The largest contributor to climate change is human reproduction. Although restricting population growth might prove an effective in couteracting climate change, our liberal intuition tells us it...Show moreThe largest contributor to climate change is human reproduction. Although restricting population growth might prove an effective in couteracting climate change, our liberal intuition tells us it would be wrong to interfere with people's reproductive affairs. This essay investigates whether that is necessarily the case.Show less
Extreme weather events, natural disasters and failure in mitigating or adapting to the changing climate. All these societal risks have become more likely and impactful over the last couple of...Show moreExtreme weather events, natural disasters and failure in mitigating or adapting to the changing climate. All these societal risks have become more likely and impactful over the last couple of decades. It is important to limit the excessive human emission of greenhouse gases such as CO2, because they contribute to the changing climate. In order to gain support for CO2 reduction policies, environmental concerns must be reconciled with the prevailing political ideology. The focus is on liberal democracy because it is the dominant political system in western society. One of the difficulties in combining environmental concerns with liberal democracy is that policies to protect nature put limits on what people are allowed to do and thereby limit the individual liberty of citizens. In this thesis I investigate witch CO2 policies fit best with Liberal-democratic positions about the environment. I will answer the following questions: Why does the market fail to ensure an efficient amount of CO2 emissions? Which kind of CO2 reduction policies are most suitable to reduce excessive emissions? How can CO2 policies be combined with liberal democratic values? Which policy is preferable based on liberal democratic positions about the environment? The two most discussed market-based CO2 policies are excise tax and emission trading. This thesis argues for an integrated approach, formed by both policies. This system is preferable because it internalizes externalities to reduce excessive emissions, and simultaneously enforces a maximum amount of emissions to prevent an environmental crisis.Show less
The debate on state interference to promote citizen’s health is broad and controversial. In this thesis, my aim is to provide a philosophical argument in favour of nudging for health, which is an...Show moreThe debate on state interference to promote citizen’s health is broad and controversial. In this thesis, my aim is to provide a philosophical argument in favour of nudging for health, which is an effective tool to create more health. Liberals in general are afraid that nudging for health is too paternalistic and coercive and hence deprive our freedom. I will argue that some liberals and specifically “Humean liberals” can accept this far-reaching and invasive interference in the personal sphere. This argument is based on the idea that we should follow our ‘higher’ desire to be healthy.Show less
This thesis defends the claim that if one recognizes government authority as legitimate based on consent theory, one is committed to recognizing unilateral secession as a primary right. Following...Show moreThis thesis defends the claim that if one recognizes government authority as legitimate based on consent theory, one is committed to recognizing unilateral secession as a primary right. Following from this, it is argued that when western liberal democracies deny this right, they are inconsistent in applying the principles to which they have committed themselves.Show less
I will argue in this thesis, that those within the field of democratic theory who dismiss populism as an inherent threat to liberal democracy do so based on a number of assumptions. The first of...Show moreI will argue in this thesis, that those within the field of democratic theory who dismiss populism as an inherent threat to liberal democracy do so based on a number of assumptions. The first of these assumptions concerns how populism should be defined, some within the literature treat it as an ideology in itself, defined by its distinctly illiberal aims. Others treat it as a style of doing politics, yet argue that by dividing society between ‘us’ and ‘them’, it violates liberal commitments to pluralism. The second assumption concerns the point of liberal democracy; theorists who dismiss populism as a threat to liberal democracy frequently do so based on their commitment to a particular normative theory of democracy, which is often not made explicit in their work. The third assumption is that there is no fundamental contradiction between the liberal and democratic dimensions of liberal democracy, but rather that the two presuppose each other. This thesis will aim to challenge these assumptions in turn, illuminating the normative commitments of those who claim populism is a threat. I will begin by arguing that, based on the definition provided by Mouffe and Laclau, populism should be conceived of in hegemonic terms. Using this understanding of populism, I will challenge the assumption that populism is incompatible with commitments to pluralism. I analyse populism through the lenses of social-choice theory, representative democracy and deliberative democracy, in order to demonstrate that this perceived incompatibility is largely dependent on the theorists’ commitment to these normative theories, rather than populism itself. Lastly, I will argue against the “co-originality” thesis in favour of a conception of liberal democracy in which both its constitutive elements are in contradiction, but, as has been argued by Mouffe, this contradiction may be productive. I conclude by arguing in favour of an agonistic conception of democracy, as a means by which competing hegemonic projects, such as populism, can inhabit the same political sphere, thereby demonstrating that populism and pluralism are not necessarily incompatible.Show less
This paper looks at whether something more than the system of individual rights is required to uphold justice for the members of immigrant minority groups in liberal democracies and states. Chapter...Show moreThis paper looks at whether something more than the system of individual rights is required to uphold justice for the members of immigrant minority groups in liberal democracies and states. Chapter 1 of the paper looks at whether group membership in general provides value for individuals, because if it does not then there is no need for extra protection, as it is not desirable. On the basis that groups and group membership is valuable in some way, chapter 2 examines whether any extra protection is required, and if so what forms it could exist in. The overall argument of the paper is that while group membership is on the whole valuable for individuals, no extra system of group rights is required to ensure that justice is upheld for the members of minority groups. Groups cannot make claims as separate entities, as the only entitlements they are able to claim are on behalf of their individual members. The existing system of individual rights and universal standards of justice is sufficient as it stands.Show less
