<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>DSpace Community:</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2440/15618</link>
    <description />
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 15:02:30 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:date>2013-05-23T15:02:30Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>South Australia and India</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2440/77888</link>
      <description>Title: South Australia and India
Author: Jain, Purnendra Chandra; Mayer, Peter Baldwin</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/2440/77888</guid>
      <dc:date>2011-12-31T13:30:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The troubles of free speech theory</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2440/77831</link>
      <description>Title: The troubles of free speech theory
Author: King, Marshall William
Abstract: We seem to think there is something “special” about freedom of speech, but on closer examination, this proposition becomes difficult to maintain. This paper assesses and problematises the search for a “free speech principle”. A “free speech principle” denotes the attempt by legal and political theorists to isolate free speech as a standalone, independent value; to find a reason that sets speech apart from arguments regarding a commitment to liberty in general. This search is seemingly destined to revolve around endless conceptual and terminological disputes regarding what is and isn’t justified “free speech”, and attempts to categorise speech that should be precluded by the very freedom it proclaims. In an attempt to understand these difficulties I explore the arguments of Stanley Fish and the idea of free speech as a “social condition” in a recent case. The result is the conclusion that in spite of its universal aspirations, the idea of free speech may be more particular (and thus contested) than is usually acknowledged.</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/2440/77831</guid>
      <dc:date>2011-12-31T13:30:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Surplus to requirements: budget politics and the quality of economic debate in Australia</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2440/77830</link>
      <description>Title: Surplus to requirements: budget politics and the quality of economic debate in Australia
Author: Errington, Wayne
Abstract: The Gillard Government's insistence on forecasting a budget surplus in the 2012-13 financial year was maintained in the face of deteriorating domestic and international economic conditions, and in the face of criticism from economic commentators and a range of interest groups. The opposition, to the extent it had a discernible budget policy, wished to see a larger budget surplus. The reasons why the government thought that promising a budget surplus was a good idea, and sticking to that promise as conditions changed, are various. The Labor Government needed to lift its ratings for economic management. The importance of this promise to the political fortunes of the government tells us much about the state of economic policy debate in Australia. Nearly thirty years after the Hawke Government set in motion the reforms that now enjoy bipartisan (if not public) support, the quality of economic debate does not appear to have improved a great deal. This paper explores a range of possible explanations for this phenomenon: a poor quality government, the notion of liberal populism, and the decline of the quality press.</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/2440/77830</guid>
      <dc:date>2011-12-31T13:30:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Conceptions of political corruption in ancient Athens and Rome</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2440/77829</link>
      <description>Title: Conceptions of political corruption in ancient Athens and Rome
Author: Hill, Lisa Ellen
Abstract: There were two broad discourses of corruption in antiquity. The first (‘corruption 1’) conceived corruption in moralistic terms as a loss of virtue in the polity; a generalised condition afflicting political elites and citizens indiscriminately. The second discourse (‘corruption 2’) is the narrow, legalistic view of corruption as the abuse of public office for private gain and, as with contemporary understandings of corruption, this involved activities such as patronage, bribery, extortion and embezzlement. It is sometimes suggested that the first discourse was either the only, or else the dominant, discourse in antiquity. But, as will be shown in the following discussion, corruption 2 was very well developed in the classical period, particularly in Athens and Rome. I also attempt to map and comprehend the fractures and contradictions in the classical attitude to corruption 2 that prevented it from being either monolithic or universally adopted.</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/2440/77829</guid>
      <dc:date>2011-12-31T13:30:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

