Link to preprint (PDF) from the author’s website
Abstract: When a liberal-democratic state signs a treaty or wages a war, does its whole polity do those things? We approach this question via the recent social ontological literature on collective agency. We provide an argument for ‘yes’, alongside one for ‘no.’ The arguments are presented via three desiderata on a ‘yes’ answer: the polity’s control over what the state does; the polity’s unity; and the influence of individual polity-members. We suggest that the answer to our question differs for different liberal-democratic states, and depends upon two underlying considerations: (1) the amount of discretion held by the state’s office-holders; (2) the extent to which the democratic procedure is ‘deliberative’ rather than ‘aggregative.’
This might not immediately feel anarchism related, but I have an ongoing suspicion that the structure of liberal democracies outsources the innate sense of responsibility each person feels towards the world around them to a set of mechanical procedures (the state) and roles (politicians) that are not responsibility bearing. This is of concern, I believe, because interpersonal responsibility is an important mechanism for social cohesion and organization.
Looks interesting, thanks.
