Best of the Week
Most Popular
1.SNP Offers Labour Deadly Death Embrace Alliance, Holding England to Ransom, Destroy UK From Within - Nadeem_Walayat
2.Gold And Silver – Most Widely Used Currency In Western World? Stupidity - Michael_Noonan
3.Election Forecast 2015 - Coalition Economic Recovery vs Labour Collapse - Nadeem_Walayat
4.Election Forecast 2015 - Debates Boost Labour Into Opinion Polls Seats Lead - Nadeem_Walayat
5.Why are Interest Rates So Low? Ben Bernanke, Confused as Ever, Starts His Own Blog to Prove It - Mike_Shedlock
6.Leaders Debate Election 2015 - Natalie Bennett Green Party Convincing Anti-Austerity More Debt Argument - Nadeem_Walayat
7.Labour Economic Collapse vs Coalition Recovery - UK Election Forecast 2015 - Video - Nadeem_Walayat
8.China’s Stock Market Mania; How High can Red-chips Fly? - Gary_Dorsch
9.Gold and Misery, Strange Bedfellows - 31st Mar 15 - Dan_Norcini
10.Ed Miliband Debate Election 2015 Analysis - Labour Spending, Debt and Economic Collapse - Nadeem_Walayat
Last 5 days
Stock Market Sell Signal on S&P Global 1200 Confirmed by Various Charts - 6th May 15
Crude Oil’s Big Move Comes Down to One Thing - 6th May 15
Survival Guide for the Mother of All Commodity Bear Markets from Veteran Bottomfisher - 6th May 15
U.S. Government Using Subprime Mortgages To Pump Housing Market Recovery - 6th May 15
Final Opinion Polls Forecast Labour-Lib Dem Minority SNP Supported Government - Election 2015 - 6th May 15
U.S. Fears a European “Lehman Brothers” - 5th May 15
How the UK Election Represents the State of Europe - 5th May 15
Crude Oil Price Meets Solid Resistance - 5th May 15
Nick Clegg Sheffield Hallam Seat Won, Race on to Save Lib Dem Marginal's - 5th May 15
Stock Market Waiting for Clarity - 5th May 15
Mice, Mazes & Investor Perception Management - 5th May 15
Conservatives Nightmare of Labour - Lib Dem Minority Government - Election Forecast 2015 - 5th May 15
Gold Long-term Outlook for Massive Parabolic Run to $5,000 - 4th May 15
Silver Bear Market Downside Momentum Easing - 4th May 15
Silver and NASDAQ – Long, Medium and Short Trends - 4th May 15
Let's Make Silver Shine Even Brighter Than Gold - 4th May 15
Six Silver Questions and Perspectives - 4th May 15
Stock Market Last Hurrah? - 4th May 15 - Andre_Gratian
Stocks – Bulls, Bears, And Pigs : Which Are You? - 4th May 15
The Energy Complex: Very Interesting Chartology - 4th May 15
U.S. Long Bond, an Historic Trading Opportunity? - 4th May 15
This Financial “Seismograph” Signals A Monetary Earthquake - 4th May 15
Nate Silver UK General Election Forecast 2015 as Wrong as 2010? - 4th May 15
U.S. GDP Sucking Spoilt Milk From A Bloated Dead Sow - 3rd May 15
Stocks, Gold and Oil Markets Chopsville - 3rd May 15
UK Election 2015 Forecast - The Most Probable Outcome is... - 3rd May 15
Kate Gives Birth to Coalition Government - 2nd May 15
Stock Market Correction Time? - 2nd May 15
Gold And Silver - Thieving Bankers Operate In Open; Public Have Eyes Wide Shut - 2nd May 15
U.S.A. Caught In Enormous Policy Vise - ZIRP & QE Destructive Influence - 2nd May 15
Crude Oil Price Bear Market Is Over - 2nd May 15
Gold and Silver Bear Squeeze Comes and Goes - 2nd May 15
UK Election Forecast 2015 - Who Will Win? - 1st May 15
Gold Developments Say New Mine Supply Is Peaking - 1st May 15
Emerging Mexican Silver - 1st May 15
Investigating The U.S. GDP Deflator: Wildly Differing Results Depending on Your Choice - 1st May 15
JP Morgan Cornering Silver Bullion Market? - 1st May 15
Baltimore Riots Whose Fault? - 1st May 15
Monetary And Economic Insights From Incrementum’s Advisory Board - 1st May 15
Your Best Stock Investment in the "Cloud" Is Right Here - 1st May 15
Stock Market Kondratieff Waves and the Greater Depression 2013- 2020 update - 1st May 15
How One Chart Is Changing My Outlook on Crude Oil Prices - 1st May 15
The Real Reason Why Obama Wants to Lift Sanctions on Iran - 30th Apr 15
Gold and the New U.S. and UK Recession - ZIRP to Continue - 30th Apr 15
Uranium Price Is About to Rocket - 30th Apr 15
Immigration Crisis Drives a Deep Wedge Between E.U. States - 30th Apr 15
Labour Leads in Nick Clegg's Sheffield Hallam Seat, Latest Ashcroft Opinion Poll - 30th Apr 15
Is the Fed about to Ignite the Stock Market Sell in May and Go Away Trade? - 30th Apr 15
Bill Gross on Pimco Hiring Bernanke and Fed Interest Rate Hike 2015 - 30th Apr 15

Free Instant Analysis

Free Instant Technical Analysis


Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

The War on Cash!

Understanding Liberal Democracy

Politics / Social Issues Nov 22, 2012 - 10:10 AM GMT

By: David_Gordon

Politics

Most contemporary political philosophers, unfortunately, are not libertarians. Nicholas Wolterstorff, best known as a founder of "reformed epistemology" but a philosopher of extraordinary range, is no libertarian either — far from it. In the present collection of essays, though, he assails a vastly influential school of thought in a way that libertarians will find useful.


Ever since John Rawls published Political Liberalism in 1993, political philosophers have focused on "public reason." This notion responds to a feature of contemporary politics difficult to deny: we have already drawn attention to it. In contemporary democracies, people disagree radically about what should be done politically. They operate from different philosophies, from what Rawls calls "comprehensive doctrines"; they have different "conceptions of the good." Some people are religious and look to what they take to be God's guidance on, e.g., abortion and same-sex marriage; others are atheists and want no part of alleged divine revelations. Some people think the state should mold people's characters to promote virtue; others say this is none of the state's business.

Faced with conflicts like this, what should be done? One alternative is that the supporters of a particular comprehensive doctrine should attempt to secure a majority for its views. Once they do that, they can ram through their program, regardless of the objections that come from those with other comprehensive doctrines. If you can convince most people that abortion is wrong, then you are free to pass laws that ban it.

Rawls and other supporters of public reason like Robert Audi disagree. They say that to act in the way just described is coercive and fails to show respect for those who hold different conceptions of the good.

Most if not all exclusivists [advocates of public reason] … say something to the effect that respect for one's fellow citizens as free and equal requires that, before supporting a piece of proposed legislation, one offer or make available, to those one believes do not already have them, reasons for the legislation that they will or would regard as good ones … [an] alternative focuses on coercion. It is the coerciveness of legislation that makes reasons of the sort indicated required. A condition of a citizen's properly supporting a piece of coercive legislation is … [that] one must offer or make available, to those one believes do not already have them, reasons that they do or would regard as justifying the coercive legislation. (pp. 12–3, emphasis in original)

In brief, you should put aside your own opinions about the good when you are dealing — as you inevitably must in a contemporary democracy like that of the United States — with those with conflicting opinions. Instead, you should confine yourself to arguments that others can accept as reasons. For example, if you oppose easy divorce because you think this practice contravenes what the Bible teaches about marriage, you should not rely on this view in debates about public legislation. People who reject belief in God will not regard the Bible's claims as a reason for action at all. If you appeal exclusively to the Bible, you will be manifesting lack of respect for them and endeavoring to coerce them.[1]

It is easy to see why Wolterstorff would not like public reason. As already suggested, religious views have no place in public reason, though they are not the only sort of excluded views. This cannot sit well with Wolterstorff, who is a devout Christian and thinks that his religion is very much relevant to politics. He accordingly launches a counterattack: public reason shows much less respect for people than its advocates claim for it; and the view has consequences that are themselves coercive. His powerful arguments should interest libertarians because they weaken the appeal of one of libertarianism's main rivals in political philosophy.

Wolterstorff notes that defenders of public reason do not in fact show respect for everyone's comprehensive doctrine. It is only those deemed "reasonable" who have to be taken into account. If you hold a comprehensive doctrine that is not "reasonable," then you are excluded: it is not necessary, in public argument, to offer you a reason that you would find acceptable.

Of course, the question arises, just what is a reasonable comprehensive doctrine, on this conception? It transpires that in essence it is one that accepts public reason. If you want to impose your comprehensive doctrine regardless of the opinions of those who reject it, you aren't reasonable. Public reason is thus respectful and non-coercive — to those who accept its tenets. Those outside the "legitimation pool" of these accepters do not count.

All public reason liberals first declare that citizens of certain sorts are irrelevant to determining the permissibility of advocating in public and voting for some piece of legislation.… Rawls famously sets off to the side those who are not "reasonable," these being those who do not endorse "the underlying ideas of citizens as free and equal persons and of society as a fair system of cooperation over time." For those whose comprehensive doctrine leads them to be unreasonable in this way, Rawls declares that that doctrine is itself unreasonable. About such doctrines and those who hold them Rawls says that "Within political liberalism, nothing more need be said." (p. 81, quoting Rawls)

Even for the favored few who make it into the legitimation pool, it is by no means always the case that they must be given reasons for laws that they in fact accept.

No public reason liberal holds that, having excluded certain sorts of citizens from the legitimation pool, we can now say that a condition of its being acceptable to advocate and vote for some proposed piece of legislation is that one judges that everyone who remains in the pool has a good and decisive reason … for believing that the legislation would be a good thing. There never is that degree of agreement; we can say in confidence that there never will be. It's for this reason that public reason liberals all resort to speaking of what those in the legitimation pool would believe. (pp. 83–4)

In other words, if some people reject a law you propose, you assume that they would accept it, or at least think it reasonable, if they were better informed or thought about the issues more clearly. Is this not, Wolterstorff asks, a remarkably condescending view to take of one's fellow citizens?[2]

If Wolterstorff rejects public reason, what has he to put in its place? He proposes "the equal right of citizens to full political voice" (p. 113). In this conception of liberal democracy, people may advocate[3] laws for whatever reasons seem to them suitable; they are not bound by the restraints of public reason. If you have had a fair chance to state your case to the public, but the vote goes against you, then you have not been treated unfairly.

But what about the problems to which public reason theorists have pointed? What if the majority passes laws that seem to you to lack reason altogether? Must you accept these laws, simply because the majority backs them? Has Wolterstorff rejected public reason as not genuinely respectful of others, only to subject everyone to dominance by the majority of voters?

Wolterstorff is fully aware of this problem. He responds that majority rule, in his conception of equal political voice, is not untrammeled. Laws cannot violate people's rights.

I [Wolterstorff] hold that it is not public reason and the Rawlsian duty of civility that lie at the heart of liberal democracy but the equal right to full political voice, this voice to be exercised within constitutional limits on the powers of government and within legal limits on the infringement by citizens on the rights of their fellow citizens to freely exercise their full political voice. (p. 125)

What are these rights that limit the majority? Wolterstorff does not offer a list of them, though it is safe to say that they include the "standard" list of civil liberties, such as freedom of the press and of religion. But what if, as libertarians think, these rights extend further — to include natural rights to property? What if they leave no scope at all for further public deliberation, except perhaps on details? Wolterstorff assumes without considering alternative arrangements that the key task of political philosophy today is to arrive at an acceptable account of liberal democracy. Libertarians will not be satisfied; but we can be grateful to Wolterstorff for his careful analysis of public reason.[4]

David Gordon covers new books in economics, politics, philosophy, and law for The Mises Review, the quarterly review of literature in the social sciences, published since 1995 by the Mises Institute. He is author of The Essential Rothbard, available in the Mises Store. Send him mail. See his article archives. Comment on the blog.

[Understanding Liberal Democracy: Essays in Political Philosophy • By Nicholas Wolterstorff • Edited by Terence Cuneo • Oxford University Press, 2012 • Xii+ 385 pages]

© 2012 Copyright Ludwig von Mises - All Rights Reserved Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.


© 2005-2015 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in

Free Report - Financial Markets 2014