Jack Knight

Two leading scholars of democracy make the case for political bargaining and define its proper limits.Bargains—grand and prosaic—are a central fact of political life. The distribution of bargaining power affects the design of constitutions, the construction of party coalitions, legislative outcomes, judicial opinions, and much more. But can political bargaining be justified in theory? If it inevitably involves asymmetric power, is it anything more than the exercise of sublimated force, emerging from and reifying inequalities?In Democratic Deals, Melissa Schwartzberg and Jack Knight defend bargaining against those who champion deliberation or compromise, showing that, under the right conditions and constraints, it can secure political equality and protect fundamental interests. The challenge, then, is to ensure that these conditions prevail. Drawing a sustained analogy to the private law of contracts—in particular, its concepts of duress and unconscionability—the authors articulate a set of procedural and substantive constraints on the bargaining process and analyze the circumstances under which unequal bargaining power might be justified in a democratic context. Institutions, Schwartzberg and Knight argue, can facilitate gains from exchange while placing meaningful limits on the exercise of unequal power.Democratic Deals examines frameworks of just bargaining in a range of contexts—constitution-making and legislative politics, among judges and administrative agencies, across branches of government, and between the state and private actors in the course of plea deals. Bargaining is an ineradicable fact of political life. Schwartzberg and Knight show that it can also be essential for democracy.

The prophecy comes to an end. The final battle is fought. And Xion's choice must be made.Xion has spent the last year fighting the dragons at every turn. He and his friends are causing Draxis to grow anxious for the end of the war. They split up, hoping for two chances to defeat Draxis once and for all, but Xion's journey has never been that simple.While his friends search for the last dragon fire gem, Xion, Ava, and Sapphire return to Aur'in to defend against Draxis' most desperate assault. Xion learns what started the war, what caused the first extinction of the dragons, and the prophecy is finally clear.When Xion's choice is made, will he save Ustama from the Darkness, or will he create a new one?

The third installment of the 5 book Dragon Fire Prophecy series Xion has discovered something can be even more pressing than the fate of the entire world: his friends are in danger.With Ava and Xara trapped in the Five Hells, Xion does not have time to worry about the Darkness. He searches for a way to bring back his friends, the rest of the world will have to survive without his help for a while.Xion, Sapphire, Warren, and the Myst, Ari, set out to discover a way to do the impossible. They have to deal with the dangers of the wilds of Ustama, the new threat of vampires, and knowing that each passing second means that Ava and Xara are in danger on another plane. Sapphire learns about her lineage, Xion learns he had the prophecy all wrong, and Warren searches for a way to keep up with his friends.Will Xion be able to save his friends, or has the Darkness already won?

A distinguished group of scholars explores compromise in contemporary affairs Do lawmakers have a greater ethical responsibility to compromise than ordinary citizens? How does one rectify what is at stake when lawmakers concede to compromise for the sake of reaching resolution? Is compromise necessarily equalizing and is it a reasonable mode of problem solving and dispute resolution? In this latest installment from the NOMOS series, distinguished scholars across the fields of political science, law, and philosophy tackle the complex set of questions that relate to the practice of compromise and its implications for social and political life in modern societies. The volume, edited by Jack Knight, brings together a range of perspectives – in both disciplinary and substantive terms – on representation, political morality, disagreement, negotiation, and various forms of compromise. The ten essays reflect a variety of considerations across interdisciplinary lines, and provide a new and thought-provoking discussion of the policy, practice, and philosophy of compromise, covering a number of specific topics including alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and conscientious objection. Examining these issues and more, Compromise offers new and thought provoking insights into the pressing issue of the importance of compromise in social and political affairs.

Doc is a man haunted by a nefarious past he cannot remember and tormented by an inner demon that threatens his sanity... When a group of friends ignore the warnings of the locals and embark on a wild weekend fueled by alcohol and the desire for a good time, they quickly discover all legends aren't urban or created equally. From the first shot of a gun-toting maniac, the friends' idyllic getaway turns into an endless torrent of bloodshed and murder. The terror mounts as the remaining victims learn there is no escaping. It is up to the few who are still standing to identify the madman, while frantically searching for weapons to use against the encroaching danger. But what happens next is beyond anyone's darkest imagination. ...As Doc's dark past begins to catch up with him, he soon realizes that his only hope for survival is to win the final battle on the notorious shores of Beacons Cove-where he discovers the awful truth about his troubled past. Dark Secret was originally titled Darkness Whispers, set in a small ill-fated town on the southeast coast of England. Darkness Whispers was first published in the United States and contains U.S. spelling.

Pragmatism and its consequences are central issues in American politics today, yet scholars rarely examine in detail the relationship between pragmatism and politics. In The Priority of Democracy, Jack Knight and James Johnson systematically explore the subject and make a strong case for adopting a pragmatist approach to democratic politics--and for giving priority to democracy in the process of selecting and reforming political institutions. What is the primary value of democracy? When should we make decisions democratically and when should we rely on markets? And when should we accept the decisions of unelected officials, such as judges or bureaucrats? Knight and Johnson explore how a commitment to pragmatism should affect our answers to such important questions. They conclude that democracy is a good way of determining how these kinds of decisions should be made--even if what the democratic process determines is that not all decisions should be made democratically. So, for example, the democratically elected U.S. Congress may legitimately remove monetary policy from democratic decision-making by putting it under the control of the Federal Reserve. Knight and Johnson argue that pragmatism offers an original and compelling justification of democracy in terms of the unique contributions democratic institutions can make to processes of institutional choice. This focus highlights the important role that democracy plays, not in achieving consensus or commonality, but rather in addressing conflicts. Indeed, Knight and Johnson suggest that democratic politics is perhaps best seen less as a way of reaching consensus or agreement than as a way of structuring the terms of persistent disagreement.

Pragmatism and its consequences are central issues in American politics today, yet scholars rarely examine in detail the relationship between pragmatism and politics. In The Priority of Democracy, Jack Knight and James Johnson systematically explore the subject and make a strong case for adopting a pragmatist approach to democratic politics--and for giving priority to democracy in the process of selecting and reforming political institutions. What is the primary value of democracy? When should we make decisions democratically and when should we rely on markets? And when should we accept the decisions of unelected officials, such as judges or bureaucrats? Knight and Johnson explore how a commitment to pragmatism should affect our answers to such important questions. They conclude that democracy is a good way of determining how these kinds of decisions should be made--even if what the democratic process determines is that not all decisions should be made democratically. So, for example, the democratically elected U.S. Congress may legitimately remove monetary policy from democratic decision-making by putting it under the control of the Federal Reserve. Knight and Johnson argue that pragmatism offers an original and compelling justification of democracy in terms of the unique contributions democratic institutions can make to processes of institutional choice. This focus highlights the important role that democracy plays, not in achieving consensus or commonality, but rather in addressing conflicts. Indeed, Knight and Johnson suggest that democratic politics is perhaps best seen less as a way of reaching consensus or agreement than as a way of structuring the terms of persistent disagreement.

The Choices Justices Make is a groundbreaking work that offers a strategic account of Supreme Court decision making. Justices realize that their ability to achieve their policy and other goals depends on the preferences of other actors, the choices they expect others to make, and the institutional context in which they act. All these factors hold sway over justices as they make their decisions, from which cases to accept, to how to interact with their colleagues, and what policies to adopt in their opinions.Choices is a thought-provoking, yet nontechnical work that is an ideal supplement for judicial process and public law courses. In addition to offering a unique and sustained theoretical account, the authors tell a fascinating story of how the Court works. Data culled from the Court's public records and from the private papers of Justices Brennan, Douglas, Marshall, and Powell provide empirical evidence to support the central argument, while numerous examples from the justices' papers animate the work.

Many of the fundamental questions in social science entail an examination of the role played by social institutions. Why do we have so many social institutions? Why do they take one form in one society and quite different ones in others? In what ways do these institutions develop? When and why do they change? Institutions and Social Conflict addresses these questions in two ways. First it offers a thorough critique of a wide range of theories of institutional change, from the classical accounts of Smith, Hume, Marx and Weber to the contemporary approaches of evolutionary theory, the theory of social conventions and the new institutionalism. Secondly, it develops a new theory of institutional change that emphasises the distributional consequences of social institutions. The emergence of institutions is explained as a by-product of distributional conflict in which asymmetries of power in a society generate institutional solutions to conflicts.