Aristotle & Locke: Ancients and Moderns on Economic Theory & the Best Regime

In this paper, I will attempt to weigh the benefits and failings of the ancient and modern political-economic systems, as described in their philosophical forms, in order to determine which can better provide for the goods of humanity. This project sets out to demonstrate that the πόλις designed by Aristotle in the Politics can better provide for both the material and nonmaterial goods of a political agglomeration than the one designed by John Locke in the Second Treatise of Civil Government. These goods consist of two things: the authenticity of human existence, providing for the non-material goods of individuals and communities, and the progress of modern science and technology, providing for material the increase of both the quality and quantity of human life. First and second, I will perform two distinct analyses of Aristotle’s Politics and John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government in order to distill the essence of ancient and modern political philosophy from these works, respectively. These authors were chosen because of their gravitas on the topic of political philosophy: Aristotle as the father of the oldest extant work of direct political theory, and Locke as the political thinker whose revolutionary work largely shaped subsequent constitutions and political theories. Additionally, Locke is seen as the predecessor to Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, and is held responsible for providing Smith with the philosophical environment in which he could write his economic treatises. Third, I will conclude with three criteria why one political philosophy better provides for the comprehensive goods of a People than the other; these criteria are the interpreted accounts of: the nature of humanity versus the reasons for civil agglomeration, economics and property, and the final ends of civil agglomerations and their value

Unusual Complexes of P(CH)3 with FH, ClH, and ClF

© 2020 by the authors.Ab initio MP2/aug’-cc-pVTZ calculations have been performed to determine the structures and binding energies of complexes formed by phosphatetrahedrane, P(CH)3, and HF, HCl, and ClF. Four types of complexes exist on the potential energy surfaces. Isomers A form at the P atom near the end of a P-C bond, B at a C-C bond, C at the centroid of the C-C-C ring along the C3 symmetry axis, and D at the P atom along the C3 symmetry axis. Complexes A and B are stabilized by hydrogen bonds when FH and ClH are the acids, and by halogen bonds when ClF is the acid. In isomers C, the dipole moments of the two monomers are favorably aligned but in D the alignment is unfavorable. For each of the monomers, the binding energies of the complexes decrease in the order A > B > C > D. The most stabilizing Symmetry Adapted Perturbation Theory (SAPT) binding energy component for the A and B isomers is the electrostatic interaction, while the dispersion interaction is the most stabilizing term for C and D. The barriers to converting one isomer to another are significantly higher for the A isomers compared to B. Equation of motion coupled cluster singles and doubles (EOM-CCSD) intermolecular coupling constants J(X-C) are small for both B and C isomers. J(X-P) values are larger and positive in the A isomers, negative in the B isomers, and have their largest positive values in the D isomers. Intramolecular coupling constants 1J(P-C) experience little change upon complex formation, except in the halogen-bonded complex FCl:P(CH3) AThis work was carried out with financial support from the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades of Spain (Project No. PGC2018–094644-B-C22) and Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid (P2018/EMT–4329 AIRTEC-CM)

Substituent Effects on B−N Bonding and Coupling Constants in Fivemembered Rings N3B2H4X and N2B3H4X, for X = H, F, and Li

Ab initio calculations have been carried out to investigate bonding patterns and B−N coupling constants in five-membered rings N3B2H4X and N2B3H4X, for X = H, F, and Li, with substitution occurring only at N. F-substitution results in the formation of a covalent N−F bond, whereas Li-substitution leads to an ion-pair with little covalency. Substitution has a highly localized effect, changing the electron density only at the substituted N. F-substitution also has a very localized effect on coupling constants, at most only changing 1J(B−N) involving the substituted N. Li-substitution has a more delocalized effect. It always decreases 1J(B−N) involving the substituted N, and may also decrease 1J(B−N) of a proximal B−N bond if the B atom is bonded to the substituted N