An Immodest Proposal: Hobbes Rather than Locke Provides a Forerunner for Modern Rights Theory

In this paper I argue that we should look to Hobbes rather than to Locke as providing a philosophical forerunner of modern and current rights theories and further, that Hobbes’s theory has relevance to and ‘speaks to’ current philosophical and jurisprudential analysis of the foundations of rights, in a way that Locke’s theory cannot. First, I summarise the argument that Hobbes does have a substantive theory of individual rights. Second, I argue that the project undertaken by A. J. Simmons, to ‘reconstruct’ Locke’s theory of rights without the theological premises, cannot succeed. Locke’s theory of natural rights is thoroughly dependent on its theological premises. Third, I argue that Hobbes’s theory of rights is not dependent on theological premises. Finally, I try to illustrate the ways in which Hobbes’s theory is still relevant and useful for current debates within rights theory.     

Beyond the Limits of Nature: A Social-ecological Perspective on Degrowth as a Political Ideology

This article offers a critical analysis of the ideological position of degrowth from the perspective of social ecology. It agrees with Giorgios Kallis' call to abolish the growth imperative that capitalism embodies today, but it also presents a critique of the conceptual underpinnings of this notion. More precisely, I argue that degrowth as an ideological platform reproduces a binary conception of society and nature, an oppositional mentality which is a key concept to hierarchical epistemology. Degrowth as a political agenda is thus prone to appropriation to authoritarian ends. In order to temper this tendency and help degrowth as a tool of analysis reach its liberatory potential, I advocate its consideration alongside a social-ecological position.     

Still hazy after all these years: the law regulating surrogacy

In 1997, Margaret Brazier was asked by the then Government to chair a review of the laws regulating surrogacy. The subsequent Brazier Report made a number of recommendations, including the need for greater regulation and the tightening of 'expenses' payments. Fifteen years on, the limitations in the legal regulation of surrogacy have become increasingly clear. Yet, none of Brazier's recommendations have been adopted, despite the clear opportunity for revisiting the regulation of surrogacy offered during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (2008). In this paper, we revisit the Brazier Report in the light of subsequent developments and assess to what extent its key findings remain salient. Brazier's recommendations will thus provide a jumping off point for a critical analysis of the current state of the law regarding surrogacy.     

Patterns of Canadian departmental survival

Assertions have been made about the immortality of public‐sector organizations and the need for higher rates of termination of public‐sector organizations. Research on the American federal government argued that such organizations had mortality rates lower than private‐sector organizations. Better research demonstrated that the mortality of public‐sector organizations has occurred at the highest rates observed in the private sector, where rates could be expected to be high because most organizations were very small. Mostly large public‐sector organizations were examined in the U.S. – they should have had low mortality rates. What is the situation in Canada? How does Canadian survival of public‐sector organizations compare to that in other sectors and other countries? This article compares the survival and mortality rates of Canadian public‐sector organizations to those of the private sector and the non‐profit sector. It also compares Canadian public‐sector organizations to those in Ireland and the U.S., finding that Canadian federal organizations have not been immortal and that their mortality rates are among the highest detected. The pattern of Canadian public‐sector organization terminations is punctuated equilibrium.