The body of liberalism needs defending in a world increasingly hostile to liberal states, but the soul of liberalism is equally under threat, by the increasingly vociferous claims for recognition...Show moreThe body of liberalism needs defending in a world increasingly hostile to liberal states, but the soul of liberalism is equally under threat, by the increasingly vociferous claims for recognition of group difference from the multicultural milieu, which are often in conflict, within its borders. How must a liberal respond to the conflict of values and claims for special recognition? The central focus of this work is to counter arguments that liberalism ought to respond by promoting personal autonomy, i.e., developing liberal individuals and institutions. Rather, in returning to the foundational basis of liberalism - that the irreducibly individual nature of moral reasoning and the fact of diversity demands liberty of conscience - it reasserts the primacy of the principle of toleration and the corollary freedom of association (and exit), as the only theoretically justifiable and coherent liberal response to diversity. This is founded on the universal human value of living according to, or not against, conscience and the striving for peaceable coexistence. A free society then, is one where different groups, illiberal or otherwise, coexist in mutual toleration and where the relevant individual freedom is the right to live according to conscience (howsoever culturally formed or defined) against external interference and, in circumstances of conflict or dissent, the freedom to exit. The implications of this conclusion are that only norms of civility developed by modus operandi may constrain 'illiberal' cultural practices. The liberal state is not invested with this power any more than it is with authority over moral questions; the state is a tyrant by policy when it is granted that authority by principle.Show less
According to the rational choice theory acting cooperative in collective goods problems is not rational because the benefits of cooperating do not outweigh the costs. The fact that some countries...Show moreAccording to the rational choice theory acting cooperative in collective goods problems is not rational because the benefits of cooperating do not outweigh the costs. The fact that some countries do cooperate in international collective goods problems means that something must be missing from traditional rational choice models. IR theorists have tried to explain how it is possible that some countries do cooperate in collective goods problems while others do not.This research examines oil wealth as an explanation for non cooperative behavior in collective goods problems. This explanation is derived from the realist school of thought. The results of this research show that in two different cases oil wealth is negatively related to cooperative behavior in collective goods problems. Also other explanations from realist, liberalist and constructivist theories have been tested and compared to understand the importance of any of these explanations when explaining state behavior in collective goods problems.Show less
