Abstract

In Democracy Without Shortcuts, Cristina Lafont advocates for the ‘full endorsement’ of laws and policies by all subject to them instead of ‘blind deference’ to the judgement of others. But if ‘full endorsement’ means anything like ‘complete consensus’ it is an unattainable ideal, and there are many perfectly reasonable ways short of ‘blind deference’ by which we take into account inputs from others when arriving at our own decisions. This article is devoted to exploring that middle ground—on which Lafont herself seems to agree we must always be operating, based on a closer reading of her book. The key to avoiding ‘blind deference’, I argue, is exercising your own independent judgement in deciding when and how far to defer to which others.

Highlights

  • It is clear what Cristina Lafont is for and what she is against in Democracy Without Shortcuts (2019).1. She is for the ‘full endorsement’ of all laws and policies by all those subject to them, which she thinks is best achieved by full deliberative participation across the entire community (Lafont 2019: 4). She is against all sorts of shortcuts that in one way or another demand ‘blind deference’ to the judgment of others (Lafont 2019: 8)

  • On the other side, ‘blind deference’ is the limiting case of the great many ways we can, and do, take the inputs of others into account when arriving at our own decisions

  • The headline claims in Democracy Without Shortcuts are that we should require ‘full endorsement’ of laws and policies by everyone subject to them, and we should eschew all shortcuts that demand citizens’ ‘blind deference’ to the judgement of others in lieu of that

Read more

Summary

Between Full Endorsement and Blind Deference

In Democracy Without Shortcuts, Cristina Lafont advocates for the ‘full endorsement’ of laws and policies by all subject to them instead of ‘blind deference’ to the judgement of others. If ‘full endorsement’ means anything like ‘complete consensus’ it is an unattainable ideal, and there are many perfectly reasonable ways short of ‘blind deference’ by which we take into account inputs from others when arriving at our own decisions. This article is devoted to exploring that middle ground—on which Lafont herself seems to agree we must always be operating, based on a closer reading of her book. The key to avoiding ‘blind deference’, I argue, is exercising your own independent judgement in deciding when and how far to defer to which others

Introduction
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.