Search

Climate change presents an unprecedented and existential threat. Proposals addressing this threat are criticized as impractical, costly, and/or beyond the legitimate scope of government power. We engage the latter critique by turning to John Locke's writings. Locke is both a proponent of limited government and profoundly influential on liberal democracies. He argues that government exists solely to enforce the natural law, and in doing so, protects life, liberty, and property. While Locke presents the Earth's resources as existing to be exploited, he limits property acquisition, arguing that natural law prohibits spoilage and requires that we leave ample, quality resources for others to utilize. We argue that since these caveats are part of the natural law, government is obligated to take comprehensive action addressing climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the US, headlines announcing firearm casualties have become routine. In response, the loudest and most efficacious voice among gun rights lobbyists, the NRA, consistently insists that more firearms in the hands of more people is the solution to the violence. Such a notion bears a striking resemblance to the Hobbesian conception of the state of nature, wherein no common authority exists to keep the peace. Leading from that inspiration, this paper analyzes the Hobbesian psychology of the gun violence predicament in which the United States finds itself. We argue that looser gun restrictions and increased gun possession advocated by gun rights activists – and largely being adopted across vast swaths of the US – do not follow from the underlying Hobbesian assumptions of their arguments. Further, their stance represents an attempt to carry unfettered natural right into the commonwealth, which portends the termination of the commonwealth itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]