* Originally Published in revista 22 collection ' a Constitution for liberty III '
It is a common observation almost a truism, as a crucial role of laws (if not the most important) is to make possible the predictability of interactions. More should be valid this with regard to the set of fundamental rules which it gathers a Constitution. This requirement seems to sit in some tension with the exuberance of a specific democratic system. If democratic Government is the expression of the will of the people "," then we (where "we" can stand for a professional group, for a local community for a lot of citizens of reunited a series of common value commitments etc.) we feel, naturally, that it is legitimate to use mechanisms to promote guvernamantului goals. We are just part of the people. And, besides, as do others.
Will see that it is not necessary here to assume bad will of anyone. Its an old argument formulated by Thomas Hobbes, (almost) no one honestly thinks about itself or about the social role that it meets as there is extremely important. Furthermore, when people say "so-and-so and so-and-so areas are priority" or "person with moral values is essential," often they are motivated by a genuine care for social good, and not just the idea of obtaining advantages. The problem here is of a semantic. Almost always, the term "priority" is understood to be funded more by the State "or" should be covered in more detail, "and" essential "means the imposition of a legal agenda of moral order (for example, criminalizing" infractions "devoid of victims, in the name of abstract notions).
We know from experience (I think everyone has such friends or acquaintances) how hard it is for us to have some reasonable expectations about the behavior of exuberant people. Their enthusiasm, coupled with strong belief in the value of their own ideas and altruism lead to an avalanche of initiative, supported with a lot of energy and whose succession it is impossible to predict. Source of enthusiasm today is sometimes the subject of yesterday's skepticism and, in General, we do not have any clue about what is going to be essential tomorrow. The harder it will be to anticipate an interaction with governance frameworks exuberance.
And the impact is an altogether different scale as they race to promote particular social purposes admits a plurality of "winners". For example, governance, full of good intentions, with an open ear to the wishes of the audience will decide today that X (an area, a social category, etc.) is and should be a priority financially. The means are intimately connected with the hierarchy of goals: for instance, will be obtained by charging his Y, less important. Just like tomorrow can turn the wheel. Y can prove that it is as vital as it is entitled to, or compensation for the effort made for X. In the first case, sensitive and empathetic Government can levy on Z (nor does it have to be modest when, in fact, the whole alphabet), and in the second, for example, can provide protection towards Y competition. All winners are getting perdanti, paying for a privilege, in the end, more than I get from him. Or, is it, not all?
We have described a mechanism by which people honest and true, authentically interested in the common good, using a mechanism of governance equally sincere and altruistic, producing devastating effects. What will happen if it does replace it with that hypothesis, the more plausible relation to real life, according to which the groups participating in the game are not, in fact, composed of people so good? In fact, neither too matter, not our concept about human nature is in play here, but as the excesses of exuberant may be temperate.
I think the hard core liberal constitutional State lies precisely in the idea that this is the area where you have to look for the vital role of a Constitution.
Il meets Romanian Constitution, in its current form? Enough to think the emergency Ordinances from decades of postcommunism or a simple indicator, type the number of pages of regulations or the type of share of annual State GDP, to have an answer.
How could I meet him? Maybe through a mechanism similar to the one proposed by the public choice school, perhaps through another one. Discussion technique is huge, and many of her particular coordinates are addressed in articles of this add-on or from the previous two. I would suggest only a general idea, pretehnica: the current prepayment upon which I could describe as a "prezumtie" for law-making in favour (M.R. Solcan) with the notion of a liberal "contrary to freedom." To paraphrase him Robert Nozick, limiting constitutional powers and limit the expansion of guvernamantului, actually the evil that we can make each other through it.
