Border control continues to be a highly contested and politically charged subject around the world. This collection of essays challenges reactionary nationalism by making the positive case for the benefits of free movement for countries on both ends of the exchange. Open Borders counters the knee-jerk reaction to build walls and close borders by arguing that there is not a moral, legal, philosophical, or economic case for limiting the movement of human beings at borders. The volume brings together essays by theorists in anthropology, geography, international relations, and other fields who argue for open borders with writings by activists who are working to make safe passage a reality on the ground. It puts forward a clear, concise, and convincing case for a world without movement restrictions at borders. The essays in the first part of the volume make a theoretical case for free movement by analyzing philosophical, legal, and moral arguments for opening borders. In doing so, they articulate a sustained critique of the dominant idea that states should favor the rights of their own citizens over the rights of all human beings. The second part sketches out the current situation in the European Union, in states that have erected border walls, in states that have adopted a policy of inclusion such as Germany and Uganda, and elsewhere in the world to demonstrate the consequences of the current regime of movement restrictions at borders. The third part creates a dialogue between theorists and activists, examining the work of Calais Migrant Solidarity, No Borders Morocco, activists in sanctuary cities, and others who contest border restrictions on the ground.

Modern states commonly deploy coercion in a wide array of circumstances in which the resort to force would clearly be wrong for any private agent. What entitles the state to behave in this manner? And why should citizens obey its commands? This book examines theories of political authority, from the social contract theory, to theories of democratic authorization, to fairness- and consequence-based theories. Ultimately, no theory of authority succeeds, and thus no government has the kind of authority often ascribed to governments.
The author goes on to discuss how voluntary and competitive institutions could provide the central goods for the sake of which the state is often deemed necessary, including law, protection from private criminals, and national security. An orderly and livable society thus does not require acquiescence in the illusion of political authority.

What gives some people the right to issue commands to everyone else and force everyone else to obey them? And why should people obey the commands of those with political power? These two key questions are the heart of the issue of political authority, and, in this volume, two philosophers debate the answers. Michael Huemer argues that political authority is an illusion and that no one is entitled to rule over anyone. He discusses and rebuts the major theories supporting political authority's rightfulness: implicit social contract theory, hypothetical contract theories, democratic theories of authority, and utilitarian theories. Daniel Layman argues that democratic governments have authority because they are needed to protect our rights and because they are accountable to the people. Each author writes two replies directly addressing the arguments and ideas of the other. Key Features Covers a key foundational problem of political philosophy: the authority of government. Debate format ensures a full hearing of both sides. A Glossary includes key concepts in political philosophy related to the issue of authority. Annotated Further Reading sections point students to additional resources. Clear, concrete examples and arguments help students clearly see both sides of the argument. A Foreword by Matt Zwolinski describes a broader context for political authority and then traces the key points and turns in the authors' debate.

In this book, Michael Huemer and Bryan Frances debate whether – and how – we can gain knowledge of the world outside of our own minds. Starting with opening statements, the debate moves through two rounds of replies. Frances argues that we lack knowledge because, for example, we cannot rule out the possibility that we are brains in vats being artificially stimulated in such a way as to create an illusion of living in the real world. Huemer disagrees that we need evidence against such possibilities in order to gain knowledge of the external world, maintaining instead that we are entitled to presume that things are as they appear unless and until we acquire specific grounds for thinking otherwise. The authors go on to discuss how one should think about controversial issues wherein the experts persistently disagree. Frances argues that we should generally withhold judgment about such issues or at least greatly reduce our confidence. Huemer agrees that people are often overconfident about controversial issues but tries to carve out exceptions wherein one can rationally hold on to controversial views. Accessible whilst also detailed and substantial, this thoughtful debate is suitable for readers at all levels, from those encountering the topic for the first time through those who are deeply familiar with the issues. Key Features: Showcases arguments from two leading philosophers in standard form and in clear language Presents definitions in an easily accessible form Summary boxes recap key arguments Includes an annotated bibliography and glossary of all specialized vocabulary

In this book, Michael Huemer and Bryan Frances debate whether – and how – we can gain knowledge of the world outside of our own minds. Starting with opening statements, the debate moves through two rounds of replies. Frances argues that we lack knowledge because, for example, we cannot rule out the possibility that we are brains in vats being artificially stimulated in such a way as to create an illusion of living in the real world. Huemer disagrees that we need evidence against such possibilities in order to gain knowledge of the external world, maintaining instead that we are entitled to presume that things are as they appear unless and until we acquire specific grounds for thinking otherwise. The authors go on to discuss how one should think about controversial issues wherein the experts persistently disagree. Frances argues that we should generally withhold judgment about such issues or at least greatly reduce our confidence. Huemer agrees that people are often overconfident about controversial issues but tries to carve out exceptions wherein one can rationally hold on to controversial views. Accessible whilst also detailed and substantial, this thoughtful debate is suitable for readers at all levels, from those encountering the topic for the first time through those who are deeply familiar with the issues. Key Features: Showcases arguments from two leading philosophers in standard form and in clear language Presents definitions in an easily accessible form Summary boxes recap key arguments Includes an annotated bibliography and glossary of all specialized vocabulary

What gives some people the right to issue commands to everyone else and force everyone else to obey them? And why should people obey the commands of those with political power? These two key questions are the heart of the issue of political authority, and, in this volume, two philosophers debate the answers. Michael Huemer argues that political authority is an illusion and that no one is entitled to rule over anyone. He discusses and rebuts the major theories supporting political authority's rightfulness: implicit social contract theory, hypothetical contract theories, democratic theories of authority, and utilitarian theories. Daniel Layman argues that democratic governments have authority because they are needed to protect our rights and because they are accountable to the people. Each author writes two replies directly addressing the arguments and ideas of the other. Key Features Covers a key foundational problem of political philosophy: the authority of government. Debate format ensures a full hearing of both sides. A Glossary includes key concepts in political philosophy related to the issue of authority. Annotated Further Reading sections point students to additional resources. Clear, concrete examples and arguments help students clearly see both sides of the argument. A Foreword by Matt Zwolinski describes a broader context for political authority and then traces the key points and turns in the authors' debate.

This comprehensive anthology draws together classic and contemporary readings by leading philosophers on epistemology. Ideal for any philosophy student, it will prove essential reading for epistemology courses. It can be used as a stand alone text or as a complement to Robert Audi's textbook Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction (Routledge, 1998).
Themes covered include, perception, memory, inductive inference, reason and the a priori, the architecture of knowledge, skepticism, the analysis of knowledge and testimony. Each section begins with an introductory essay, guiding students into the topic.
Includes articles by:
Russell, Hume, Berkeley, Malcolm, Quine, Carnap, J.L. Austin, Pollock, Nozick, Putnam, G.E. Moore, Huemer, Reid, Plato, BonJour, Coady, Carroll, Fumerton, Edwards, Foster, Howson, Urbach, Stove, Empiricus, Oakley, Alston, Gettier, Clark, Goldman, Lehrer, Paxson, DeRose, Dretske, Klein and Chisholm

Since Descartes, one of the central questions of Western philosophy has been that of how we know that the objects we seem to perceive are real. Philosophical skeptics claim that we know no such thing. Representationalists claim that we can gain such knowledge only by inference, by showing that the hypothesis of a real world is the best explanation for the kind of sensations and mental images we experience. Both accept the doctrine of a 'veil of perception: ' that perception can only give us direct awareness of images or representations of objects, not the external objects themselves. In contrast, Huemer develops a theory of perceptual awareness in which perception gives us direct awareness of real objects, not mental representations, and we have non-inferential knowledge of the properties of these objects. Further, Huemer confronts the four main arguments for philosophical skepticism, showing that they are powerless against this kind of theory of perceptual knowledge

Modern states commonly deploy coercion in a wide array of circumstances in which the resort to force would clearly be wrong for any private agent. What entitles the state to behave in this manner? And why should citizens obey its commands? This book examines theories of political authority, from the social contract theory, to theories of democratic authorization, to fairness- and consequence-based theories. Ultimately, no theory of authority succeeds, and thus no government has the kind of authority often ascribed to governments.
The author goes on to discuss how voluntary and competitive institutions could provide the central goods for the sake of which the state is often deemed necessary, including law, protection from private criminals, and national security. An orderly and livable society thus does not require acquiescence in the illusion of political authority.

In this book, two college students--a meat-eater and an ethical vegetarian--discuss this question in a series of dialogues, conducted over four days.

Paradox Lost covers ten of philosophy's most fascinating paradoxes, in which seemingly compelling reasoning leads to absurd conclusions. The following paradoxes are included: The Liar Paradox, in which a sentence says of itself that it is false. Is the sentence true or false? The Sorites Paradox, in which we imagine removing grains of sand one at a time from a heap of sand. Is there a particular grain whose removal converts the heap to a non-heap? The Puzzle of the Self-Torturer, in which a series of seemingly rational choices has us accepting a life of excruciating pain, in exchange for millions of dollars. Newcomb's Problem, in which we seemingly maximize our expected profit by taking an unknown sum of money, rather than taking the same sum plus $1000. The Surprise Quiz Paradox, in which a professor finds that it is impossible to give a surprise quiz on any particular day of the week . . . but also that if this is so, then a surprise quiz can be given on any day. The Two Envelope Paradox, in which we are asked to choose between two indistinguishable envelopes, and it is seemingly shown that each envelope is preferable to the other. The Ravens Paradox, in which observing a purple shoe provides evidence that all ravens are black. The Shooting Room Paradox, in which a deadly game kills 90% of all who play, yet each individual's survival turns on the flip of a fair coin. Each paradox is clearly described, common mistakes are explored, and a clear, logical solution offered. Paradox Lost will appeal to professional philosophers, students of philosophy, and all who love intellectual puzzles.

In this book, two college students--a meat-eater and an ethical vegetarian--discuss this question in a series of dialogues, conducted over four days.

America's legal system harbors serious, widespread injustices. Many defendants are sent to prison for nonviolent offenses, including many victimless crimes. Convicts often serve draconian sentences in crowded prisons rife with abuse. Almost all defendants are convicted without trial because prosecutors threaten defendants with drastically higher sentences if they request a trial. Most Americans are terrified of encountering any kind of legal trouble, knowing that both civil and criminal courts are extremely slow, unreliable, and expensive to use. This book explores the largest injustices in the legal system and what can be done about them. Besides proposing institutional reforms, the author argues that prosecutors, judges, lawyers, and jury members ought to place justice before the law - for example, by refusing to enforce unjust laws or impose unjust sentences. Issues addressed include: * The philosophical basis for judgments about rights and justice * The problems of overcriminalization and mass incarceration * Abuse of power by police and prosecutors * The injustice of plea bargaining * The appropriateness of jury nullification * The authority of the law, or the lack thereof Justice Before the Law is essential reading for everyone interested in legal ethics, the rule of law, and criminal justice. It is also ideal for students of legal philosophy.

Masterarbeit aus dem Jahr 2011 im Fachbereich BWL - Beschaffung, Produktion, Logistik, Note: Sehr gut, Karl-Franzens-Universitat Graz (Produktion und Logistik), Sprache: Deutsch, Abstract: Der Hauptbestandteil dieser Arbeit ist das Testen verschiedener lokaler Suchoperatoren fur eine Erweiterung des gutbekannten Vehicle Routing Problems. Diese erst vor kurzem eingefuhrte Erweiterung wurde notwendig um ein Routenplanungsproblem zu losen, das daraus bestand, Getranke und Tabakwaren in dichtbesiedelten Groystadten in Brasilien auszuliefern. Es wurde nun versucht herauszunden, welche der VRPTW Operatoren geeignet sind, um das Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Windows and Multiple Deliverymen (VRPTWMD) moglichst gut zu losen. Insgesamt wurden vier Operatoren implementiert, wobei Relocate und Ejection Chains auf die Routenminimierung abzielen und Cross bzw. 2-opt entsprechend die gefahrene Distanz verringern sollten. Um die Operatoren zu testen, wurden die benotigten Startlosungen mit der von Solomon entwickelten I1 Einfugeheuristik generiert. Die Erkenntnisse aus den Tests wurden schieylich dazu verwendet, eine best performance Variante zu entwickeln, welche anhand der Solomon Instanzen R101 bis R112 getestet wurde. Die Ergebnisse der Tests benden sich am Ende der Arbeit. The Vehicle Routing Problem with time windows is a well studied problem in literature. The extension to Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Windows and Multiple Deliverymen (VRPTWMD) has been proposed to solve a delivery problem of commodities, like beverages and tobacco in highly populated areas in Brazil. This rather new problem structure in the VRPTW context, is the main subject of the work. In this thesis, the aim is to nd out, which operators used for VRP are most suitable for the VRPTWMS. Relocate and Ejection Chain operators were tested for truck and deliverymen reduction, Cross and 2-opt were implemented to reduce distance. The Solomon I1 insertion heuristic was used to obtain starting solutions,

Bachelorarbeit aus dem Jahr 2011 im Fachbereich VWL - Fallstudien, Landerstudien, Note: Sehr gut, Karl-Franzens-Universitat Graz (Institut fur Finanzwissenschaft und Offentliche Wirtschaft), Veranstaltung: Instituionenokonomik, Sprache: Deutsch, Anmerkungen: Steuerkoordination in der EU und deren Veranderungen durch die Osterweiterung, Abstract: Seit Beginn der Europaischen Integration beschaftigen sich Wissenschaft und Politik bereits mit den Effekten unterschiedlicher Besteuerung in den einzelnen Mitgliedslandern. Spezielles Interesse wird hierbei der Kapitalbesteuerung zugemessen, da diese im Gegensatz zur Konsumbesteuerung verhaltnismassig leichter durch Kapitalverschiebungen in andere Staaten zu umgehen ist. Bereits in einem Bericht von Fritz Neumark finden sich erste Anknupfungspunkte zu der Frage der Unterschiede in der offentlichen Finanzwirtschaft der Mitgliedslander bzw. welche Unterschiede die Einfuhrung eines gemeinsamen Marktes behindern konnten. Darauf folgend erstellte eine Expertenkommission den sogenannten Segre-Bericht, in dem die steuerlichen Hurden fur einen gemeinsamen Kapitalmarkt beschrieben wurden. Nach einigen Jahren ohne grossere Fortschritte versuchte die Europaische Kommission im Jahr 1967 mit 2 Papieren zur Steuerharmonisierung die Diskussion wieder zu beleben und eine tragende Rolle in deren Umsetzung zu spielen. Es wurden die Probleme von Steuergrenzen und wettbewerbsverzerrenden Wirkungen diskutiert, jedoch wurde kein entscheidender Fortschritt gemacht. Erst nachdem der Internationale Kapitalverkehr nach Ende von Bretton Woods und den turbulenten 70er Jahren an Bedeutung gewann, interessierte man sich wieder die Frage der Steuerangleichung. (vgl. Genschel 2002, S. 129ff

Border control continues to be a highly contested and politically charged subject around the world. This collection of essays challenges reactionary nationalism by making the positive case for the benefits of free movement for countries on both ends of the exchange. Open Borders counters the knee-jerk reaction to build walls and close borders by arguing that there is not a moral, legal, philosophical, or economic case for limiting the movement of human beings at borders. The volume brings together essays by theorists in anthropology, geography, international relations, and other fields who argue for open borders with writings by activists who are working to make safe passage a reality on the ground. It puts forward a clear, concise, and convincing case for a world without movement restrictions at borders. The essays in the first part of the volume make a theoretical case for free movement by analyzing philosophical, legal, and moral arguments for opening borders. In doing so, they articulate a sustained critique of the dominant idea that states should favor the rights of their own citizens over the rights of all human beings. The second part sketches out the current situation in the European Union, in states that have erected border walls, in states that have adopted a policy of inclusion such as Germany and Uganda, and elsewhere in the world to demonstrate the consequences of the current regime of movement restrictions at borders. The third part creates a dialogue between theorists and activists, examining the work of Calais Migrant Solidarity, No Borders Morocco, activists in sanctuary cities, and others who contest border restrictions on the ground.