Political Theory 33 (3):370 - 396 (2005)
|Abstract||This article discusses the relationship between the ideal of autonomous preference formation and the danger of paternalism in deliberative democratic theory. It argues that the aim of autonomous preference formation can and should be decoupled from a justification of paternalistic state action aimed at reshaping citizens 'preferences. The problem of nonautonomous preference formation is rooted in the communication structure in which each and every one forms her preferences and hence cannot be solved by some paternalistically judging on others'behalf The argument is based on a new formulation of the deliberative democratic ideal, which emphasizes and clarifies the multiple dimensions of freedom it incorporates|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Denise Vitale (2006). Between Deliberative and Participatory Democracy: A Contribution on Habermas. Philosophy and Social Criticism 32 (6):739-766.
James Fishkin (2005). Defending Deliberation: A Comment on Ian Shapiro'sThe State of Democratic Theory. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 8 (1):71-78.
John O'Neill (2002). The Rhetoric of Deliberation: Some Problems in Kantian Theories of Deliberative Democracy. Res Publica 8 (3).
Joshua Cohen (2009). Philosophy, Politics, Democracy: Selected Essays. Harvard University Press.
Philip Pettit (2004). Depoliticizing Democracy. Ratio Juris 17 (1):52-65.
Donald W. Bruckner (2009). In Defense of Adaptive Preferences. Philosophical Studies 142 (3):307 - 324.
Added to index2009-02-05
Total downloads18 ( #67,643 of 549,671 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,671 )
How can I increase my downloads?