According to the contractarian perspective, a public good can be thought of as not so much a goodthat meets the technical neoclassical criteria of non-rivalness and non-excludability, but as one thatis produced on a purely contractual basis, thus necessarily increasing the utility of all the involvedparties. In this paper, by critically examining Nozick’s “emergent” contractarianism and Buchanan’steleological contractarianism, I shall argue that no such contractual origin can be plausibly attributedto territorial monopolies of force, and that therefore legal monocentrism — the view that the publicgoods of law and defense can be provided exclusively by territorial monopolies of force — fails therelevant efficiency test as conceived on a contractarian basis. This, in turn, implies that legal polycentrism,one of whose constitutive features is precisely its unambiguously voluntary and contractualcharacter, should be considered as a superior system in this context
Feb 25, 2019
Jan 28, 2019
|Legal polycentrism and contractarianism||Feb 25, 2019|
Wiśniewski, Jakub Bożydar
Kieres, Leon Korczak, Jerzy Red. Szreniawski, Jan Rec.
Kusiak-Winter, Renata Lemańska, Joanna. Rec.
Cisek, Andrzej (1952-2010) Machnikowski, Piotr (1974- ). Red.
Krzewicki, Michał Karkut, Daniel. Red. Mazurkiewicz, Jacek. Red. Gołaczyński, Jacek. Red. Turłukowski, Jarosław. Red.
Sołtys, Bogusław Marszałkowska-Krześ, Elwira Rec.
Behr, Jolanta Górnicki, Leonard. Red.