This thesis examines how brain drain can be problematized in light of relational egalitarianism. This approach views the existing economy as that of joint production as it relies heavily on mutual...Show moreThis thesis examines how brain drain can be problematized in light of relational egalitarianism. This approach views the existing economy as that of joint production as it relies heavily on mutual dependency between citizens. Here, it aims to find whether the moral duty citizens hold towards one another can legitimately place restrictions on freedom of movement in the case of brain drain. Through taking relational egalitarianism to its normative furthests, it becomes clear that the right to exit can legitimately be constricted.Show less
Liberal democracies are under immense pressure. Apart from threatening exterior forces, it seems that interior forces are rising and increasingly threatening democracy from inside out. Public...Show moreLiberal democracies are under immense pressure. Apart from threatening exterior forces, it seems that interior forces are rising and increasingly threatening democracy from inside out. Public officials are receiving more threats than ever and even parliaments are attacked. Within public and academic debate, the question rises how to react. Scholars are referring and reacting to the theory of ‘militant democracy’, a democracy which allows for suspension of political rights, albeit under certain conditions. Specifically, this thesis focuses on the self-limiting theory of militant democracy by Kirshner (2014) as one of the most prominent recent academic accounts to the theory of militant democracy. What makes the theory notable, is that his work aims to offer a framework for liberal democracies on when and how to react to so-called ‘antidemocrats’. This thesis provides for a concrete definition of the term antidemocrat, links the three principles of Kirshner’s self-limiting theory of militant democracy with basic liberal principles, critically evaluates each of the principles and, where needed, expands or adjusts them, and expands the theory by adding a fourth principle.Show less
In order to comprehend the current form of neoliberal policies, an examination of neoliberalism’s theoretical foundation is necessary. Located in the immediate post war years and mostly in F.A....Show moreIn order to comprehend the current form of neoliberal policies, an examination of neoliberalism’s theoretical foundation is necessary. Located in the immediate post war years and mostly in F.A. Hayek’s work, neoliberalism is treated as an attempt of ‘liberal revival’ based primarily on classical British liberalism and contrasted with continental liberalism and welfare politics. Hayek’s attempts to establish the link of neoliberalism and classical liberalism based upon three main pillars: individual freedom, spontaneous order of the market and the rule of law. The first part of the research is devoted to analyzing the core concepts under a Hayekian light by providing historical contextualisation. In the second part, the three core concepts are examined based Michel Foucault’s Birth of Biopolitics. Foucault’s Birth of Biopolitics assists the current research in challenging the Hayekian construction of linking neoliberalism with classical liberalism. The main observation made by Foucault is the accentuation of the economic aspect of liberalism in the neoliberal construction; the ‘economization of the non-economic’. The conclusions drawn from the second part of the research, based on the Foucauldian approach of the core concepts of neoliberalism, endeavour to challenge the Hayekian rationale in constructing our current understanding of neoliberalism; although neoliberalism is built upon the notion of freedom, we are inevitably controlled through freedom.Show less
This thesis makes the claim that the distinction made between positive and negative freedom (as well as between competing claims of freedom more generally) are not, and should not be about...Show moreThis thesis makes the claim that the distinction made between positive and negative freedom (as well as between competing claims of freedom more generally) are not, and should not be about disagreements as to what ‘real’ or ‘true’ freedom is, but are instead expressions of which freedoms align with certain philosopher’s broader ideas of justice. What I believe this means is that it is wrong to claim that only a purely negative or positive concept of freedom is the only coherent concept of liberty, and that instead the disagreement and the distinctions made are in fact done so on disagreements about which freedoms are valuable and why. The overall value of instances of freedom is in turn derived from our theories of justice and the ethical commitments which comprise these theories. Therefore I argue, referring to the work of Carter, that a complete and coherent concept of freedom must be both value-neutral in that it does not give superiority to any particular ethical claims made in regards to freedom, and as value-free in that we do not define freedom as only those instances which are also just. It is because of this that I will defend an altered version of MacCallum’s triadic formulation of liberty, which I believe is most successful at encompassing what it is we mean when we’re talking about freedom, by presenting freedom as a relationship between agent, preventing condition - as well as a fulfilment condition that I have added - and an action or behaviour. In this way my altered version of MacCallum’s concept sets the foundations for what I will argue is a value-neutral and value-free concept of freedom, which gives a structure for us to make sense of all intelligible expressions of freedom and gives a neutral base from which to introduce other commitments and values to argue for certain types of freedom over others.Show less
Byung-Chul Han diagnosticeert de huidige maatschappij als een Transparenzgesellschaft. Han laat zien hoe de moderne maatschappij eigenlijk een onvrije maatschappij is, al verkeren we zelf in de...Show moreByung-Chul Han diagnosticeert de huidige maatschappij als een Transparenzgesellschaft. Han laat zien hoe de moderne maatschappij eigenlijk een onvrije maatschappij is, al verkeren we zelf in de illusie dat dit niet zo is. In dit bacheloreindwerkstuk zal worden aangetoond, dat de negatieve aspecten van de Transparenzgesellschafft voortkomen uit een rationeel systeem. Het is dit rationele systeem dat omslaat in negatieve gevolgen. Dit probleem werd eerder door Max Horkheimer en Theodor Adorno aan de kaak gesteld in Dialektik der Aufklärung. Met betrekking tot de diagnose van Han zal hun analyse van de rationaliteit dan ook relevant blijken. Door Hans diagnose op deze manier te belichten wordt zijn denken in een breed wijsgerig kader geplaatst. Via het verbinden van deze twee maatschappijanalyses is men instaat aan te sluiten bij de methode van de filosofie die door Michel Foucault gekarakteriseerd wordt als ontologie du présent. Tevens wordt hiermee de vitaliteit van het gedachtegoed van Horkheimer en Adorno duidelijk. De door Jürgen Habermas gegeven kritiek op dit gedachtegoed zal echter ook worden behandeld en er zal worden aangetoond dat door de overeenkomsten met de maatschappijanalyse van Horkheimer en Adorno deze kritiek ook toepasbaar is op de maatschappijanalyse van Han. Samenvattend is de stelling van dit bacheloreindwerkstuk: ‘Bij de negatieve diagnose die Han vaststelt van de huidige maatschappij speelt onderliggend altijd nog de problematiek van Horkheimer en Adorno met betrekking tot de instrumentele rede.’Show less
