General escape may be possible only through genuine revolution in constitutional structure, through generalized rewriting of social contract. Institutional evolution may place men increasingly in situations described by the dilemma made familiar in modern game theory. Institutions evolve, but those that survive and prosper need not be those which are “best,” as evaluated by the men who live under them.
The phrase “generalized rewriting of the social contract” appears in the forward to the book in which Buchanan is describing the overall issue the book addresses: But if not by willing consent, then how could the cause stop citizens from turning to government? Buchanan wanted to see, somehow, a “generalized rewriting of the social contract.” Generalized rewriting of the social contract The links embedded in the quotes below connect to the online Buchanan book. Let us compare this paragraph by MacLean and the quoted material from Buchanan’s book The Limits of Liberty, which MacLean’s footnote 90 links to. (See note below on my Buchanan, GMU, and Koch connections.) The paragraph stood out because it seemed totally at odds with what I knew of Buchanan’s work. “Despotism may be the only organizational alternative to the political structure that we observe.” 90 Buchanan closed with “a counsel of despair” that troubled him. He advised “changes that are sufficiently dramatic to warrant the label ‘revolutionary.’” The time when it seemed as if normal adjustments might be enough had passed. Judge for yourself below.Ī paragraph on page 151 stood out for appearing to claim that Buchanan reluctantly conceded that despotism might be the only way he would get his favored system into place (this is the same paragraph featured in my earlier, somewhat tongue-in-cheek post):īut if not by willing consent, then how could the cause stop citizens from turning to government? Buchanan wanted to see, somehow, a “generalized rewriting of the social contract.” American needed “a new structure of checks and balances,” well beyond that provided for in its founding Constitution, itself already a very pro-property-rights rulebook, as he well knew.
Given the criticism the book was receiving, I was curious how well the book would stand up to a little quasi-random spot checking. I opened it up toward the middle, scanned a few pages, took a picture of pages 150-151 and a picture of the related endnotes for later reference. MG) A few weeks back I spotted a copy in the bookstore. (Now you know something of my limited knowledge of and pre-existing bias against the book. I’m reluctant to buy a copy, but I wanted to see if it was as bad as some critics have said. I have only read a small bit of Nancy MacLean’s book on James M.
0 kommentar(er)
