• Filipe Nobre Faria
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism book series (PASTCL)


The central goal of this work is to assess the evolutionary sustainability of liberalism. Based on the model of multilevel selection, the book appraises the capacity of liberal democracy and free markets to satisfy preferences and analyses the evolutionary impact of the liberal satisfaction of preferences on social groups. The book develops an evolutionary political theory of preference satisfaction that operates in the tradition of scientific realism and that constitutes a more accurate explanation of public choice.


  1. Alexander, R. (1995/1985). A Biological Interpretation of Moral Systems. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Issues in Evolutionary Ethics (pp. 179–202). New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bowman, C., & Kraybill, D. (2001). On the Backroad to Heaven: Old Order Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. (2005). Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. M. (2000). The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  5. Brennan, G., & Lomasky, L. E. (1993). Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory and Electoral Preference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J. M. (1999a). Individual Choice in Voting and the Market. In The Logical Foundations of Constitutional Liberty (Vol. 1, pp. 75–89). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J. M. (1999b). Politics Without Romance: A Sketch of Positive Public Choice Theory and Its Normative Implications. In The Logical Foundations of Constitutional Liberty (Vol. 1, pp. 45–60). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  8. Buchanan, J. M. (2000). The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  9. Buchanan, J. M. (2008). Constitutional Political Economy. In C. K. Rowley & F. Schneider (Eds.), Readings in Public Choice and Constitutional Political Economy (pp. 281–295). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1999). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  11. Buchanan, J. M., & Vanberg, V. (2001). Constitutional Choice, Rational Ignorance and the Limits of Reason. In Choice, Contract, and Constitutions (pp. 127–148). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  12. de Waal, F. (2006). Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (S. Macedo & J. Ober, Eds.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dimock, S. (2000). Liberal Neutrality. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 34, 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodin, R. (1986). Laundering Preferences. In J. Elster & A. Hylland (Eds.), Foundations of Social Choice Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  16. Hostetler, J. (1993). Amish Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kliemt, H. (2004). Public Choice From the Perspective of Philosophy. In C. K. Rowley & F. Schneider (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Public Choice (Vol. 1, pp. 235–242). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Kraybill, D., & Olshan, M. (1994). The Amish Struggle with Modernity. Hanover: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
  19. Landa, J. (1999). The Law and Bioeconomics of Ethnic Cooperation and Conflict in Plural Societies of Southeast Asia: A Theory of Chinese Merchant Success. Journal of Bioeconomics, 1(3), 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (2006). The Construction of Preference. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Peter, K. (1987). The Dynamics of Hutterite Society: An Analytical Approach. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press.Google Scholar
  22. Rubin, P. (2000). Group Selection and the Limits to Altruism. Journal of Bioeconomics, 2(1), 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Samuelson, P. (1938). A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumers’ Behaviour. Economica, 5(17), 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sen, A. (1986). Behaviour and the Concept of Preference. In J. Elster (Ed.), Rational Choice. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Shaw, P., & Wong, Y. (1989). Genetic Seeds of Warfare: Evolution, Nationalism, and Patriotism. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  26. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. (2006). Preferences, Paternalism, and Liberty. In S. Olsaretti (Ed.), Preferences and Well-Being (pp. 233–265). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tullock, G. (2005). The Social Dilema of Autocracy, Revolution, Coup D’Etat and War. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  29. Tullock, G., Seldon, A., & Brady, G. L. (2002). Government Failure: A Primer in Public Choice. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.Google Scholar
  30. Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-Dependent Preferences. Management Science, 39(10), 1179–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. von Hayek, F. A. (1979). Law, Legislation and Liberty (Vol. III). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. von Hayek, F. A. (1988). The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  33. Wilson, D. S. (2002). Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson, D. S., & Wilson, E. O. (2007). Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Sociobiology. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(4), 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zywicki, T. (2000). Was Hayek Right About Group Selection After All? Review of Austrian Economics, 13, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filipe Nobre Faria
    • 1
  1. 1.Nova University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations