#9 in Political ideologies books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice
Sentiment score: 3
Reddit mentions: 4
We found 4 Reddit mentions of Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. Here are the top ones.
Buying options
View on Amazon.comor
Used Book in Good Condition
Specs:
Height | 9.25 Inches |
Length | 6.25 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Weight | 0.95 Pounds |
Width | 0.75 Inches |
I'm sure you are aware of the public choice literature on this subject, so I will skip that. But on the issue of jurisprudence, there is very little.
The classic text in political science is Riker's "Liberalism Against Populism." Also, if you want to spring for the law text book, there is this one. But I cannot attest to its quality.
A good article on the implications of Arrow, which it seems you want, is "Congress Is a 'They,' Not an 'It': Legislative Intent as Oxymoron."
I was researching this topic a couple months back in the context of public interest, the animating theory behind a number of government agencies. So, if you find anything else, do let me know.
One book I'd recommend that you check out is William Riker's Liberalism Against Populism. It uses public choice theory (but isn't too technical by any means) to show how popular democracy can actively work against liberal democratic values, and why democracy should be seen as a system of rewards and incentives to constrain power, not as a means of implementing popular majority will.
Incidentally, the book also tipped the scales for me regarding electoral reform (I used to advocate PR, now I'm quite skeptical).
>What books on politics do you recommend?
Yeah definitely, social choice theory shows that all electoral systems are pretty terrible and prone to manipulation (though some are better than others obviously). I tend to side with William Riker on this, particularly his book Liberalism Against Populism. The thrust of Riker's argument is that we should get rid of the idea that 'the will of the people' (this is what he means by populism in his title) confers any moral legitimacy because, as I said in the earlier comment, there really is no such thing as 'the will of the people'. Riker still thinks (and so do I) that electoral democracy is the least worst method of choosing a government because it allows for the provision of kicking them out on a regular basis and choosing a new one, but much like classical liberals, he thinks we need pretty strong restrictions on what they're actually allowed to do.
Direct democracy is more prone to some of the problems of social choice precisely because it separates issues out. Representative democracy on the other hand has to bundle lots of issues together, which creates political parties, which creates stability in voting patterns within legislatures (which overcomes the problem of vote cycling in practice - see things like Tullock's 'Why so much stability?' for this sort of thing).