Advertisement

The Review of Austrian Economics

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 353–364 | Cite as

Human agency and convergence: Gaus’s Kantian Parliamentarian

  • Michael C. MungerEmail author
Article

Abstract

Public reason is justified to the extent that it uses (only) arguments, assumptions, or goals that are allowable as “public” reasons. But this exclusion requires some prior agreement on domains, and a process that disallows new unacceptable reasons by unanimous consent. Surprisingly, this problem of reconciliation is nearly the same, mutatis mutandis, as that faced by micro-economists working on general equilibrium, where a conceit—tâtonnement, directed by an auctioneer—was proposed by Leon Walras. Gaus’s justification of public reason requires the “as if” solution of a Kantian Parliamentarian, who rules on whether a proposal is “in order.” Previous work on public reason, by Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls, have all reduced decision-making and the process of “reasoning” to choice by a unitary actor, thereby begging the questions of disagreement, social choice, and reconciliation. Gaus, to his credit, solves that problem, but at the price of requiring that the process “knows” information that is in fact indiscernible to any of the participants. In fact, given the dispersed and radical situatedness of human aims and information, it is difficult for individuals, much less groups, to determine when norms are publicly justified or not. More work is required to fully take on Hayek’s insight that no person, much less all people, can have sufficient reasons to endorse the relevant norm, rule or law.

Keywords

Knowledge problem General equilibrium Democratic process Constitutions 

JEL classification

B25 B52 D63 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Prepared for “Hayekian Themes on Gaus’s Order of Public Reason,” a symposium for the Review of Austrian Economics, guest-edited by Kevin Vallier. I thank, but in no way implicate, Jonathan Anomaly, Geoffrey Brennan, Peter Boettke, Michael Gillespie, and Ricardo Guzman, as well as (least implicated of all) Gerry Gaus himself. Mostly, however, I thank Kevin Vallier, who improved and focused the paper immensely, in addition to suggesting improvements in language and an embarrassing number of outright errors. The flaws in the paper are largely the result of my inability to implement all of his suggestions completely.

References

  1. Buchanan, J., & Tullock, G. (1962). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Government. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fisher, F. M. (1983). Disequilibrium foundations of equilibrium economics, econometric society monographs in pure theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gaus, G. (2011). The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom and Morality in a Diverse and Bounded World. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Grynaviski, Jeffrey, and Michael Munger. (2017). Reconstructing Racism: Transforming Racial Hierarchy from “Necessary Evil” Into “Positive Good.” Social Philosophy and Policy, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  5. Hayek, F. A. (1978). Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 2: The Mirage of Social Justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hayek, F. A. (1988). The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kant, Immanuel. (1784/2010). An Answer to the Question: 'What Is Enlightenment?' H.B. Nesbitt (Translator/Editor). New York: Great Ideas Series, Penguin-Random House Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Kirzner, I. M. (1984). Economics Planning and the Knowledge Problem. Cato Journal, 4(2), 407–418.Google Scholar
  9. Mises, Ludwig von. (2002). “Competition as a Discovery Procedure.” Translated by Marcellus Snowe. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. 5(3): 9–23.Google Scholar
  10. Munger, M., & Munger, K. (2014). Choosing in Groups. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Rawls, J. (1971). The Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Rawls, J. (1997). The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. The University of Chicago Law Review, 64(3), 765–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. (1762 / 2003). Translated by G. D. H. Cole. London: Dover Thrift Editions.Google Scholar
  14. Sugden, R. (1993). Normative Judgments and Spontaneous Order: The Contractarian Element in Hayek's Thought. Constitutional Political Economy, 4(3), 393–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Vallier, K. (2011). Against Public Reason Liberalism’s Accessibility Requirement. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 8, 366–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Walras, Léon. (1877). Trans. 1954. Elements of Pure Economics. Translated by William Jaffe. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin (for American Econ. Assoc. and Royal Econ. Soc.).Google Scholar
  17. Walras, L. (1899). Equations de la circulation. Bull. Soc. Vaudoise Sci. Naturelles, 35, 85–103.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations