Political Theory

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

spetsnaz — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:42:46 GMT

yes, i think maybe i phrased my reply badly.

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

Jon Irenicus — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:59:53 GMT

partly this arrogance is based on the fact that social scientists are rational enough to foresee every eventuality and take all into account. this arrogance also is partly based on thinking of people as mathematical units in an economic model.

read Hayek's "the counter revolution of science", he talks about this topic in that book.

Right, so it has nothing to do with people being "irrational" but rather the presumption of excessive knowledge.

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

spetsnaz — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:42:08 GMT

Juan:
Wasn't he willing to murder anyone

no i am afraid he never did anything you describe. hayek was very much against ideas of moral relativism (social constructivism). unlike anarchists, liberal thinkers want peace and to preserve people's freedom, including freedom to live. hayek and von mises greatly admired each other. hayek carried on von mises' economic and political work.

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

Juan — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:34:30 GMT

Didn't Hayek advocate a particular form of constructivist government ? Wasn't he willing to murder anyone who didn't agree to be ruled by his parliamentary republic or whatever he called his artificial social system ?

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

spetsnaz — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:04:46 GMT

Jon Irenicus:
It is more so an attack on scientistic arrogance

partly this arrogance is based on the fact that social scientists are rational enough to foresee every eventuality and take all into account. this arrogance also is partly based on thinking of people as mathematical units in an economic model.

read Hayek's "the counter revolution of science", he talks about this topic in that book.

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:39:55 GMT

Haeyk

I'm not intimately familiar with Hayek's argument, but it basically amounts to the conclusion that social engineering does not work and that constructivism is false. One need not say a thing about 'rationality' to obtain this conclusion though. It is more so an attack on scientistic arrogance than a presumption against letting people do as they wish without hindrance by the state.

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

Sage — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:37:45 GMT

spetsnaz:
it is utopian to assume that people when they voluntarily join a organisation will always without exception adhere to all its rules especially when their direct interests are clearly at stake.

Do you understand what consent theory requires for a government to be voluntary? Consent must be unanimous, unambiguous, and ongoing. This means that everyone must agree to every law, and that every individual must have a right of secession.

By admitting that unanimous consent is utopian, you are thereby admitting to be trapped in the dilemma: consent theory must be false for a free rider problem to exist.

spetsnaz:
if they are perfectly rational and have perfect information there will be no free riding problem vis-a-vis law.

Red herring. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

spetsnaz — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:17:48 GMT

Jon Irenicus:
I really don't know where you're getting the rest from. Certainly not Mises

Haeyk

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

Physiocrat — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:32:07 GMT

GilesStratton:

So essentially the state itself a public good that can't be established by cooperation.

Except that in the absence of a true Ubermensch the state requires cooperation to create itself to and to continue its running. Thus the existence of the state refutes the public goods argument entirely.

I'm indebted to Don Lavoie on this point. He mustn't have been on one of his trips that day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:04:49 GMT

No, that is the translation. I really don't know where you're getting the rest from. Certainly not Mises... and btw, not being "perfectly rational" =/= being irrational.

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

spetsnaz — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:55:51 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

one must remember is that people are irrational and are driven by their passions as much as by their weak reasoning skills.

Translation: people do things I don't personally approve of.

no, that is not the translation. what i meant by irrationality is that people might not do that which is best for them. they may not be able to make perfect calculations. one of the main arguments against socialism is that no one is perfectly rational and hence it is impossible to calculate everything for everyone hence central planning will fail. the foundation of liberalism is that people are irrational and are not driven by calculation.

it is irrelevant of what i think of others. freedom of thought is probably the most fundamental expression of liberty. i am free to do so and others are free to do so too. it only becomes a problem when people try to tell others what they should and should not do!!!

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:01 GMT

one must remember is that people are irrational and are driven by their passions as much as by their weak reasoning skills.

Translation: people do things I don't personally approve of.

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

spetsnaz — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:55:08 GMT

Sage:
Okay, so you're saying that consent theory is true, and that people fund government voluntarily. From this it follows that there is no free rider problem, since people are voluntarily funding the public good of law. Hence government is unnecessary and the adjudication of disputes and the production of security can be provided on the market.

it is utopian to assume that people when they voluntarily join a organisation will always without exception adhere to all its rules especially when their direct interests are clearly at stake. human conduct is not discrete but continuous. people don't either follow rules or not follow rules, there is a continuum in between the extremes.

what i was talking about specifically was that when people voluntarily join a liberal state the adhere to most of laws most of the time. the problem may arise however when the laws do not say anything about public goods, like street lighting etc. which means that generally public goods and the market failures associated with it can exist in a voluntarily set up state.

what you are talking about is thinking of law as the only public good (or service) in question. i apologise for misunderstanding. yes, theoretically people all might voluntarily and conscientiously form law to live by. if they are perfectly rational and have perfect information there will be no free riding problem vis-a-vis law. however purely on the theoretical basis if people are voluntarily submitting to law, law is still a public service by definition. one cannot exclude people from enjoying it, and its amount is not reduced in its consumption. it just so happens that because in this imaginary world people are perfectly rational and have perfect information there is no free rider problem and hence there is no need to enforce anything. to be honest if people are perfectly rational and have perfect information they do not need to set up a law system. it would be perfectly apparent to them what is in their interest is generally in the interest of the others. such perfect people could peacefully live together in an anarchy.

as i have mentioned before human conduct is not discrete but people may choose to mix and match their actions on a continuum to suit their needs. reality is that live is complex and hard to understand so there is no perfect information. one must remember is that people are irrational and are driven by their passions as much as by their weak reasoning skills. even if people do join together voluntarily to form a law their is short term incentive to cheat hence the free rider problem. the rest of the people who are not cheating will wish to prevent this and hence they will take it upon themselves to punish the law breakers.

look at this forum as an example. we all voluntarily joined but we still have forum moderators who punish those who all of s sudden choose not to follow the rules.

thus in theory there is a contradiction, in practice there is no contradiction.

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

Sage — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 05:36:07 GMT

scineram:
Wasn't Barnett trying to bypass the consent theory in Restoring?

I haven't read Restoring, but I just read his exchange with Huebert in the JLS and I'm planning on reading his article "Constitutional Legitimacy," where he discusses this in detail. Basically, he says that unanimous consent is impractical, but that legal systems can be legitimized if they have procedural assurances that laws are not unjust.

From my limited understanding, he draws a distinction between justification and legitimacy, and his procedural account is only used to legitimize, not justify, the government. But it seems to me that moral duties must be justified, and not merely "legitimized."

I'll post a thread after I've read the article.

Re: The Incompatibility of Public Goods Theory and the Consent Theory of Political Obligation

Sage — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 05:16:05 GMT

spetsnaz:
from the way you've described the consent theory it only says that there is some form of government and some form of law but it is not defined. one possibility may be a liberal state.

Okay, so you're saying that consent theory is true, and that people fund government voluntarily. From this it follows that there is no free rider problem, since people are voluntarily funding the public good of law. Hence government is unnecessary and the adjudication of disputes and the production of security can be provided on the market.

The original dilemma still stands.