In this article, I want to explain Michael Otsuka¡¦s idea of distributive justice, the latest theory of the left-libertarianism. Otsuka argued that self-ownership can be combined with a kind of egalitarian ownership principle and he critics that the conflict between self-ownership and equality is an illusion. I will examine Otsuka¡¦s theory about self-ownership, egalitarian proviso and the framework of political societies of voluntarism. And I will point out what is the wrong and right in his theory.

Abstract Most enterprises acknowledge that technology and experience accumulated by the employees are the most important assets. In order to make regular employees dedicate their efforts on work, reduce employees¡¦ turnover, and enhance their motivations as well as hard-work attitudes, it¡¦s popular for the corporate to assess the job satisfaction of the employees¡¦. According to the equity theory, the corporate employees would be frustrated and maybe reduce their satisfactions on jobs in case they aware of unfair treatment from the organization, no matter what is caused by the distribution or the procedure. Also, incentive pay and benefits system in salary management could motivate and enhance employee¡¦s morale, and moreover help strengthen the overall competitiveness of organizations. Are all of the above mentioned dimensions there significant influences on the job satisfaction? A number of documents reveal confusion regarding relationships among constructs of pay and benefits satisfaction and distributive and procedural justice. The purpose of this study is to measure and verify the relevance among them, and to further clarify the differential effects resulted from these dimensions on the job satisfaction. The study was conducted in a large Taiwan company and carried out via the questionnaire approach as well as SPSS analysis to show the differential effect of the four dimensions- procedural justice, distributive justice, pay satisfaction, and benefits satisfaction, distributive justice, and procedural justice- on job satisfaction. Results showed some important findings as below: 1. Procedural/ distributive justice and pay/ benefits satisfaction are significantly associated with each other. Particularly distributive justice plays more positive effect on pay than procedural one; however, procedural justice does more positive effect on benefits than distributive one. 2. There are positive relationships between both procedural/ distributive justice with job satisfaction. So are both pay/ benefits satisfaction with job satisfaction. It implies that raising the procedural/ distributive justice through improving the system of an organization to increase the job satisfaction of the employees¡¦ is another good way except improving pay/ benefits for the employees. 3. Each of procedural / distributive justice and pay/ benefits satisfaction influences job satisfaction positively. The priority of the effect extent is distributive justice most, procedural justice the second, pay the third, and benefits the last. 4. If we assess the effects of the four dimensions together-procedural justice/ distributive justice/ pay/ benefits satisfaction on job satisfaction, the result shows that distributive justice is with the maximum effect, followed by pay satisfaction, and then followed procedural justice, and benefits satisfaction the minimum. Therefore as the study results showed, if the enterprises attempt to retain talent, reduce employee turnover, and further expect employees to perform better and to take more responsibilities, they can motivate employees with procedural justice and distributive one to achieve organizational goals in addition to with pay and benefits system. specially when some business units in a firm hire outsourced workers in future and then the phenomenon of unequal pay for equal work happens under the situation that the pay system could not be adjusted, it may be a solution for the corporate that it reinforces the "justice" in the system by enhancing the potential of employees perceptual experience to retain high ¡Vquality employees as well as to maintain good efficiency.

Thesis (D. Jur.)--York University, 2000. / "Graduate Programme in Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University." Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pNQ67940.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2001. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 367-387).

Thesis (M.Phil.)--Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 119-123). Also available in electronic version. Access restricted to campus users.

published_or_final_version / Politics and Public Administration / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

The modern principle of freedom of subjectivity sets a moral standard which radically departs from Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean: modern moral agents, exemplified by the rising middle class, are granted the right to develop extreme dispositions towards goods like honour and wealth. Given that Aristotle considers such goods divisible in the sense that when one person gets more another gets less―the basic definition of distributive injustice―it isn’t surprising that modern philosophers like Kant have trouble reconciling this right with duty to others. Failing to resolve this dilemma satisfactorily in ethical terms, Kant and others turn to aesthetics, but Kant, at least, takes no account there of moral agents’ interest in the actual existence of goods. In this respect, the alternative to the Kantian aesthetic response I document in my dissertation is more Stoic than modern. This response, the modern mediocre-artist narrative, features a mediocre artist who fails to achieve the new standard of distributive justice and a genius who ostensibly succeeds. Though other critics discuss the ethical dimension of mediocre-artist narratives, they don’t consider the possibility that the mediocre artist’s failure might be due to the ethical dilemma just described. They therefore tend to uphold uncritically the narratives’ negative judgments of mediocrity, ascribing the latter’s failure to egotism. By contrast, I examine the genius’ artistic efforts for evidence of a similar failure. Ultimately, I demonstrate that the genius does indeed fail, albeit less spectacularly, arguing on this basis that egotistical characterizations of mediocrity are unjust. But the mediocre aren’t the only victims: in “concealing” genius’ failure, mediocre-artist narratives ignore unmet claims on its fruits. Finally, I invoke Derrida’s notion of the “lesser violence” to outline a new genre that recognizes the unattainability of the modern standard of justice. I call this genre morally progressive, rejecting Jürgen Habermas’ view that freedom of subjectivity has hit a dead end, and that we must backtrack to a philosophical turning indicated but not taken by Hegel, namely, the path of intersubjective freedom.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Western Australia, 2007.

Thesis (D. Min.)--Catholic Theological Union at Chicago, 2007. / Abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 282-293).

Thesis (M. Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 69-73).