The rediscovery of civil society, I have suggested thus far, is an important development in both contemporary political theory and practice. Especially when we understand civil society as a third sector out side of and anchoring both state and economy, the theory of civil society reveals powerful means of enhancing democracy and social solidarity. These functions have been relatively neglected by political theorists concentrating on state and economy. Renewed interest in civil society, however, coincides with new expressions of scepticism about state institutions. Anti-state sentiment in many parts of the world has helped to create conditions for dismantling state enterprises, regulatory and planning functions,
![[削除済みユーザ]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/695023b4efd563721d13716b1457bc73.png?d=identicon&mode=crop&r=PG&s=42)
that have long been associated with governments.
While civil society can promote democracy, social justice, and well-being in ways I have outlined, there are limits to what what citizens can accomplish through institutions of civil society alone. ★
While state power must always be subject to vigilant scrutiny by citizens alert to dangers of corruption and domination, democratic state institutions nevertheless have unique and important virtues for promoting social justice.
I assume that no critics of state institutions today deny that states are important for policing, adjudicating conflict, and enforcing basic liberties. Nevertheless, many consider state institutions as necessary evils which ought to be kept to
国家権力は常に市民によって注意深く監視され、政治的腐敗や支配を見逃さないことが必要であるが、にもかかわらず、民主的国家機関は社会正義を促進するための唯一で重要な長所を持っている。
私は、今日国家機関に対する批判がないことは、国家が治安を維持し、紛争を解決し、基本的自由を強化することを否定するものだと思う。それにもかかわらず多くの人は国家機関を最小限度に抑えるべきもので、信頼されるべきものではないと考えている。
市民社会が民主主義、社会的公正、上述したような幸福を助長する一方で、市民社会の組織だけを通じて、市民が成し遂げられる範囲には限界がある。
政府権力は常に、腐敗や独占の危険性を警戒する市民によって、容赦なく観察対象として晒されるべきである一方で、民主的な政府組織にはそれにもかかわらず、社会的公正を助長するユニークかつ重要な長所がある。
今日の政府組織へのいかなる批判も政府は政治や紛争調停、基本的な自由の確保にとって重大であることは否定していないと思う。だが、多くが政府組織を保持されるべき必要な悪と認識している。
a minimum and are not to be trusted. We should not look to states, on this view, to take more expansive and substantial action to further the well being of persons and groups. While it is always good to reduce suffering or injustice, solve social problems, and promote well-being, we should not depend on states to do it. Critics of the state have at least three kinds of argument for the claim that citizens should reject reliance on state institutions to solve social problems and promote justice as the equal opportunity for everyone to develop and exercise capacities: libertarian, communitarian, and post-Marxist. I will reconstruct each of these arguments, and then respond to them together.★
Although a society may
社会が
contain many social and economic problems, many conflicts, injustices, and harmful inequalities, these are more properly addressed by voluntary co-operation in settings of private enterprise and civil society than by means of state regulation. It is wrong to use state institutions to try to produce substantive social outcomes in the way of resources use, income distribution, or the allocation of social positions. Aiming to do so, moreover, is likely to produce irrational or inefficient consequences. Minimizing the reach of state institutions is thus the social ideal. The communitarian argument differs from the libertarian in its positive concern for substantive values of caring, solidarity, and civic virtue.
While communitarians endorse the value of liberty, protection of liberty is but one among several principles that ought to guide moral and principle life, and may be overridden for the sake of promoting values of community. Communitarian morality, aim at fostering and nurturing substantive ends of mutual aid and shared cultural symbols and practices. As grounds for preferring institutions of civil society to state institutions to realize the ends of mutual aid, caring, and social justice, some communitarians suggest the following. State bureaucratic institutions that provide social services, redistribute income, regulate economic activity, and so on, break down and distort local communities because they
universalize and formalize these activities and curtail local autonomy. Government regulatory, redistributive, welfare, and social service bureaucracies, moreover, transform citizens into passive followers of orders and clients of services. State efforts to promote citizen well-being, furthermore, allow individuals and communities to shirk their personal and particular responsibIlities to contribute to the well-being of community members. State actions break up the civic sources of mutual aid and solidarity. Government programmes to achieve substantive ends of equality or self-development generate an 'entitlement' mentality according to which citizens clam-our for particular benefits to serve their interests
without being willing to make social contributions, thus ultimately overloading and weakening the state. Good citizens are independent and autonomous, rather than dependent on others, at the same time that they manifest a commitment to promote the well-being of others and of the institutions and values of the community. Thus, rather than create and sustain bureaucratic state institutions to promote the well-being of citizens, public policy should devote itself to supporting civic education to instil in citizens a sense of obligation to others and the skills to organize civic institutions of solidarity and mutual aid.
I call 'post-Marxist' those writes and activists in the socialist tradition who continue to be critical of capitalist economic processes and who argue for radical democracy, but who also criticize some aspects of historic Marxism. Post- Marxists express several reasons for turning to civil society as the arena for pursuing democracy and social justice, and for taking a distance from the state.
コメントの付加欄がないのでここで。 Yumieさん、皆さん翻訳ありがとうございます。 12時00分は過ぎましたがそのまま翻訳を続けて頂けると感謝です。 また、文をぶつ切りにするconyacの性質上難しいのかもしれませんが、枠を超えて連続している文に関しては連続して訳していただけるとありがたいです。自分は夜までＰＣから離れますがどうぞよろしくお願い致します。