IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

"Balance" in the Legislative Process
(previous | next)

As the debate over net neutrality, franchise reform, and assorted fragments of telecom legislation continues on Capitol Hill, a meta-consideration, as follows:

From Madison's "factions" to Jonathan Rauch's "special interests" and the rent-seekers described by public choice economists like James Buchanan, we are all sophisticates now; we have lost our illusions about democracy. What happens in the legislature will be at best a balancing of factions and interests, mostly monied. This is just what legislatures do, right? Their job is to balance these interests. A and B earnestly petition the legislature, each arguing for some benefit, and so the legislature gives something to A, and something to B. It is all about this sort of compromise.

Wrong. Certainly, this happens. But it is a grave error to think that this is the proper function of a legislature. Each of

us has a special interest, certainly, but that is the least important type of self-interest when it comes to public policy. The most important interest is the interest that each of us has in choosing the best rule for the group as a whole. This is what the Constitution describes as "general welfare," what the economist F.A. Hayek described as the rule that would in future maximize the most opportunities for the greatest number of people, what Rawls was trying to capture when he spoke of choosing rules through a "veil." It is easy to pick a rule that benefits a given individual today, but suppose you were choosing a rule for someone, and you did not know who that person was, or anything about their situation? That will bring us closest to what economist describe as "group interest" or "constitution interest." And this is the hardest type of interest to grasp, especially through the thicket of lawyers and lobbyists each claiming to describe it clearly. Because, of course, the key players know exactly how they are situated today. Rawl's veils are in short supply.

But the difficulty in perceiving that interest does not mean that it is not there.

We can hope that when A and B petition the legislature, that they will each raise arguments that will shed light on the question of what the general interest is, apart from their special interests. Nonprofits (including PFF) populated by people trying to keep larger goals and the long run in mind can help. But it would be helpful if legislators--and journalists--at least believed there was something outside party politics and balance and compromise.

(It would be even better if that something were freedom--not the anarchist's freedom but the freedom to cooperate through markets--but that is too much for one day).

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 9:53 AM | Capitol Hill , DACA , Net Neutrality

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation