What makes democracy work so well? Ignorance. The majority of voters don’t know anything about the issues and of course have no idea what candidates will do once in office. Ecologist Iain Couzin at Princeton figures this makes democracy work great. Jonah Lehrer writes for the Wall Street Journal,
Why are democracies so vibrant even when composed of uninformed citizens? According to a new study led by the ecologist Iain Couzin at Princeton, this collective ignorance is an essential feature of democratic governments, not a bug. His research suggests that voters with weak political preferences help to prevent clusters of extremists from dominating the political process. Their apathy keeps us safe.
Like schooling fishing and flocking birds, people in democracy just go with the flow. And, it all works out fine, right?
{ 50 comments }
“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” – Rothbard
Hilarious!
Douglas:
Is there any way you could provide a link for this study?
It seems to me that ignorance would be an asset, until people were having a hard time maintaining their lifestyles.
Then , even the apathetic, ignorant, couch potato has something to rile him up!
Don Levit
Here is the study I found.
http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/publications/CouzinEtAl11.pdf
His website with some other references.
http://icouzin.princeton.edu/
Like this
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111215141621.htm?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
and
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6062/1503
These are the kinds of people who always decry radicalism, extremism and absolutism, until you find the issue that they care about.
Ask one of these freeze-dried academic leftists how they feel about women’s suffrage, slavery, arranged marriages, racial discrimination in housing and employment, state-funded higher education, or unions, and you’ll quickly discover what radical absolutism sounds like.
I’m sort of curious as to why the researchers concluded that this makes democracy better. The experiment does seem to support the idea that large numbers of apathetic voters help buoy the majority views over views of a vocal minority, but I have no idea why that would mean that society functions better. If people are on average uninformed and probably wrong, then the majority view point is quite possibly the worst one and we’d all be better off if the loud ones were in charge. I think this research just shows what we already all know: ignorant voters help maintain the status quo. If you’re worried about change for the worse, that’s great. If you want change for the better, that’s a problem.
“Like schooling fishing and flocking birds, people in democracy just go with the flow. And, it all works out fine, right?”
Right over Pied Piper’s cliff.
Phinn
Yes, and if you want a really strong response try telling them they have no “right” to expropriate other people’s money for the imposition of their cherished ideas (about how other people should live and what they must be altered to be) onto even but one other person, let alone several or many. Let’s see who behaves as a radical absolutist then!
Sione
What makes democracy work so well?
… someone needs to read “Democracy – the God that failed”.
Democracy: making humans more like lemmings than actual lemmings
How do we make the nation smarter?
Do away with government schooling.
CIA Jon
“How do we make the nation smarter?”
Well, a good start would be for each person therein to stop minding anyone else’s business.
As was well said, “Perfect your own life.”
Sione
Wise words of wisdom, Sione. Every loser I know has a multitude of opinions and prescriptions for everyone else. The winners focus on themselves.
What qaulifies these people to be “ignorant”? They don’t share the Rothbardian view that everything should be handled by the free market?
What qualifies them ignorant is lack of understanding and knowledge about the world around them..
Typically most people do not concern themselves with history. They have only a very loose grasp on economics. They understand little about the law and almost nothing on how it actually is currently being applied. They would spend hours and hours and hours of their lives watching court TV ‘reality dramas’, television shows like CSI or 24 hours yet will stare at you like a deer in headlights if you ask them to try to explain what is the significance of the Magna Carta.
People tend to be more interested in sports, porn, video games, office politics, and celebrity worship then what their tax money is allowing CIA and other groups are doing abroad. As a result we are living in a society were politicians can say things like ‘They hate us for our freedom’ with a straight face and people do not immediately ridicule them for something so blatantly ignorant, hypocritical, and self-serving of a concept.
They are taught to think that people that spend their entire lives devising better and more profitable ways to feed them, cloth them, put roofs over their heads, provide their children with toys, and the adults with entertainment, better technology, devised the internet and made it practically functional, cheaper energy and cheaper transportation are evil greedy bastards that can’t be trusted… while the people that send their children out to die and kill in foreign wars, take their money by force, spend billions of dollars restricting their freedoms, making life more expensive, making technology less effective and subversive of freedoms are needed to ‘counteract’ and ‘balance’ out the markets.
That sort of thing.
The upshot of this is that ignorance itself is not a sin, only choosing to remain ignorant is. So there is a lot of hope and room for growth for everybody.
For instance people are starting to pick up on the fact that having the government working hand in hand for major international financial organizations to keep their profits privatized while making their liabilities a issue for tax payers to deal with.
People starting to figure that happy little bit of fascistic state taking over their lives made me hopeful…
But then a lot of them are voting for the man who said this:
“” They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”"
that f-ing moronic fascist Santorum douchebag. The fact that I even know his name is disappointing and ugly.
In a word, yes.
I can’t say i 100% agree, but there is a grain of truth. Personally I don’t understand people who support something they don’t understand or disapprove of something they don’t know – you can’t know what’s the best for the country – you are no politician. Let the people who know what they are doing deal with it
I don’t know if any of you read the article (see “writes”) but the conclusion is based on the feeding patterns of schools of small fish. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I find it quite a leap from the behavior of fish to a political theory of human behavior.
In addition, I think some of you are associating apathy with ignorance but I do not believe the two are the same. There is a big difference between those who vote (out of ignorance) verses those who choose not to vote.
Last, there is the myth of democracy as a majority ruled institution but to the contrary, there never has been majority rule because the majority of people don’t vote. This is the mistake the authors of the study make by assuming that uninformed individuals essentially return control over to the majority.
The problem with their conclusion – there is no majority consensus in a democracy. Democracy is nothing more than rule by the minority… apparently, a well-financed and connected minority.
Conclusion: There is no such thing as the body politic and the vast non-voting majority (2/3rds or more) are anarchists…they just don’t know it.
Thanks for the chuckle this morning. I especially like the last line: …research suggests that voters with weak political preferences help to prevent clusters of extremists ..”
Clusters of extremists do dominate the political process.Clusters like Democrats,Republicans,the Media,Bureaucrats,Public Educators,Government Employees,etc.
Extremist… isn’t that synonymous with Conservative thought in the Progressive’s lexicon?
Or synonymous with progressive thought in the conservative lexicon?
Or synonymous with progressive in the conservative’s lexicon?
The Founders did not hand the voting franchise to every citizen. Each state set rules for voting – but a consensus included: Literate, Free Man, Property Owner were the common requirements.
Literate – presumes the voter will be apprised of the issues of the day. Today’s media transmits information in several forms. Literacy is not required to view videos. Testing to verify intellect -a one time test (the one given to new citizens) as a prerequisite to vote.
Free Man – presumes the voter acts on his free will; not under the control, or obligation to another person/group. Government dependents are disqualified.
Property Owner – presumes the voter holds a vested interest in the free market and comprehends property rights. State residents who rent are disqualified.
These simple policies would assure a cogent, responsible citizen who holds a vested interest in property rights defines the voter.
Youfassism:
Or they might bring about a tyranny of the minority? Mises said “democratic majorities and
despots are drunk with power”. He was right but what he left out were oligarchies and perhaps he left them out because even an autocrat needs advisors and democracies representatives. Whatever you do you have an oligarchy.
I would like to thank you Mr. Youfassism, for being more honest about your supremacy complex than everyone else.
@ youfamissm:
your slip is showing. Since when has it been necessary that land ownership is a precondition for comprehending property rights? Id warrant that a lessee has no less a comprehension of property rights than a lessor. The point is that they are resident, and if so, the contractual nature of the tenure on their abode is irrelevant.
“These simple policies would assure a cogent, responsible citizen who holds a vested interest in property rights defines the voter.”
I have to disagree. These policies would assure a cogent voter more in tune with *their own* property rights and *their own* conceptions of justice and legitimate holdings. As made clear by Christiano, Dahl, and many many others, there is pervasive disagreement as to what “justice” and property rights requires. In collective decision-making, the principle of justice requires us to weigh and compare the interests of *other persons* who are very different. However, we are morally fallible and likely to be mistaken about what those interests are and how to compare them. In addition, the principles by which one is to bring together these complex interests are difficult to discern and asses, and these difficulties are exacerbated when we try to assess the interests of others.
Furthermore, we all suffer from cognitive biases that skew our judgments regarding questions of justice and the common good, thus resulting in our undervaluing the interests of those from different communities with different worldviews. Individuals’ judgments of justice are more sensitive to their own interests than to the interests of others, and we are more sensitive to our own harms, downplaying the harms of others. Thus, even good-faith controversies over principles of justice often reflect conflict of interest: we necessarily *understand* our *own* interests better, inducing us to interpret the interests of others in a way that assimilates our own. Therefore, “no citizen wants to be treated in accordance with someone else’s conception of [justice]” because such a conception is likely to skew her interests and downplay her burdens; rather, she wants to be treated in a way that she can *agree* that she is being treated as an equal and fairly.
As such, we cannot place blind trust in others to “vote responsibly” when those others are in fundamentally different positions in the social environment. I grew up in lower-middle class home, started working at 16 on the docks, I am a renter, an attorney, and recently returned to school as a philosophy graduate student. As such, I am extremely distrustful of the conception of justice and property rights held by, e.g., those who grew up in affluent Massachusetts home, first home bought by their parents, the recipient of a trust fund, etc. (I probably value hard work and responsibility a little more than they, with a different understanding what it truly means). Without poisoning the well, but without knowing these people and what their actual views are, it is likely that they hold moral intutions, conceptions of the good/justice very different from my own.
Sounds like Marxist claptrap to me. I even note you included a proletariat backstory to lend authenticity to your views. Also, why is justice in quotes?
Anyone disagree?
Wow, I can honestly say that I have never been called a “Marxist” before. Although certainly not on my bucket list, I guess I owe you thanks for helping me check that one off.
First, the back story is not to lend authenticity to my views. I could have picked any two different individuals from vastly different communities with vastly different backstories to make the same point.
Second, I put *justice* in quotation marks not intending to use scare quotes, but to emphasize that justice is an interpretive concept susceptible to differing conceptions and in need of moral argumentation in support of the conception put forth. Perhaps I should have used italics instead. My apologies.
Third, in order to assuage your concerns vis-a-vis a Marxist conspiracy, I will simply note that the problems associated with the human condition (moral fallibility, cognitive biases, limited information) are front and center in the political theory of John Locke. Cognitive biases are what Locke is after in discussing the problems associated with persons “being a judge in their own case.” Fast forward a few centuries to the point I was making above in response to the claim that only property owners should be afforded the franchise: if I know that persons’ conceptions of justice are skewed by their cognitive biases, thereby downplaying my interests in favor of their own (even if granting them good faith), it is unjustifiable to enforce those laws against me in which I had no say in their process of promulgation, i.e., those laws in which I was denied participation. This is because these laws are necessarily skewed in favor of those who took part in the law-making process.
Moreover, although this problem is acute in a pluralistic political unit in which people fundamentally disagree over the principles of justice and the good life, it is also a problem in more homogenous societies. So even if we assume a libertarian political community in which all the citizens agree on the fundamental principles of justice (liberty as noninterference, Lockean homesteading, vast contractual rights, etc.), people would *still* disagree over the contours of these rights and their application. For example, what is the status of risky or threatening behavior? If I choose to play Russian roulette with your head and the chamber that comes up happens to be empty, would I have “interfered” with your liberty? And if so, what of other risky or threatening behavior? Does driving 65 mph rise to this level of risk/threats? Does 75? How about 95mph? Most importantly, who decides? In light of cognitive biases, moral fallibility, and limited information, I will not simply trust you and a small group to make the proper decisions. I will demand a say in the process.
Another example in case you are unconvinced. As noted by David Friedman and Loren Lomasky, the rather miniscule ‘interferences’ in property and causal determinants of ‘interference’ raise questions of what is an *impermissible* interference. Driving a car that releases substances that are causally contributory to cancer and other diseases is an interference. So is shining a flashlight onto someone’s property. Are these *interferences* to be proscribed in the libertarian society? The answers are not obvious and reasonable libertarian philosophers and citizens alike disagree. The basic point is that these determinations do not read off of “the libertarian ideal” in a straightforward deductive way. Nevertheless, a decision *must* be made: are we to forbid these actions or allow them? Because a decision must be taken, a decision procedure is required. This is where the democratic ideal comes into play: in light of the human condition (cognitive biases, moral fallibility, limited information) individual citizens are entitled to a say in the process of decision-making if they are to be obliged to abide by the system of laws and property rights in existence in this libertarian political society.
Hume
Too many floating abstractions in what you have provided. Start by considering what property is, what an owner of property is, the relationship between the two and why it is up to the owner to determine what the use of HIS property is to be.
Quoting, “If I choose to play Russian roulette with your head and the chamber that comes up happens to be empty, would I have “interfered” with your liberty?”
In this instance you are choosing to threaten the well-being, indeed the very life, of another person with an extreme violence and very destructive behaviour. Whatever happens they will never be the same after your offensive action. What gives you the right to dispose of their life, or threaten to, in some game of chance you operate? Turn the scenario around and consider whether I have a right to put a gun to your head. Do I own your life? Is it mine to dispose of in a game of chance, according some arbitrary whim I wish to play through? Are you my property to injure, make suffer, torture, bully, threaten, scare, emotionally scar etc? Whose property is your body and your life? Can any other person have the right to own it?
You need to carefully consider what property is and what that means. I recommend you read some of Prof Hans-Herman Hoppe’s work on ths subject. That would be a strong running start.
You write, “Does driving 65 mph rise to this level of risk/threats? Does 75? How about 95mph? Most importantly, who decides?”
The owner of the property decides. Ask for the name of the owner of the road. After all, it is the owner of the property who decides what the rules of said property are going to be. He sets the rules and you follow them if you wish to use his property, in this case a road. Hence, if you decide that a road where the owner has set no speed limit is too dangerous for you, then you don’t go there. He owns his property, just as you own yours (you own yourself). Now if the road owner set a limit of 5mph and required the presence of a man with a red flag, then you’d need to obey that (assuming you want to drive on his road). If not, then do not go there. It’s his property and so he decides what the requirements for you to use his property are. Simple enough really.
Quoting, “I will demand a say in the process.”
You can demand all you like but you have no control over the disposition, employment and/or disposal of that which is not your property. It aint yours, so as a non-owner you have no say in the process the owner employs to decide what to do with his property. Sure, you might like to try and persuade him to choose a particular option from a set of alternatives, but he is ultimately the one who decides. It has nothing to do with you. You have no say in his business. That is, HIS property.
Quoting, “Driving a car that releases substances that are causally contributory to cancer and other diseases is an interference.”
You would need to prove that the use of the car was causal. That is, you need to prove that specific substances caused your cancer and that they were sourced from a car. If you can show that then you have a case which requires redress. If not, then there is nothing to consider. All you would have accomplised then is the generation of an arbitrary claim (an equivalent of saying there are fairies in my garden).
None of this requires a democratic process, a say, voting, a decision making procedure or any of that. What it does require is the thorough understanding of what property is.
Sione
Sione,
Thank you for the response. Here are my disagreements.
First, the two examples were meant to indicate that risky behavior and/or threatening behavior are additional burdens for a libertarian theory of basic rights that cannot be determined by resort to simple noninterference/nonaggression without an additional theory of *impermissible* noninterference. Here is a slight alteration of the Russian roulette example. Suppose that I perform this twisted game while you are sleeping at my house (you needed a place to crash after watching the Giants beat the Falcons). I pull the trigger but alas the chamber is empty. You are never the wiser to this occurrence. I believe that this Russian roulette is morally impermissible and exemplifies the fact that risky behavior, in addition to physical force, violates basic rights. But once we recognize this moral fact, many additional issues arise: what other behavior is impermissibly risky? For example, should we allow a train to pass by *my* property despite the fact that it may produce sparks and light *my* house on fire? What gives them the right to risk my property and my life? You can cite to Hoppe all you want, but reasonable people, including reasonable libertarian philosophers, disagree on these issues. Who decides?
This brings me to my second point. I am familiar with Hoppe, I have read Rothbard numerous times, and I am very familiar as to what “property” is and requires. (In actuality, it is not “property” that is important but the concept of “rights.” Property in and of itself has no moral value. Only the addition of “rights” gives the concept of property any moral standing.) That being said, it is the case that reasonable libertarian philosophers disagree over the nature and extent of property rights. Indeed, Roderick Long, a card-carrying member of the LvMI community, argued for the importance of recognizing *public* rights in property, thus re-opening all the questions of risky behavior as exemplified by the speeding example. Whether you agree with him or not, whether he is correct or not, is besides the point. What is important is that his view is reasonable. Unless you profess to transcend the realities of the human condition and our limited cognitive capacities and knowledge, you will recognize the potential fallibility of your own position. This does not mean you should give up in setting forth a conception of justice and property rights; rather, it means you ought to recognize that reasonable people can and do disagree, even within the libertarian framework.
Third, you note that “You can demand all you like but you have no control over the disposition, employment and/or disposal of that which is not your property. It aint yours…” The problem here is that the issue precisely *is* which property is rightfully whose and the requirements of justice. To the extent that I disagree with Owner X’s claim to justice and a certain conception of property rights, I will thereafter claim a right to reparation for harm. In pursuance thereof, I will “get my boys” and make damn well sure that I have “control over the disposition, employment and/or disposal” of what I believe is my property. You can pound the table all you like with Hoppe and Rothbard, but I will pound the table in return with Lomansky, Gaus, Nozick, and Locke. To make things really interesting, I could introduce David Friedman and other utilitarian anarchist-capitalists and/or libertarians (such as Richard Epstein) in order to really illustrate the disagreements possible in a libertarian political unit. Again, who decides?
The libertarian theories of property rights, contract rights, torts, etc. do not provide for an all-encompassing, self-contained, neatly packaged institutional system with no room for reasonable disagreement. So there will always be disagreement, even among libertarians, as to issues such as criminal punishment, adverse possession, intellectual property (cite all you want to Kinsella, libertarians disagree), easements, “offer and acceptance,” drunk driving (if *public* property is recognized), negligence, etc. You may have your own theory (or Hoppe’s) hoping to provide an answer to these problems, but so will others with incompatible and mutually exclusive solutions. The issue thus falls back once again to who decides. Who has the authority to settle these disputes? Who has authority to enforce settlement?
Because decisions must be made on these issues and because of the realities of the human condition–cognitive biases, moral fallibility, limited knowledge–individuals will reasonably reject the claim of philosopher kings to posses moral and political authority. Their claim “to know” better than everyone else (i.e., a claim to theoretical authority) will be looked at with reasonable suspicion, especially if you are unwilling to listen to and take note of voices of disagreement in a deliberative and inclusive process. Their claim to the obligatoriness of their conception of morality, justice, and property rights (i.e., a claim to practical authority) will thus be reasonably rejected, for they have not been able (or willing) to justify to their fellow libertarian citizens their imposition of a political system. They will thereby lack the moral legitimacy to enforce their regime.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you were a Marxist, just that your argument scheme took on a familiar Marxist construct (ie. different classes have different class logic).
In your first example, exposing others to incredibly high risk intentionally and without their consent would be seen as illegal even in libertarian circles. Are we talking about noninterference as it pertains to a bystander preventing the risk exposure or an authority prohibiting guns or Russian Roulette?
Impermissable risk is a concept that a libertarian would only apply to the idea of risking that which is not yours. It’s one thing for me to try base-jumping, it’s another entirely for me to slap a parachute on you and push you off a cliff.
Also justice doesn’t change greatly between groups. I mean of course the justness of action, as opposed to the murkiness of social justice; the justness of ends. Any group will tell you that murder, theft, and deceit are unjust actions. What becomes confusing is when inequality of outcome is percieved as injustice.
Also, your argument brings up the problem of what can be determined through democratic means. Bastiat touches on this in The Law, where he ascribes that any group right must stem from an individual right. So if a majority of votes wish to deprive me of life, liberty, or property, it cannot be justified by mere democratic consent.
As for your final paragraph that is the entire purpose of laws and courts. It also highlights the necessity of a framework of law as to how property is gained or lost.
Chad,
Thanks again for the response. You write “I didn’t mean to imply that you were a Marxist, just that your argument scheme took on a familiar Marxist construct (ie. different classes have different class logic).”
I do not find plausible the Marxist claim that our worldviews are determined “in the last instance” in the relations of production. Hugh Collins’ idea relies on a conception of society that requires *relatively* neatly defined classes with *relatively* similar class interests. Society, however, is comprised of individuals and groups with vastly differing worldviews and cultural systems, occupying a variety of different roles, and I think it is simplistic to tie our epistemological/metaphysical “frameworks” to economic roles. One can *simultaneously* occupy the role of “fiancé,” “coworker,” “Mets fan,” “Anarchist,” and “New Yorker,” and all of these roles have different meanings based on the different mixtures and meanings that make up an individual-as-a-whole. So being a “New Yorker” has a different meaning to a “Mets fan” than a “Yankees fan.” In turn, being a “Yankees fan” has a different meaning for an individual “from the Bronx” than an individual “from Queens,” and so on. There are a variety of roles and cultural contingencies that affect our experiences and how we imagine our place in the world that cannot be reduced to one’s position in the relations of production. Therefore, the claim that the material formation of ideologies is determined by the relations of production breaks down, and with it the claim that law in the last instance is constituted by and legitimizes ideologies determined in the economic base.
All that being said, I do find plausible the claims of culturally-motivated cognition, that *what* we see and how we *interpret* events are importantly determined by cultural forces (see, for example, the work of Dan Kahan, Yale Law School and the Cultural Cognition Project found here: http://www.culturalcognition.net/). I also believe that how cultural forces affect individuals is individuated and helps determined individuals-as-a-whole, that is, everyone is affected differently. This is because I do not believe in a monolithic “culture,” especially in the small world of technologically advanced societies (people interact with many different groups and subcultures).
What all this means is that *individuals* interpret things differently, and we *as human beings* are subject to cognitive biases (we tend to play up the harms to ourselves and downplay the harms to others). Because justice *necessarily* involves assessing the claims and treatment of others (justice, after all, is an inter-personal mechanism that regulates inter-personal transactions and dealings), we are likely to set forth theories of justice that are slightly skewed in favor of our own worldviews. This does not deny the existence or possibility of justice. Rather, it points out that we are fallible beings (the fact that human beings flub up science does not entail that there is nothing out there to theorize about). As such, every *individual* has an interest–not a *class* interest, but an *individual* interest–to take part in discussions and decisions regarding issues of justice. To simplify things grotesquely, all I am saying is that all individuals have a self-defense interest in taking part in decisions on matters of justice.
My interpretation of this premise of democracy reminds me of an old Dean Martin song: “There are too many chiefs, and not enough Indians in this old town.”
We do need leaders and followers, and the followers need to be in the vast majority.
Our problem is that our leaders are corrupt. The followers are doing what they should do – follow.
You know, like in the game : “Follow the leader.”
Don Levit
Democracy is just an excuse to make the means of forced redistribution appear moral.
People are not ignorant of that. They choose to ignore it.
Bastiat’s ‘legal plunder’ can take many forms.
To be fair, it does work really well. Up until politicians realize that they can that they can buy votes with legal plunder. Then it goes downhill.
Tom
So how long does that take? As long as 10 minutes?
Sione
Is the author being sarcastic here? What we have in the US as a system of government is better than virtually any other on the planet, exceptions possibly being certain small countries such as Switzerland and HK. Try living in Somalia under a warlord, or in China where corruption is much more rampant or even in Sweden where I hear taxes are near 60%.
The problem with the Austrian/Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalism schools of thought is that they condemn nearly everything about our current government. Besides being inaccurate on the monetary system, (See modern monetary theory for an apolitical explanation of the operational reality of our current monetary system), adherents of these philosophies find fault with almost every level of the government and then go on to propose solutions that completely ignore reality. Better to take a more measured and deliberate approach to campaigning for change that targets very specific issues.
Instead of condemning our entire system of government, why not push our elected representatives to pass a bill that would make participation in medicare optional? This would reduce future spending and taxes at the same time while also slowing the growth of an already bloated healthcare sector. Simply to pass this one piece of legislation without also incurring an increase in other taxes would require a large, well-organized, sustained grassroots effort. I realize it is not as much fun as writing about lots of different topics, but if the author and others like him are serious about wanting to change policy, that is the only way.
Changing the political bias of an individual, let alone the masses, is nearly impossible because it’s a very crucial part of how people identify themselves. Gaining support for a change such as the one above involves framing the issue in an apolitical, unbiased manner that appeals to people’s desire for less tax, more disposable income, more flexibility, more freedom, etc. A diffuse and unfocused critique of the entire government and political system simply generates anger without providing any kind of practical solution to improve the world.
Which is more unrealistic?
“I believe we can save the institution that has impeded progress and tyrannized the people of this earth for generations.”
or
“I believe we should end the reign of the monopolistic bullies and make all arrangments voluntary between free people.”
its a loaded question but if history is any guide, and Austrians admit its not always the best, a reformist movement will only create a small government to grow and grow faster and further.
It’s true, if you have a 1776, you will get a 2012.
In other words, it’s about as easy to show a Government that has grown smaller as it is to show a Fiat Currency that has appreciated in value.
He said greenbackerism…erm…MMT had an accurate understanding of the monetary system and I stopped reading.
Jimmay!: You might not be able to “save” the institution in the way you want or imagine, but change targeting specific issues can occur if there is enough popular support. As for the monopolistic bullies, the arrangements with them already are voluntary. Nobody forces you to buy that fancy iPhone, fuel-efficient hybrid car, or refrigerator. People need and want certain products/services and those can only be produced by large corporations. Do you really think it’s possible that a commercial jet or washing machine or iPad could ever be designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold nationwide by a few hundred employees at a small company? Obviously, it’s impossible.
Mitch Kordonowy: You are right on both counts unfortunately, but I still like to think small changes are possible. Look at the Civil Rights movement, or Women’s lib., or Ralph Nader’s crusades. Whether or not you personally support the results of those movements and others, the fact remains that change did occur.
JFF: Austrian economics is totally based around the idea of a gold standard. This no longer applies because very few countries still have a gold standard. The world in which we live is very different; it is much more interconnected financially, and nations are much more interdependent than during Mises’ time. The fate of the US is intimately bound up with that of other nations and vice versa. Take another look at MMT, and I think you’ll find it’s a good approximation of the way things actually work.
Greg
Are you being serious or are you taking the piss?
Sione
Follow the money. When you have a Republic that degenerates into a “one man one vote” Democracy in which voters or groups of voters can organize to vote away the property rights and the fruits of the labors of other voters then you are asking for a mobocracy. When this collective mob of voters exceeds 50% of that society’s voting population then you have planted the seeds of destruction of that same society. This is America’s current situation. Once that same society cannot tax anymore or borrow any more or print anymore money then that nation is doomed to the ash heap of history. This year,2012,we are witnessing a crossroads in American history. If American voters choose to go down the path of voting for politicians who will work at dismantling the Welfare/Warfare State and return our country to a sound footing then,chances are,we can have a nation that will be free and prosperous in the future. If not,and the nation continues to slide toward collectivism, America will be totally bankrupt and controlled by an oligarchy of globalist elitists and run like a police state. As Ayn Rand once said “its either or.”
“As Ayn Rand once said “its either or.”
That’s just the point, its not either or, black or white, liberty vs. tyranny, etc. For most of human history it’s always been somewhere in the middle. While condemning the American political system as being tyrannical, everyone forgets that America is the most prosperous nation on the planet and the originator of goods and services that have improved the standard of living of millions of people. We are not at some dramatic crossroads. The economy will very likely rebound at least somewhat in 2012, but the cost of living in the US will no doubt continue to increase for the foreseeable future. It seems likely, however, that the US economy as a whole will probably face diminished growth or even a gradual decline in its productive capacity as a result of too many regulations, high taxes, excessive militarism, and increasing entitlement spending. The idea that the US is suddenly going to be “bankrupt” is not realistic.
Greg, as Wiley Gnome the Swiss financial guru said, “Markets tend to fluctuate,” which is as pertinent as your quote.
The United States became the most prosperous and creative nation in a low-tax environment of relatively limited government intervention compared to other places on the globe. That advantage has been gradually eliminated, but the destruction was bound to happen from the inception of the nation because of the nature of nation-statea. The weakness of democracy was recognized long ago:
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (Two Volumes, 1835 and 1840)
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
“I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Tocqueville: Democracy in America
And then there is this:
“People have been predicting the demise of democracy, individual freedom and liberty, as well as resulting American supremacy, since the day American democracy was born. The most vastly distributed prediction has often been attributed to historian Alexander Tytler, dating back to the late 1700’s, and the prediction goes something like this.
” From bondage to spiritual faith;
” From spiritual faith to great courage;
‘ From courage to liberty;
‘ From liberty to abundance;
‘ From abundance to complacency;
‘ From complacency to apathy;
‘ From apathy to dependence;
‘ From dependence back into bondage.’”
A look at the welfare/entitlement society that is America today, who can doubt that we are somewhere between apathy and bondage. With the wealth of government programs upon which a large majority of Americans depend to some degree between significant and 100 percent, I’d say were beyond apathy. What say you?
All true. Thanks for your response. The transition from abundance to bondage will occur gradually and not suddenly. I take issue with the doomsday predictions along with the all-black/total negative perspectives that tend to dominate this blog. There is still much creativity/innovation/entrepreneurship/growth/etc. in America today and I believe it is possible, if unlikely, that we can pull back from totalitarianism/decay if we give people the option to opt out of certain government programs.
As I said earlier, if young people are allowed to not pay social security and medicare taxes in exchange for not receiving government help down the line, I believe this is a possible solution to transitioning out of the entitlement problem. Young people make very little money, and the effect on tax receipts would not be very significant. This would allow them to save more and consume more, both positive for the economy.
The employer tax credit for health insurance is also something that needs to be changed. Hopefully by reforming this, might there be a way for those employees who don’t want health insurance from their employer to get a slightly higher salary instead? If companies did not have such high labor costs, maybe they would be more willing to provide more jobs to Americans instead of outsourcing? I don’t know enough about this to come up with a realistic solution, but I do know that the crux of the problem is entitlement spending, high taxes, and militarism. These three issues urgently need to be resolved, and the first two revolve around the healthcare system in particular. To me, the issue seems very concrete and specific, and I really don’t see the point of condemning the corporations, let alone the entire system. We are all involved, connected, and responsible for these problems. Blame is not constructive.
Ned, You write that “I’d say we’re beyond apathy” and thus into the dependence stage. As a matter of pragmatism and practical politics (i.e., how to get from here to the ideal), my tendency to agree with this claim is precisely why I would *not* recommend a strategy of severe shock to the system. In other words, I would not press the anarchist button *even though* I am a philosophical anarchist. For real progress towards the ideal, an ethos of respect for liberty and the libertarian ideals is required. In our current situation of apathy and dependency, if the button was pressed I would imagine a Weberian charismatic leader would emerge promising heaven on earth. And the formerly apathetic/dependent would seek whatever means necessary to return to their former preferred state of affairs. This is, of course, speculation. These issues are highly problematic.
Also, I have one question: how is this cycle a uniquely democratic problem? It appears to be a claim about human motivation and human nature. I’m not sure I see the connection to democracy qua democracy.
The ecologist has on the blinders of narrow science as if he can draw parallels using a methodology that ignores the subjective nature of humans. Hence his conclusion is absurd. His conclusion is the equivalent of a fallen tree decomposing by saprophythic organisms making a claim to be representative of the potential of sparks of inspiration.
Comments on this entry are closed.