Federalism, Subsidiarity, and the Role of Local Governments in an Age of Global Multilevel Governance

This article argues that current legal and political systems are incapable of dealing with human conflicts on multiple spheres (federal, state, local) simultaneously. The two dominant political theories that are supposed to solve this problem - federalism and subsidiarity, are inadequate. This article then argues that federalism and subsidiarity must be understood as distinct from one another, and subsidiarity is a better fit for the task of articulating multi-level governance, even if only as a tool for loosening the grip of federalism over our political and legal theory

Actualism, Possibilism, and the Nature of Consequentialism

The actualism/possibilism debate in ethics is about whether counterfactuals of freedom concerning what an agent would freely do if they were in certain circumstances even partly determines that agent’s obligations. This debate arose from an argument against the coherence of utilitarianism in the deontic logic literature. In this chapter, we first trace the historical origins of this debate and then examine actualism, possibilism, and securitism through the lens of consequentialism. After examining their respective benefits and drawbacks, we argue that, contrary to what has been assumed, actualism and securitism both succumb to the so-called nonratifiability problem. In making this argument, we develop this problem in detail and argue that it’s a much more serious problem than has been appreciated. We conclude by arguing that an alternative view, hybridism, is independently the most plausible position and best fits with the nature of consequentialism, partly in light of avoiding the nonratifiability problem