The political ideas of Auberon Herbert are usually associated with the late Victorian Individualist thinkers primarily influenced by the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Although Herbert derived his political philosophy of Voluntaryism from Spencer’s thinking it also owed much to J. S. Mill. Voluntaryism was based on a Lockean-Spencerian conception of individual natural rights that asserted self-ownership and the moral obligation for individuals to respect the rights of other people. Rights protection against force and fraud constituted the primary purpose of government. Herbert, aptly describing Voluntaryism as the system of liberty, peace and friendliness, applied these principles to a range of situations from street maintenance, to collective property purchase, and, finally, to the voluntary support of the state. Voluntary taxation was the most controversial component of Herbert’s theory, emphasising its distinctiveness. Although Herbert resisted socialist and new liberal attempts to expand the role of the state, his reasons for doing so shared little in common with conservative critics of this direction. Herbert, a republican and democrat, repeatedly attacked privilege, seeking widespread change including land reform and universal suffrage. His position represented that of a radical reformer seeking to promote Voluntaryism as the basis for friendly co-operation among free individuals at home and abroad. An internationalist, Herbert opposed aggressive imperialism, but also supported national self-determination, including Irish Home Rule. The notion of the voluntary state has led to claims of Herbert’s anarchism, but research indicates a greater complexity to his political ideas. Overall, Herbert was an extreme libertarian who never completely lost sight of the state, although he greatly limited its role. While Herbert’s political theory was idealistic, it avoided the social prescription usually associated with utopianism. Herbert’s commitment to an ethos of radical progressivism was one he shared with other contemporary socialist and anarchist thinkers who, like Herbert, attempted to live the politics they espoused. For his political philosophy and activism, Herbert warrants acknowledgement as one of the most prominent English libertarians of the nineteenth century.

The political ideas of Auberon Herbert are usually associated with the late Victorian Individualist thinkers primarily influenced by the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Although Herbert derived his political philosophy of Voluntaryism from Spencer’s thinking it also owed much to J. S. Mill. Voluntaryism was based on a Lockean-Spencerian conception of individual natural rights that asserted self-ownership and the moral obligation for individuals to respect the rights of other people. Rights protection against force and fraud constituted the primary purpose of government. Herbert, aptly describing Voluntaryism as the system of liberty, peace and friendliness, applied these principles to a range of situations from street maintenance, to collective property purchase, and, finally, to the voluntary support of the state. Voluntary taxation was the most controversial component of Herbert’s theory, emphasising its distinctiveness. Although Herbert resisted socialist and new liberal attempts to expand the role of the state, his reasons for doing so shared little in common with conservative critics of this direction. Herbert, a republican and democrat, repeatedly attacked privilege, seeking widespread change including land reform and universal suffrage. His position represented that of a radical reformer seeking to promote Voluntaryism as the basis for friendly co-operation among free individuals at home and abroad. An internationalist, Herbert opposed aggressive imperialism, but also supported national self-determination, including Irish Home Rule. The notion of the voluntary state has led to claims of Herbert’s anarchism, but research indicates a greater complexity to his political ideas. Overall, Herbert was an extreme libertarian who never completely lost sight of the state, although he greatly limited its role. While Herbert’s political theory was idealistic, it avoided the social prescription usually associated with utopianism. Herbert’s commitment to an ethos of radical progressivism was one he shared with other contemporary socialist and anarchist thinkers who, like Herbert, attempted to live the politics they espoused. For his political philosophy and activism, Herbert warrants acknowledgement as one of the most prominent English libertarians of the nineteenth century.

The political ideas of Auberon Herbert are usually associated with the late Victorian Individualist thinkers primarily influenced by the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Although Herbert derived his political philosophy of Voluntaryism from Spencer’s thinking it also owed much to J. S. Mill. Voluntaryism was based on a Lockean-Spencerian conception of individual natural rights that asserted self-ownership and the moral obligation for individuals to respect the rights of other people. Rights protection against force and fraud constituted the primary purpose of government. Herbert, aptly describing Voluntaryism as the system of liberty, peace and friendliness, applied these principles to a range of situations from street maintenance, to collective property purchase, and, finally, to the voluntary support of the state. Voluntary taxation was the most controversial component of Herbert’s theory, emphasising its distinctiveness. Although Herbert resisted socialist and new liberal attempts to expand the role of the state, his reasons for doing so shared little in common with conservative critics of this direction. Herbert, a republican and democrat, repeatedly attacked privilege, seeking widespread change including land reform and universal suffrage. His position represented that of a radical reformer seeking to promote Voluntaryism as the basis for friendly co-operation among free individuals at home and abroad. An internationalist, Herbert opposed aggressive imperialism, but also supported national self-determination, including Irish Home Rule. The notion of the voluntary state has led to claims of Herbert’s anarchism, but research indicates a greater complexity to his political ideas. Overall, Herbert was an extreme libertarian who never completely lost sight of the state, although he greatly limited its role. While Herbert’s political theory was idealistic, it avoided the social prescription usually associated with utopianism. Herbert’s commitment to an ethos of radical progressivism was one he shared with other contemporary socialist and anarchist thinkers who, like Herbert, attempted to live the politics they espoused. For his political philosophy and activism, Herbert warrants acknowledgement as one of the most prominent English libertarians of the nineteenth century.

In this thesis I attempt to introduce Galen Strawson's position, which he adopts in the free will debate followed by the debate about his Basic Argument. While giving a de-tailed account of responsibility as a reflective rational responsiveness, I show that re-sponsibility is in no respect causa sui and therefore it is not impossible for human beings to reach it, explained with the reasons given by Strawson. I refuse steps B, C, 8, 9 and 10 of the Basic Argument. I claim that undetermined self-determination consists in the ability to make a decision in the light of actually revised principles of choice. Such revision is granted by actual ability to reflect the validity and adequacy of principles of choice in relation to motivating values in question by using methodical doubt as a universal tool do to so. Such reflection, with respect to what matters for decision making in question, is potentially ultimate. I claim that Strawson underestimates the uniqueness of reflective rationality especially, when missing the crucial difference between Fido the dog and Nemo the man in the situation of choice. Moreover, I suspect Strawson of excluding the subject of action or choice and its actual principles of choice from the realm of intelligible things. This leads to disruption of request to conception of the world as internally consistent and in principle attainable by human beings. Finally, I show why I find sophisticated fatalism problematic in both of its versions, deterministic as well as indeterministic.

Submitted by Liliane Ferreira (ljuvencia30@gmail.com) on 2018-08-14T11:15:43Z No. of bitstreams: 2 Dissertação - Marcos Vinícius Ferreira de Almeida Godinho - 2018.pdf: 1651273 bytes, checksum: 890f5600c2d2f93c59e9850a092488ac (MD5) license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Luciana Ferreira (lucgeral@gmail.com) on 2018-08-14T11:32:55Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 Dissertação - Marcos Vinícius Ferreira de Almeida Godinho - 2018.pdf: 1651273 bytes, checksum: 890f5600c2d2f93c59e9850a092488ac (MD5) license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-14T11:32:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 Dissertação - Marcos Vinícius Ferreira de Almeida Godinho - 2018.pdf: 1651273 bytes, checksum: 890f5600c2d2f93c59e9850a092488ac (MD5) license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-03-05 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / Capitalism and the environmental, for many, are seen as extreme opposites. One of the intentions in this work is to discuss how this conflict is developed and to show solutions for it, having the case of Brasil Mata Viva to represent the realized theoretical discussion. However, it is not central to this work to explore the conflict between capitalism and the environment, but to show a reality where both were put together harmonically. This work has two main theoretical focal points: free market environmentalism and environmental discourse analysis. Firstly, an exposé about free market environmentalism and its main concepts was made, paving the way the theory used to study Brasil Mata Viva. Secondly, the environmental discourse analysis is debated, and is shown its categories. Right after, an presentation of Brasil Mata Viva was realized, showing its history, actions and relations with society. Finally, the data obtained is discussed in the light of the methodologies given by the theories of free market capitalism and environmental discourse analysis where markets, relations with institutional public figures, community and the environment are central. The results show a contradictory combination, although successful, rooted by the studied context which challenges the theorized conceptions. / Capitalismo e meio ambiente, para muitos, são vistos como extremos opostos. Umas das intenções deste trabalho é discutir como esse conflito se desenvolve e apresentar possíveis soluções, tendo um caso empírico como o Brasil Mata Viva para representar a discussão teórica realizada. No entanto, não é central ao trabalho explorar o conflito entre capitalismo e meio ambiente, mas sim apresentar uma realidade que possibilitou a junção harmônica de ambos. Há duas teorias centrais; o ambientalismo de livre mercado e análise do discurso ambiental. Primeiramente, é realizada uma exposição do ambientalismo de livre mercado e seus conceitos, preparando a dimensão teórica utilizada para estudar o Brasil Mata Viva. Segundamente, a análise do discurso ambiental é discutida, onde as categorias de análise são apresentadas. Logo após é realizado a apresentação do Brasil Mata Viva, sua história, atuação e relações com a sociedade. Finalmente, os dados são debatidos conforme os métodos propostos pelo ambientalismo de livre mercado e a análise do discurso ambiental, com as relações da organização com o mercado, figuras institucionais públicas, comunidade e meio ambiente são centrais. Os resultados mostram uma combinação contraditória, apesar de bem-sucedida, inerentes ao contexto estudando que desafiam as concepções teorizadas.

The aim of this thesis is to gain a deeper knowledge of how the individual and its rights and duties is portraited against the state, in the question of the abolition and reincorporation of the Swedish conscription and has it occurred a dislocation in the relation between the two. To achieve this a qualitative text analysis is combined with a VBF-analysis and analysing a total of four documents produced by the Swedish state, concerning the conscription. Two of the documents affect the abolition and the remaining two the reincorporation. To be able to examine how the individual’s rights and duties are looked upon by the state, three political philosophies, libertarianism, liberal equality and communitarianism, were used as the theoretical framework. The results of the study show that the view of the individual´s rights and duties has changed from the abolition of the conscription to the reincorporation. Where the abolition was dominated by libertarianism and the reincorporation had a clear communitarian view.

[pt] No cenário político do Estados Unidos após 1945, o libertarianismo esteve intrinsicamente ligado ao ressurgimento do movimento conservador. Entretanto, no efervescente ambiente político da década de 60, alguns intelectuais libertários, como Murray Rothbard, decidiram trilhar um caminho diferente. Esses intelectuais passaram a reavaliar suas opções ideológicas, buscando, assim, por alternativas para lidar com os principais dilemas da época. Com a finalidade de melhor entender essas mudanças, esta dissertação teve como objetivo investigar a reinterpretação do libertarianismo operada por Murray Rothbard em sua atuação na revista Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought, criada em 1965. Para isso, foram apresentadas as principais expressões do pensamento libertário na política norte-americana dos séculos XIX e XX. Em seguida, analisou-se os textos de Rothbard presentes na Left and Right entre 1965 e 1968, a fim de entender suas principais ideias, alianças e conflitos políticos. Dessa forma, as estratégias utilizadas por Rothbard em sua reinterpretação do libertarianismo foram melhor elucidadas, tornando este trabalho uma importante oportunidade de refinar as concepções acerca dessa corrente política no cenário norte-americano. / [en] In the US political scenario of the aftermath of 1945, libertarianism became intrinsically connected with the rebirth of the conservative movement. Nevertheless, the effusive political environment of the 1960s made Murray Rothbard and other few libertarian intellectuals choose and take a different road to travel. These intellectuals began reviewing some of their ideological options and, therefore, looking for alternatives in order to deal with their main epochal dilemma. In order to better understand these many changes, I intend, in this Dissertation, to investigate the reinterpretation of libertarianism proposed by Murray Rothbard through his writings in Left and Right. A Journal of Libertarian Though, created in 1965. In order to accomplish this, I began by commenting on some of the main voices of the 19 th - and 20 th - century libertarian thought in American politics. I then analyzed all Rothbard articles in Left and Right, between 1965 and 1968, so that some of his main ideas, and understandings regarding political alliances and conflicts, could be made clear. The strategies he enacted in his singular reinterpretation of libertarianism seem to have been better elucidated with this work. We expect such an effort turns out to be a helpful aid in the future refining of ideas and conceptions still in use in the rhetorics of North-American political scene.

This dissertation argues that we need to reconceive our notions of economic freedom to be bothmore inclusive and worker-centric. The status quo of economic freedom is dominated by the libertarian perspective, which envisions economic freedom as a matter of individuals being unrestricted in the exercise of their sovereign capacities, especially with regards to the state. Such a view of economic freedom does not account for how individual capacities are made possible, neglecting that in modern economic life, it is only through non-sovereign dependencies on others that makes individual economic capacities substantive. Additionally, outcry against injustices in American economic life is primarily framed through the lens of inequality, which too quickly concedes freedom to the libertarian perspective. Chapter one articulates a critique of three libertarian perspectives, arguing that each in its own way is too closely tied to a sovereigntist view of individual capacity, and as such is incapable of offering a more inclusive conception of economic freedom. Chapter two examines the recent neo-republican resurgence, arguing that Philip Pettit’s revival of freedom as non-domination neglects to account for its own logical and practical assumption on a polity that is bounded and stable, making it less credible as a politics of inclusion. The chapter also extends this critique to Alex Gourevitch’s labor republicanism, arguing that casting freedom as non-domination in a more working class mold is insufficient to eliminate its reliance on exclusionary boundaries. Chapter three draws from recent care theory to argue that we should conceive of economic freedom as the enabling conditions of economic agency, which are made possible only through dependencies on others. But even if such dependencies are universally necessary, they are not experienced in an equitable way. The more privileged tend to be in a position to enjoy access to such enabling conditions, which the work of the less privileged makes possible. Transforming economic freedom into a more inclusive value means properly recognizing such contributions. Chapter four examines two case studies from American labor history: garment workers in the early twentieth century, and the more contemporary Los Deliveristas Unidos, who represent delivery cyclists in New York City.

This study investigates the interaction between freedom and limitation as applied to political expression and hate speech. The need for the limitation of hate speech, with its inherent risk of escalation into other serious crimes such as genocide, is established. The view of the South African courts is identified as pro-limitation but generally respectful of the right to freedom of expression. A lacuna in current constitutional law, common law and legislative remedies is evident and the various ways in which limitation can be effected are explored; the researcher finds for criminalisation as an effective measure to address this lacuna in hate speech regulation. The importance of complying with the international call for the criminalisation of hate speech is analysed. Insight is gained regarding what would be an effective model for criminalisation. Here lessons are taken from foreign comparatives that have successfully criminalised hate speech in the context of their cultural identity, history and social needs. Ultimately, a framework for effective hate speech criminalisation in South Africa is formulated. / Constitutional, International & Indigenous Law / LL.M

Le néolibéralisme, un terme qui désigne couramment la raison d’état contemporaine, est largement associé à un désinvestissement de l’État pour la cause sociale ainsi qu’à un discours de légitimation des disparités socio-économiques. Il s’agit, pour plusieurs, d’une idéologie qui ne considère pas la justice comme un idéal collectif à poursuivre. Un retour sur certains penseurs à qui l’on attribue la formulation des idées néolibérales permet toutefois de constater que la justice fut, au sein de leurs travaux, l’un des thèmes majeurs. L’objectif général de ce mémoire est donc de présenter la conception de la justice chez deux penseurs du néolibéralisme : le journaliste américain Walter Lippmann et l’économiste autrichien Friedrich A. von Hayek. Cette perspective comparée me permettra d’identifier ce que je nomme la «conception néolibérale» de la justice, conception qui s’articule à partir d’une compréhension singulière du marché. Dans le premier chapitre, je présente le problème central de la conception néolibérale de la justice, en abordant la posture épistémologique privilégiée par Hayek et Lippmann. Dans le deuxième chapitre, je présente certaines modalités de cette conception et soulève ses principales apories. Je soutiens aussi qu’une rupture survient entre Hayek et Lippmann autour de la notion de «responsabilité». Finalement, je compare la conception néolibérale de la justice avec la conception libertarienne présentée par Nozick. C’est à partir des critères de justice respectifs de chaque théorie que j’avance la distinction, au troisième chapitre, entre les deux conceptions pourtant similaires. Contrairement à une analyse courante qui fait du néolibéralisme un projet amoral, je soutiens que la reconnaissance de la dimension morale du discours néolibéral ouvre une fenêtre à partir de laquelle il devient possible de critiquer le projet sur des bases éthiques. C’est en identifiant la notion de justice à l’oeuvre dans le discours néolibéral contemporain et en l’inscrivant dans la tradition morale présentée dans le cadre de ce mémoire que nous sommes mieux à même de comprendre l’idéologie du néolibéralisme. / Neoliberalism, a term commonly used to describe the current paradigm of the state, is largely related to a disengagement of the state from issues of social welfare and is associated with the legitimization of socio-economic inequalities. For many critics, it also represents an ideology that does not consider justice as a collective ideal that should be pursued. This stands in contradiction with the fact that justice was a central theme in the works of many thinkers to whom we attribute the formulation of neoliberal thought. Considering this paradox, the main purpose of this Master’s thesis is to expose the conception of justice as expressed by two key neoliberal thinkers: the American journalist Walter Lippmann and the Austrian economist Friedrich A. von Hayek. This comparative perspective will allow me to single out what I call the "neoliberal conception" of justice, a conception that builds on a particular understanding of the market. In the first chapter, I present the central challenge of the neoliberal conception of justice by broaching the epistemological stance common to Hayek and Lippmann. In the second chapter, I present specific properties of this conception and discuss its principal blind spots. I also show that Hayek and Lippmann disagree when it comes to the notion of "responsibility". Finally, I compare the neoliberal conception of justice with that of libertarians, as presented by Robert Nozick in his work Anarchy, State and Utopia. In this third section, I argue that Hayek and Nozick’s respective criteria of justice drive a wedge between two otherwise rather similar conceptions. In contrast to a standard analysis that treats neoliberalism as an amoral project, I contend that recognition of the moral dimension of neoliberal discourse opens up a perspective from which it becomes possible to challenge the project on ethical grounds. Understanding the idea of justice underpinning contemporary neoliberalism, as rooted in the moral tradition presented in this essay, is necessary if we are to criticize this ideology on moral grounds.