This brief “Introduction” to the volume discusses the general idea of the special edition of the journal, which is dedicated to the radicalism of the Enlightenment in the context of Jonathan Israel’s recent work on the Enlightenment, and highlights the topics of the articles contained in the edition.

In the philosophy of liberalism, freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights of the individual, one that is guaranteed by the constitution of a liberal democratic state. Contemporary Western democracies are based on the political culture in which human rights, including the right to free speech, play an important role. This right, however, can be violated by demagogic propaganda both in totalitarian regimes and in democracies. The propaganda mechanism, reaching into the sphere of community values and concepts, presently (...) operates also through the Internet, in which expressions of anger and hatred are disseminated and can lead to the destruction of democracy. I will argue that, in today’s world, restrictions on the freedom of speech through legal norms are necessary, because the threat comes not only in the form of censorship, but also the manipulation techniques used by politicians in democratic regimes. Advances in modern technology can be of service to dictatorship when the media and the Internet are used for propaganda or surveillance purposes, but they also provide a support to freedom and democracy when they serve as the means of the transmission of reliable information, initiating public discussions. As such, they establish a framework for rational debates and peaceful activities that contribute to the maintenance of the democratic political culture. The basic elements of this culture, i.e. legal rules, pluralist media, and education systems are all necessary for the defence of its core value, namely the freedom of speech. (shrink)

An article describes liberal theories of justice presented by John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Both of these competing liberal theories, Rawls’s and Nozick’s, share a similar rationalist approach. Both philosophers start out with assumptions about human nature and from there proceed to deduce a theory of justice upon which they in turn base their vision of the perfect liberal State. For Rawls, this is a welfare State, whereas in Nozick’s theory it is a State which does not interfere in economics. (...) On the one hand, a Platonic influence with a utopian mindset can certainly be detected here. On the other hand, contemporary American society is a point of reference for both theories. However, Rawls attempts to bring this perfect, universal model of the State closer to reality and to embody it in a liberal constitutional democracy in which human rights are protected, whereas Nozick adheres to the general utopian formula. An examination of his theory shows that justice cannot be reconciled with the ideal of a minimal State and that attempts to apply the principles of justice actually reveal the defects of his theoretical approach. (shrink)

(1996). The libertarian concepts of property and their impact on privatization in Poland. The European Legacy: Vol. 1, Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the study of European Ideas, pp. 614-618.

In modern liberal democratic societies, freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights of an individual guaranteed by the constitution. It is also the foundation of a democratic state. This right is sometimes abused for political purposes and demagogic propaganda, in both totalitarian systems and democracies, which adversely affects the stability of a state. Propaganda mechanisms negatively influence the sphere of community values and concepts which change their meanings through manipulation. The author examines the language of demagogic propaganda and (...) concludes that it disrupts the communication process in society. These destructive tendencies are opposed under the political culture of a democratic society, thanks to legal regulations protecting freedom from manipulation. (shrink)