Democratic Authority : : A Philosophical Framework / / David Estlund.

• Superior document: Title is part of eBook package: De Gruyter Princeton University Press eBook-Package Backlist 2000-2013
• VerfasserIn: Estlund, David,
• Place / Publishing House: Princeton, NJ : : Princeton University Press, , [2009]; ©2007
• Year of Publication: 2009
• Edition: Course Book
• Language: English
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (312 p.) :; 4 line illus.
• Other title: Frontmatter --; Contents --; Preface --; CHAPTER I. Democratic Authority --; CHAPTER II. Truth and Despotism --; CHAPTER III. An Acceptability Requirement --; CHAPTER IV. The Limits of Fair Procedure --; CHAPTER V. The Flight from Substance --; CHAPTER VI. Epistemic Proceduralism --; CHAPTER VII. Authority and Normative Consent --; CHAPTER VIII. Original Authority and the Democracy/Jury Analogy --; CHAPTER IX. How Would Democracy Know? --; CHAPTER X. The Real Speech Situation --; CHAPTER XI. Why Not an Epistocracy of the Educated? --; CHAPTER XII. The Irrelevance of the Jury Theorem --; CHAPTER XIII. Rejecting the Democracy/Contractualism Analogy --; CHAPTER XIV. Utopophobia: Concession and Aspiration in Democratic Theory --; Notes --; Bibliography --; Index
• Format: Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
• ISBN: 9781400831548; 9783110442502
• DOI: 10.1515/9781400831548
• Access: restricted access
• Hierarchical level: Monograph
• Statement of Responsibility: David Estlund.

Democracy is not naturally plausible. Why turn such important matters over to masses of people who have no expertise? Many theories of democracy answer by appealing to the intrinsic value of democratic procedure, leaving aside whether it makes good decisions. In Democratic Authority, David Estlund offers a groundbreaking alternative based on the idea that democratic authority and legitimacy must depend partly on democracy's tendency to make good decisions. Just as with verdicts in jury trials, Estlund argues, the authority and legitimacy of a political decision does not depend on the particular decision being good or correct. But the "epistemic value" of the procedure--the degree to which it can generally be accepted as tending toward a good decision--is nevertheless crucial. Yet if good decisions were all that mattered, one might wonder why those who know best shouldn't simply rule. Estlund's theory--which he calls "epistemic proceduralism"--avoids epistocracy, or the rule of those who know. He argues that while some few people probably do know best, this can be used in political justification only if their expertise is acceptable from all reasonable points of view. If we seek the best epistemic arrangement in this respect, it will be recognizably democratic--with laws and policies actually authorized by the people subject to them.