Interesting and well written! If I may, I would like to share the perspectives of myself and the specter of the United States' Old Republic. Your post, in our view, does a good job of engaging with Common Good Constitutionalism but is possibly in tension with our understanding of decentralization, centralization, and the administrative state. In our opinion, your review of the critique of originalism and the potential revival of the classical legal tradition seems to miss some of the important implications of centralization inherent in an embrace of the administrative state as a construct for achieving the common good.
From our perspective, you rightly critique the administrative state for its undermining public deliberation and violating the classical legal principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause. But you seem to stop short of addressing how centralization itself often amplifies these problems. The Old Republic demonstrates that decentralization generates remarkable adaptability, cognitively superior governance structures, enablement of accountability, and by extension trust; these attributes are absent in most of Common Good Constitutionalism's proponents' centralized idea of governance, which seeks to place a great deal of power and decision-making into the hands of supposedly expert technocrats.
Your calling forth Coolidge’s critique of centralization maps onto with our view that the administrative state's inherent flaws flow from its overreach and detachment from localized and participatory governance structures. But you miss an opportunity to link this critique to the deeper flawed aspects of centralization, which the Common Good Constitutionalism's proponents' proposals would likely inadvertently perpetuate under the aegis of serving the common good via a very strong and centralized administrative state. And we would note that this centralization could possibly be considers at odds with those same proponents' advocacy of subsidiarity principle.
Thanks for the enjoyable read, I hope you have a lovely Sunday. --- Mike
Brilliant, and a great example of why we need you, Steve Hayward, to persist in these long-form pieces that touch on political philosophy. All your work is first rate, but this one fills a huge gap, and may prove to be your most lasting contribution. Well worth the price of subscription.
You'll know that Steve and Lucretia have won John over when you see natural law creeping into his briefs. Perhaps Coolidge was the last staresman with a conception virtue. As with all human endeavors (we are all sinners), the common good administrative state would suffer from a lack of virtue. In this day and age, it would result in technological tyranny for our own benefit.
"The common good" must be at odds with individual responsibility, and therefore with natural law. Deciding in favor of what is best for everyone, or for the majority, rather than on each case as equal before the law undermines the purpose of the law.
Natural law must rate the individual equal rights against the majority, if the will of the majority is imposed on the individual against the law. "Common good" practice would require supression of an individual's basic rights - or legally defined privilege - if it was of the interest of the commons to do so: "Common good" must suppress "harmful" speech, lawful self-defense, reposess private property if it is in the interest of the commons (as determined in the mind of the judge or the rules of the legislature).
Genuine and pseudo-marxists argue for equity over equality as justice, so that each must be treated by authority to exactly the same measure. “Common good” arguments end up in the same place as the marxist ones, without need for an established code, only deciding “justice’ by what seems most politically expedient at the time.
Interesting and well written! If I may, I would like to share the perspectives of myself and the specter of the United States' Old Republic. Your post, in our view, does a good job of engaging with Common Good Constitutionalism but is possibly in tension with our understanding of decentralization, centralization, and the administrative state. In our opinion, your review of the critique of originalism and the potential revival of the classical legal tradition seems to miss some of the important implications of centralization inherent in an embrace of the administrative state as a construct for achieving the common good.
From our perspective, you rightly critique the administrative state for its undermining public deliberation and violating the classical legal principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause. But you seem to stop short of addressing how centralization itself often amplifies these problems. The Old Republic demonstrates that decentralization generates remarkable adaptability, cognitively superior governance structures, enablement of accountability, and by extension trust; these attributes are absent in most of Common Good Constitutionalism's proponents' centralized idea of governance, which seeks to place a great deal of power and decision-making into the hands of supposedly expert technocrats.
Your calling forth Coolidge’s critique of centralization maps onto with our view that the administrative state's inherent flaws flow from its overreach and detachment from localized and participatory governance structures. But you miss an opportunity to link this critique to the deeper flawed aspects of centralization, which the Common Good Constitutionalism's proponents' proposals would likely inadvertently perpetuate under the aegis of serving the common good via a very strong and centralized administrative state. And we would note that this centralization could possibly be considers at odds with those same proponents' advocacy of subsidiarity principle.
Thanks for the enjoyable read, I hope you have a lovely Sunday. --- Mike
Brilliant, and a great example of why we need you, Steve Hayward, to persist in these long-form pieces that touch on political philosophy. All your work is first rate, but this one fills a huge gap, and may prove to be your most lasting contribution. Well worth the price of subscription.
Kent Guida
Houston
You'll know that Steve and Lucretia have won John over when you see natural law creeping into his briefs. Perhaps Coolidge was the last staresman with a conception virtue. As with all human endeavors (we are all sinners), the common good administrative state would suffer from a lack of virtue. In this day and age, it would result in technological tyranny for our own benefit.
"The common good" must be at odds with individual responsibility, and therefore with natural law. Deciding in favor of what is best for everyone, or for the majority, rather than on each case as equal before the law undermines the purpose of the law.
Natural law must rate the individual equal rights against the majority, if the will of the majority is imposed on the individual against the law. "Common good" practice would require supression of an individual's basic rights - or legally defined privilege - if it was of the interest of the commons to do so: "Common good" must suppress "harmful" speech, lawful self-defense, reposess private property if it is in the interest of the commons (as determined in the mind of the judge or the rules of the legislature).
Genuine and pseudo-marxists argue for equity over equality as justice, so that each must be treated by authority to exactly the same measure. “Common good” arguments end up in the same place as the marxist ones, without need for an established code, only deciding “justice’ by what seems most politically expedient at the time.
Don't make me quote Bastiat again!