that entity. Analytical Marxists, generally speaking, do not agree with the rational man/homo economicus premise of neo-classical economics (although they sometimes use this premise as a tool, not a description of a reality) but do otherwise tend to agree with mainstream methodology. Failure to distinguish between the method, and the theory of human nature that is often posited by people who use this technique will lead to mass confusion.
AM and RCM challenge bourgeois theory on its own terms. Human rationality is potentially very good starting point for criticizing capitalism, but not the only one. Like many 'analytical Marxists', Cohen has turned his attention towards the concepts of justice, equality and exploitation in his more recent works.
Rescuing Justice and Equality
In the book, Cohen attacked Rawls's "difference principle". Agreeing with Rawls that it would be absurd to insist on equality per se if unequal distribution could actually improve the lot of the worse-off, he criticised the unprincipled way in which this principle was actually applied. The justification of Nigel Lawson's swingeing tax cuts of 1988, for instance (by Rawlsian liberals as well as by the right) was that, as well as benefiting the already wealthy, they ultimately benefited society as a whole. For (went the claim) they offered the sort of economic incentives that are unavoidably required if talented, productive people are to produce more – more, that is, than they would without these incentives.
But such claims, said Cohen, seem inconsistent with both liberal and libertarian beliefs in personal moral choice, ludicrously echoing Marxist notions of historical forces and naturalistic inevitability. They confuse the relationship between facts and moral principles, especially if used by the talented people, who are surely not entitled to adopt this "third person", almost biological, view of themselves. Consider, said Cohen, the argument that parents ought to pay a kidnapper's ransom, because otherwise the kidnapper would not return their child: this argument can be innocently put forward by anyone – except the kidnapper, who (though unlikely to be bothered by that) is on a different footing to anyone else since he is talking about himself and what he will do, rather than predicting someone else's action.
The incentives argument has in common with the kidnapper argument that it cannot without oddity be used in the first-person case. It fails "the interpersonal test", which requires of a moral justification that the identity of anyone proposing it be irrelevant. As a policy, economic incentivising is a pragmatic compromise, not a principle of justice, and talented people who hold out for greater rewards instead of lending their talents to a higher equal distribution, are in fact acting against justice. "The flesh may be weak, but one should not make a principle out of that," said Cohen.

Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defense (1978, 2000)
History, Labour, and Freedom (1988)
Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (1995)
If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? (2000)
Rescuing Justice and Equality (2008)
Why Not Socialism? (2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism
ANALYTICAL MARXISM
Analytical Marxism is usually understood to have taken off with the publication of G. A. Cohen's Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (1978). More broadly conceived, it might be seen as having originated in the post-war period in the work of political philosophers such as Karl Popper, H. B. Acton, and John Plamenatz, who employed the techniques of analytical philosophy in order to test the coherence and scientific validity of Marxism as a theory of history and society.
Those thinkers were critical of Marxism. Cohen's book was, from the outset, intended as a defence of historical materialism. Cohen painstakingly reconstructed historical materialism through a close reading of Marx's texts, with the aim of providing the most logically coherent and parsimonious account. For Cohen, Marx's historical materialism is a technologically deterministic theory, in which the economic relations of production are functionally explained by the material forces of production, and in which the political and legal institutions (the "superstructure") are functionally explained by the relations of production (the "base"). The transition from one mode of production to another is driven by the tendency of the productive forces to develop. Cohen accounts for this tendency by reference to the rational character of the human species: where there is the opportunity to adopt a more productive technology and thus reduce the burden of labour, human beings will tend to take it. Thus, human history can be understood as a series of rational steps that increase human productive power.
[edit] September Group
The September Group (also known as the No-Bullshit Marxism Group) is a small circle of scholars interested in Analytical Marxism. Its original members included G.A. Cohen, Jon Elster, Adam Przeworski, Erik Olin Wright, Robert Brenner, Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs, Robert Van Der Veen, Samuel Bowles and John Roemer. The group, so-called because it traditionally meets in September, reconvenes every other year in varying locations. Meetings are usually also attended by a guest scholar who is not a permanent member of the group.
Although all the members of the September Group share an interest in Marxism, some of them, like Van Parijs and Steiner, have never described themselves as Marxists. Elster and Przeworski were notable departures from the group in the early 1990s. Latecomers include Thomas Piketty and, more recently, Joshua Cohen.
[edit] Exploitation
At the same time as Cohen was working on Karl Marx's Theory of History, American economist John Roemer was employing neoclassical economics in order to try to defend the Marxist concepts of exploitation and class. In his General Theory of Exploitation and Class (1982), Roemer employed rational choice and game theory in order to demonstrate how exploitation and class relations may arise in the development of a market for labour. Roemer would go on to reject the idea that the labour theory of value was necessary for explaining exploitation and class. Value was in principle capable of being explained in terms of any class of commodity inputs, such as oil, wheat, etc., rather than being exclusively explained by embodied labour power. Roemer was led to the conclusion that exploitation and class were thus generated not in the sphere of production but of market exchange. Significantly, as a purely technical category, exploitation did not always imply a moral wrong (see section Justice below).

Denouement
As a project, analytical Marxism had largely disappeared by the end of the 1990s.
The leading lights of analytical marxism now focus their energies in other areas – such as moral and political philosophy (Cohen, van Parijs), and democratic theory employing economic models (Roemer, Elster, Bowles).