Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Consent, democracy and the future of liberalism

  • Published:
The Review of Austrian Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, I examine the ways in which liberal theory and democratic procedure have sought to address the justificatory challenge posed by the existence of coercive states, given the liberal account of individuals as naturally free and equal. In doing so, I invoke the justifications for the limited state advanced by the Austrian school of political economy, referring in particular to the work of F.A.Hayek. I argue that the scepticism this school of theory advances with regard to the effectiveness and desirability of state intervention into the affairs of free individuals, offers a better approach to understanding state legitimacy than does the ideal theory often relied upon by liberal political theorists. I further argue that the simple inclusion of majoritarian democratic procedure as the method for deciding whether, when and how states should intervene into the affairs of free individuals cannot legitimise these interventions in a manner consistent with the demands of liberalism. I finally employ the Austrian school’s scepticism about the state’s capacity to ‘do good’ to advance a proposal for reducing the degree to which any individual need be coerced by a state seeking to advance particular ends rather, than to enforce general rules.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brennan, J. (2017). Against democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Christiano, T. (2004). The Authority of Democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 12, 266–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grayling, A. C. (2017). Democracy and its crisis. London: Oneworld Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1944). The road to serfdom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1960). The constitution of liberty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1976). Law legislation and liberty, volume 2: The mirage of social justice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • F.A.Hayek. 2010 [1952]. Studies on the Abuse and Decline of Reason. The University of Chicago Press.

  • Hobbes, T. (1991). Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, Immanual. 1970. On the common saying: ‘This may be true in theory but it does not apply in Practice’. In Kant: Political Writings, by H.S. Reiss, 61–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Kogelmann, Brian. 2018. Justificatory failure and moral entrepreneurs: A Hayekian theory of public reason. In Exploring the Political Economy and Social Philosophy of F A Hayek, by Jayme Lemke, Virgil Henry Storr, Peter Boettke, 79–99. London: Rowman and Littlefield International .

  • Locke, John. [1690] 1960. Two treatise of government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Madison, J. 1987. "The Federalist Papers No 10." In The Federalist Papers, by A Hamilton, J Jay J Madison. Penguin Books.

  • Mill, J.S. (2015) [1989]. On Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

  • von Mises, L. (2005) [1962]. Liberalism: The classical tradition.Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Inc.

  • Ostrom, V. (1997). The meaning of democracy and the vulnerability of democracies: A response to Tocqueville's challenge. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Quong, J. (2011). Liberalism without perfection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quong, Jonathan. 2018. Public reason. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring. Accessed January 28th, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/public-reason.

  • Rawls, J. (1972). A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1950). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, A. J. (2001). Justification and legitimacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1981). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (Vol I). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. A. L. (1995). Routeledge Philosophy Guidebook to Locke on Government. Abingdon: Routeldge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hemsley, E. Consent, democracy and the future of liberalism. Rev Austrian Econ 33, 253–270 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-019-00441-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-019-00441-4

Keywords

JEL classification

Navigation