The Communicative Character of Capitalistic Competition: A Hayekian response to the Habermasian challenge

"Ideal speech situations", "domination-free discourse" or "deliberative communities" describe political ideals proudly cherished by many sociologists. The sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit, motivation is to mobilise political discourse as an instrument to tame or transform the capitalistic "system" according to alleged needs of "society". Most economists and defenders of capitalistic competition, in return, don?t care about communicative communities. The individual market actor is assumed or demanded to be free to choose among given alternatives satisfying given preferences subject to given constraints. Why, then, should homo oeconomicus argue (van Aaken 2003)? There is no "communicative action" among the individuals that populate economic textbooks, there is only "commutative action". Only a few, mostly "Austrian", economists realised that the exchange of goods and services within the spontaneous order of "catallaxy" involves an exchange of knowledge, ideas, opinions, expectations, and arguments – that markets are indeed communicative networks (e.g. Hayek 1946/48; Lavoie, ed. 1991; Horwitz 1992). In fact, and this will be my major claim, market competition is more "deliberative" than politics in the sense that more information about available social problem solutions and their comparative performance, about people's preferences, ideas and expectations is spontaneously created, disseminated and tested. This very idea is anathema for followers of Habermasian discourse ethics. The intellectual thrust and political clout of their vindication of deliberative politics critically seems to depend on a mostly tacit assumption that markets fail to address social needs and regulate social conflicts. Political discourse therefore ?steps in to fill the functional gaps when other mechanisms of social integration are overburdened? (Habermas 1996: 318). I will claim that the argument should be very much the other way around: politics and public deliberations are overburdened mechanisms – unable to deal with an increasingly complex and dynamic society. Moreover, the requisites of ideal speech communities are so enormous that functional gaps are inevitable. Partly, these gaps can be closed if market competition steps in. Partly, reorganisations of the political system are needed. Hence, I am not arguing that Habermas is wrong by stressing the need for open discourse in order to reach informed agreement among citizens who seek to realise mutual gains from joint commitment by contributing to common (public) goods and submitting to common rules of conduct (s.a. Vanberg 2003). I am challenging his neglect of capitalistic competition as a communicative device and his disdain for the classical liberal conception of bounded democracy that respects individual property rights (e.g. Habermas 1975; 1998). --

Capitalistic Competition as a Communicative Community - Why Politics Is Less “Deliberative” than Markets

Discourse theorists such as Habermas tend to disregard the communicative character and discoursive power of market processes and at the same time overrate the ability of political deliberation to discover and implement social problem solutions. Mainstream economists have little to contribute to this debate since they regard both economic and political “markets” as simple instruments for the aggregation of given preferences. Hayek and other “Austrian” market process theorists, however, provide a rich theory that highlights the role of competition as a process of discovery, persuasion, experimentation and opinion formation. I use this analytical framework in order to show first that real market processes in many respects correspond to most ambitious claims of ideal deliberation such as “domination-free discourse” or “the unforced force of the better argument”. Next, I confront the deliberative ideal with predicaments of real political discourse, stressing opportunity costs (rational ignorance, shortage of attention, decision costs), asymmetric incompetence and the interventionist bias of political deliberation, and problems of “cheap talk” (preference falsification, opinion cascades, enclave deliberation). In order to make political discourse most effective within the limits described above, I argue in favour of privatisation, decentralisation and constitutionalisation as policy conclusions. I end with a summary comparison of economic and political competition as means to discover and disseminate local knowledge in society.discourse theory; market process theory; deliberative democracy; preference falsification; opinion formation; interventionism

Public obligation and individual freedom: how to fill the gap? The case of vaccinations

How to propose a vaccination campaign between libertarian paternalism and deliberative democrac

Creating Citizens Through Public Deliberation

The case studies provided in this Kettering Foundation report describe how nongovernmental organizations in 10 countries -- Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Hungary, Puerto Rico, Romania, Russia, South Africa, and Tajikistan -- are using public deliberation to help citizens think of themselves as political actors who can change the course of their communities

Epistocracy for Online Deliberative Bioethics

The suggestion that deliberative democratic approaches would suit the management of bioethical policymaking in democratic pluralistic societies has triggered what has been called the deliberative turn in health policy and bioethics. Most of the empirical work in this area has focused on the allocation of healthcare resources and priority setting at the local or national level. The variety of the more or less articulated theoretical efforts behind such initiatives is remarkable and has been accompanied, to date, by an overall lack of method specificity. We propose a set of methodological requirements for online deliberative procedures for bioethics. We provide a theoretical motivation for these requirements. In particular, we discuss and adapt an epistocratic proposal and argue that, regardless of its merits as a general political theory, a more refined version of its normative claims can generate a useful framework for the design of bioethical forums that combine maximal inclusiveness with informed and reasonable deliberation

Higher Education Exchange: 2007

This annual publication serves as a forum for new ideas and dialogue between scholars and the larger public. Essays explore ways that students, administrators, and faculty can initiate and sustain an ongoing conversation about the public life they share.The Higher Education Exchange is founded on a thought articulated by Thomas Jefferson in 1820: "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."In the tradition of Jefferson, the Higher Education Exchange agrees that a central goal of higher education is to help make democracy possible by preparing citizens for public life. The Higher Education Exchange is part of a movement to strengthen higher education's democratic mission and foster a more democratic culture throughout American society.Working in this tradition, the Higher Education Exchange publishes interviews, case studies, analyses, news, and ideas about efforts within higher education to develop more democratic societies

Peace and Justice: Notes on the Evolution and Purposes of Legal Processes

This text of the inaugural lecture for the A.B. Chettle, Jr. Chair in Dispute Resolution and Civil Procedure at Georgetown University Law Center presents an intellectual outline (theory and practice) for a house of justice built on the foundations of Lon Fuller, the Legal Process school, Jurgen Habermas\u27 and Stuart Hampshire\u27s social philosophy about democratic processes, the floors of comparative processes, drawing on the work of political theorist Jon Elster and empirical work on legal and political processes and the ceilings of new processes, like consensus building fora, truth and reconciliation commissions and other combinations of legal and political processes. A model of different modes of human conflict resolution is outlined with differentiations of different forms of process (open/closed; plenary/committees; expert/naturalistic; constitutive/permanent/ad hoc). The article suggests a broadened view of what should be taught as legal process - beyond conventional civil procedure to many more forms of human legal and political processes. If process is the human bridge between justice and peace then we much teach about both kinds of processes - those seeking justice and those seeking peace; hopefully they can both be accomplished

Embracing a Productive Rhetorical Pragmatism: Teaching Writing as Democratic Deliberation

Our current points of stasis in American politics make clear: we are facing a deep crisis of imagination in public life. Our (in)ability to imagine the interests and experiences of others limits not only how we understand domestic and global citizenship but also how we enact that citizenship with others. In talk and in practice, the inability to take seriously the interests and experiences of others leads Americans – in English Language Arts classrooms and in public life – to cast those who disagree as deeply flawed in character – unpatriotic, ungodly, lazy, irresponsible, or criminal. In this article, I contend that many of the logics underlying this version of public life are perpetuated – among other places – in our writing pedagogy and praxis. Where our writing pedagogy highlights writing as a critical/interpretive activity over writing as a practical/productive activity, we enact a skeptical view of rhetoric and writing – one that is also skeptical of difference, conflict, and uncertainty. Moving beyond critique of prevailing disciplinary practices, this article casts a framework for re-inventing writing pedagogy first by considering what is at stake with skeptical views of rhetoric that disrupt public life and limit the public work of writing and second, by describing and offering examples of four practices for instantiating a productive writing pedagogy that might support dialogue, deliberation, and collaborative action across difference