nucleation

ARG-003: In the Dual State ordinary norms governed conduct while a prerogative order held authority over whether they bound, so a constraint can govern conduct without governing its own authority

1 min read

Properties9
StatusActive
Version2
Formanalogy
Tagssociety-and-governance, agency
Linewill-organization
GroundsCASE-016 — The Dual State: normative and prerogative authority in National Socialist Germany, LIT-805 — The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship
ConcludesCLAIM-086 — A constraint may govern conduct without governing the conditions under which it remains authoritative
Undercut byCLAIM-032 — Northstar's internal procedures are not morally or historically analogous to the regime Fraenkel described
Rendered intodocs/arguments-by-conclusion.md

Graph View

The inference

A historical case exhibits the structure; the structure is general.

Critical questions

  • In what respect are the cases alike? In structure only: one governing order holding authority over another’s applicability.
  • What transfers? That precedence within a domain and authority over the domain are distinct, and that the second can be asymmetric (Section 5.8).
  • What does not? Moral or historical character; any suggestion that exception is pathological as such; any model of agency. Fraenkel’s subject is a state, not an independently warranted agent in the paper’s sense, so the paper’s own scope condition is not met by the source case.

Active, narrowed to the structural respect. The verdict, as CLAIM-032 v1 put it: “the Dual State supplies one structural point and nothing more”. CLAIM-032 undercuts the argument in every other respect, with the paper’s own caution: “Northstar’s internal procedures are not morally or historically analogous to the regime he described. We invoke Fraenkel for one structural insight about institutional authority, not as a generic model of organizations or agency.”

Backlinks