Law & Society Blog

Matt Wood’s thoughts on power raise a number of important issues. Ben suggests that questions about power can be separated into 1) questions about what individuals in fact have the power to do, and 2) questions about whether the exercise of certain powers that individuals have is legitimate. Questions in the first category […]

Matt posted a mini-essay recently in the comments section of the “10 Worst Books” thread which I think itself deserves discussion. After musing over a particularily apt headline on “The Onion”, he writes:
The central premise of American government is that all legitimate power flows from the Constitution. And yet the Constitution is not a self-executing […]

In contrast, options (1) and (2) operate mostly at an agent-external level, which is why realists instinctively feel drawn to (1) and (2) as explanations for human behavior and (3) has held great appeal for idealistic reformers of both secular and religious ilk.Let’s assume for the sake of argument that humans, by and large, are in fact fundamentally self-interested, and that they are unlikely to change in that regard…. Democracy follows free markets not because they both share some fundamental commitment to freedom, but rather because free markets are efficient at avoiding violence as a means of solving resource conflicts and, unlike authoritarian and traditional patterns of organizing production, are compatible with our phenomenological experience of and belief in self-determination and the resulting urge to have a say in matters concerning ourselves.

In my post entitled Capitalism, Utopianism, and Democracy I say this:
What is perhaps most striking about the articles written by the free marketeers is that, despite containing a great deal of commentary on the role of government, there is no mention of democracy. They clearly emphasize that it is an essential role of government to […]

/// What follows is the final installment of a series of examinations of utilitarianism from Harwood’s seminal essay, “Eleven Objections to Utilitarianism”, along with my demonstrations of how these objections are unsound. Previous installments address such topics as integrity, justice, promise-keeping, supererogation, average and total utilitarianisms, rule utilitarianism, and hedonism. ///
10. Utilitarianism makes interpersonal comparisons […]

Antitrust policy has often been portrayed as a struggle between free-marketers and populists. In “The Ideological Origins and Evolution of Antitrust,” William Page labels the two competing ideologies evolutionary and intentional.

/// What follows is a piece which presents a series of examinations of utilitarianism from Harwood’s seminal essay, “Eleven Objections to Utilitarianism”, along with my demonstrations of how these objections are unsound. Previous installments address such topics as integrity, justice, promise-keeping, supererogation, average and total utilitarianisms, and rule utilitarianism. As the objections get more and […]

If we assume that our ideal society will have an ethos that strongly encourages the pursuit of rational (i.e. economic) self-interest, why in the world would we think that the wealthy, including those in charge of large corporations, would refrain from involving themselves in the political process, when doing so would surely be an easy way of ensuring greater profits for their companies (politicians would surely be just as strongly influenced by the ethos as their corporate friends, and therefore susceptible to being bought off)…. None of these measures can in isolation stem the corporate influence on government, but the hope is that in conjunction, they will prevent special interests, including powerful corporate interests, from completely dominating the political process.Brian makes another point of great interest.What is perhaps most striking about the articles written by the free marketeers is that, despite containing a great deal of commentary on the role of government, there is no mention of democracy.

Mark Garber’s biting commentary is worth quoting in full:Seems to me that the perfect compromise that might resolve the stem cell controversy is for the scientific community to agree to do research only on embryos that could possibly mature into terrorists. After all, our president who so emphasizes morality believes there is nothing immoral about torturing persons who are suspected of being terrorists, even in the absence of any legal procedure that even confirms the suspicions are reasonable (much less a legal procedure which convicts them of any crime).

The outcome of a stronger analysis, I think, is that while total utilitarianism cannot be soundly accused of absurdity, it may be lacking in other ways.