{"title":"结社自由及其不满:同意的计算与民权运动","authors":"Vlad Tarko, S. Gangotena","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3168593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Does the classical liberal emphasis on freedom of association provide an intellectual cover for bigotry? We formulate this question in economic terms using James Buchanan’s economic approach to ethics, according to which moral values can be understood as preferences about other people’s behaviors. We discuss two possible market failures associated with freedom of association: inter-group externalities and Schelling-type emergent segregation. We show that the classical liberal position about freedom of association, as elaborated in Buchanan and Tullock’s Calculus of Consent, is fully equipped to deal with the first one, but not with the second. The progressive view that some preferences are so offensive that they should be dismissed rather than engaged or negotiated with can be reframed as an attempt to solve the emergent segregation problem, but it is vulnerable to political economy problems of its own, in particular to an inherent tendency to over-expand the meaning of “bigotry.”","PeriodicalId":284417,"journal":{"name":"Political Behavior: Race","volume":"232 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Freedom of Association and its Discontents: The Calculus of Consent and the Civil Rights Movement\",\"authors\":\"Vlad Tarko, S. Gangotena\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3168593\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Does the classical liberal emphasis on freedom of association provide an intellectual cover for bigotry? We formulate this question in economic terms using James Buchanan’s economic approach to ethics, according to which moral values can be understood as preferences about other people’s behaviors. We discuss two possible market failures associated with freedom of association: inter-group externalities and Schelling-type emergent segregation. We show that the classical liberal position about freedom of association, as elaborated in Buchanan and Tullock’s Calculus of Consent, is fully equipped to deal with the first one, but not with the second. The progressive view that some preferences are so offensive that they should be dismissed rather than engaged or negotiated with can be reframed as an attempt to solve the emergent segregation problem, but it is vulnerable to political economy problems of its own, in particular to an inherent tendency to over-expand the meaning of “bigotry.”\",\"PeriodicalId\":284417,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Behavior: Race\",\"volume\":\"232 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Behavior: Race\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3168593\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Behavior: Race","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3168593","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
古典自由主义对结社自由的强调是否为偏执提供了智力上的掩护?我们使用詹姆斯·布坎南(James Buchanan)的伦理学经济学方法,从经济学角度阐述了这个问题,根据该方法,道德价值观可以被理解为对他人行为的偏好。我们讨论了与结社自由相关的两种可能的市场失灵:群体间外部性和谢林型突发性隔离。我们表明,布坎南和图洛克的《同意演算》(Calculus of Consent)所阐述的关于结社自由的古典自由主义立场,完全可以处理第一种问题,但不能处理第二种问题。进步主义的观点认为,某些偏好是如此令人反感,应该被摒弃,而不是参与或谈判,这可以被重新定义为解决新出现的种族隔离问题的一种尝试,但它很容易受到自身政治经济问题的影响,尤其是过度扩展“偏执”含义的固有倾向。
Freedom of Association and its Discontents: The Calculus of Consent and the Civil Rights Movement
Does the classical liberal emphasis on freedom of association provide an intellectual cover for bigotry? We formulate this question in economic terms using James Buchanan’s economic approach to ethics, according to which moral values can be understood as preferences about other people’s behaviors. We discuss two possible market failures associated with freedom of association: inter-group externalities and Schelling-type emergent segregation. We show that the classical liberal position about freedom of association, as elaborated in Buchanan and Tullock’s Calculus of Consent, is fully equipped to deal with the first one, but not with the second. The progressive view that some preferences are so offensive that they should be dismissed rather than engaged or negotiated with can be reframed as an attempt to solve the emergent segregation problem, but it is vulnerable to political economy problems of its own, in particular to an inherent tendency to over-expand the meaning of “bigotry.”