David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theory and Decision 55 (3):181-207 (2003)
The American and some other constitutions entrench property rights by requiring super majoritarian voting as a condition for amending or revoking their own provisions. Following Buchanan and Tullock [The Calculus of Consent, Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor), 1962], this paper analyzes individuals' interests behind a veil of ignorance, and shows that under some standard assumptions, a (simple) majoritarian rule should be adopted. This result changes if one assumes that preferences are consistent with the behavioral phenomenon known as the endowment effect. It then follows that (at least some) property rights are best defended by super majoritarian protection. The paper then shows that its theoretical results are consistent with a number of doctrines underlying American Constitutional Law
|Keywords||Economics / Management Science Economics/Management Science, general Operation Research/Decision Theory Methodology of the Social Sciences|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Victor Allis & Teun Koetsier (1995). On Some Paradoxes of the Infinite II. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (2):235-247.
Dean J. Machin (2013). Political Inequality and the 'Super-Rich': Their Money or (Some of) Their Political Rights. Res Publica 19 (2):121-139.
Gilles Dowek & Olivier Hermant (2012). A Simple Proof That Super-Consistency Implies Cut Elimination. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 53 (4):439-456.
Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan (2011). Condorcet Vs. Borda in Light of a Dual Majoritarian Approach. Theory and Decision 71 (2):151-162.
Victor Allis & Teunis Koetsier (1991). On Some Paradoxes of the Infinite. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42 (2):187-194.
Alfred F. Mackay (1973). A Simplified Proof of an Impossibility Theorem. Philosophy of Science 40 (2):175-177.
Steve Torrance (2012). Super-Intelligence and (Super-)Consciousness. International Journal of Machine Consciousness 4 (02):483-501.
Charles-Maxime Panaccio (2010). Professor Waldron Goes to Canada (One More Time): The Canadian Charter and the Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty. Common Law World Review 39:100.
Paul Corazza (1999). Laver Sequences for Extendible and Super-Almost-Huge Cardinals. Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (3):963-983.
Jeffrey E. Foss (1989). On the Logic of What It is Like to Be a Conscious Subject. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67 (June):305-320.
David H. Sanford (1976). Competing Semantics of Vagueness: Many Values Versus Super-Truth. Synthese 33 (2-4):195--210.
Rudolf Schübler (1986). Nachwuchs für den Lügner: Vom Lügner und verstärkten Lügner zum Super-Lügner. Erkenntnis 24 (2):219 - 234.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads2 ( #412,118 of 1,692,519 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #181,267 of 1,692,519 )
How can I increase my downloads?