Earlier in the week (recall) I wrote about the structure of a trope in which some object of interest — the nation, the market, leadership — is the effect of or authorized by a daily plebiscite.
As I point out here, the "neo" in neoliberalism reflects the need to provide an alternative to social democracy, a need the classical liberals didn't face. I've mainly focused on the "social" bit, the need to maintain some kind of welfare state, and so on. But democracy is also important, and dollar voting legitimises restrictions on the range of actions permissible by democratic governents.
Part of the point of today's post is that while some account of dollar voting (mises, buchanan) treat it as superior to democratic processes, this is by no means entailed by the conceptual apparatus. (Hence my use of Lippmann.) In fact, as i noted in my first post on the topic, uses of dollar voting can be found in liberal socialism.
As I point out here, the "neo" in neoliberalism reflects the need to provide an alternative to social democracy, a need the classical liberals didn't face. I've mainly focused on the "social" bit, the need to maintain some kind of welfare state, and so on. But democracy is also important, and dollar voting legitimises restrictions on the range of actions permissible by democratic governents.
Part of the point of today's post is that while some account of dollar voting (mises, buchanan) treat it as superior to democratic processes, this is by no means entailed by the conceptual apparatus. (Hence my use of Lippmann.) In fact, as i noted in my first post on the topic, uses of dollar voting can be found in liberal socialism.