It would be nice if the world as a whole was a less awful place. The average country is, after all, a democratically elected kleptocracy with a desperately poor population. (For evidence, see India or Haiti or Nigeria or Honduras.)
However, sustained progress worldwide, at least if we’re going to run legal systems based on popular votes instead of more rational methods, depends on most of the world understanding basic economics. The recent rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in U.S. polling demonstrates that even the bulk of people in the U.S. have no understanding of the barest rudiments of economics.
H. L. Mencken once said “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” However, the argument of most statists, on both the left and the right, is that we are our brother’s keepers, that the better off are obligated to run the lives of those who are not so well off, and this includes the more educated running the lives of the less educated.
If you don’t believe me, look around you: we are told that people cannot be trusted to figure out on their own if they should take intoxicating substances or if they should save for retirement or how they should educate their children — all those decisions must be made by the intellectual elite via the state. This is meant quite literally. Drugs must not be legalized because people can’t make their own judgements about taking them, or so we are told. People in the U.S. may not be allowed to privately manage the 14% of their income that goes to government “pensions” — savings would be an awful idea, since they’d just be duped out of their cash by investment firms, so the state must handle that money for them via Social Security. Voucher systems where children go to private schools selected by their parents are unacceptable, only a state run public education system run by the teaching elite is acceptable.
We could go down the list, everything from negotiating salaries to deciding if they want to eat raw milk cheeses. If people were allowed to run their own lives, they would make bad choices, and so it is not merely right but necessary that others, among the elite, should make their choices for them.
So, the smarter must, according to statism, run the lives of the less intelligent and educated, but at the same time it is obvious that even most of the educated in developed countries are incapable of even understanding comparative advantage or supply and demand curves. They are, when it comes to economic education, mere children, unable to help themselves.
The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that statist morality is not compatible with democracy, but only with a dictatorship run by libertarians.
Note that this isn’t the conclusion I would come to myself, as I don’t share this moral belief system. I don’t personally want to be the dictator — I have no interest in running everyone’s life. However, it is the conclusion that believers in the state, and especially believers in programs like Social Security and public education, must logically come to — applying that morality, a reasonable outcome can only be expected if I and my colleagues are made absolute rulers. Indeed, according to those moral claims, this is not merely a superior solution but is actually morally required.
And yes, I’m trolling you, but at the same time I’m completely serious about what the statist belief system implies.
Something very like this has long bugged me, too. Why do people sincerely support having others use force on them? Much of it, no doubt, is the belief that they will be the ones doing the forcing. Or they will be the ones forcing others in all the areas of life that they consider important, for which they’ll gladly trade being forced to do something in an area they don’t know or care much about – which includes economics for most people. But I’ve heard people express apparently sincere enthusiasm for submission even where they know they know better.
A possible to ask whether people would be so keen to surrender control of their sexual behaviour to a better-informed elite. After all, they might get duped by adventurers, or catch a venereal disease.
In my comment above “A possible to ask” should read “A possible strategy is to ask”.
It could be said that the United States started out as a dictatorship run by libertarians. It worked fairly well for a while.
That also worked because the United States had lots of land to the west into which people could flee, so the central government couldn’t grow much. When they stopped making ‘free’ land, then the center grew.
It seems to me that the first two big assertions of the power of central government were Andew Jackson’s expropriation of the Cherokee, which took place before the frontier was closed and served to open up more land for settlers (at the cost of the legitimate owners); and the Civil War, which I believe took place when the homesteading movement was under way and which was followed by the classic Western years. Admittedly there was worse to follow; to my mind Woodrow Wilson still stands as the worse of all U.S. presidents. . . .
Natalie, of course they should let the state dictate who they date! We can’t let people profit from the lucky accident of good looks! I want my ‘fair share’ of model/actress date time, and sexual escapades! (In the future, cosmetic surgery will be a right, and everyone can look like the latest film star!)
Perry,
You’re clearly rather confused. I’ll clear up one of the several misunderstandings encapsulated by this sentence.
A key means by which statism is advanced in the modern democratic era is by manufacturing consent and then rendering the appearance that statist policies are advanced in society only by the grace of the voters’ energy/values/insight/benevolence/wisdom. A nominally functioning democracy is rather essential to this appearance. You see how this works? What appears to be (to some people) and what is written on paper – that the modern democratic state is a democracy – is different than what happens in reality.
Obviously, statist policies are advanced by the elite. This isn’t a coincidence! Check out human history and you might discover that government policies – whatever they are bent to achieve – are generally advanced by the elite.
To say that statist morality is compatible with dictatorship instead of democracy is to miss the point, since no government policy is really compatible with true, pure democracy.
Of course, for a libertarian to understand such things is impossible, for then he would not be a libertarian.
Statism, in other words, would not be advanced nearly so effectively in a society in which it did not appear to the masses that they were responsible for the misguided policies they were taught are “good”. Thus, indeed, the extent a government depends on propaganda for manufacturing the consent of the people is often a pretty fair indication of how statist its policies are.
Shlomo makes a point I agree with.
My argument is that regardless of the system, the smarter will, eventually, end up running the lives of the less intelligent and educated. It can be feudal, democratic, socialist, communist, or even an anarcho-capitalist (if such an entity ever existed), but the end result is always the same. Smart people on top, scrubs below. As Shlomo said, that’s the theme throughout history.
I think even free enterprise systems are not immune. Smart people can always figure how to nudge less smart people to their points of view, to get them to see things their way, to buy the thing they want them to buy. They inch their responsibilities wider and wider in the name of profit and the shareholder, and before you know it, they are virtually running everything. Businesses form cartels, monopolies, and lobby governments (if the state has substantial power).
That’s also why there should be a revolution (a bloody one) every now and then to keep the elites in check by churning up their numbers and making a new batch climb their way up again.
The natural tendency towards statism could be, IMO, be attributed to the fairer gender. (females on this blog, please don’t beat me up!)
The ‘Mommy’ attitude that a lot of statists possess that is startlingly similar to how mothers treat their children. Don’t do this, don’t do that. Eat your vegetables, they’re good for you. Don’t smoke, don’t drink, blah blah blah. I hear these things from my wife and other women all the time, less so from men. If you give women the power to decide, they’ll be a lot more restrictive than men would ever be!
Was it any coincidence that the statist project in democracies kicked into high gear only after women were given the vote?
Men tend to be a bit more, shall we say, lax on these attributes.
Is the solution, therefore, to deny the vote to women? Urgh, I’m not going there.
The Wobbly Guy,
This is true (insofar as it goes).
Women were given the right to vote in each state (in the USA) at different times and John Lott (Yale) found that the states’ rates of growth in spending generally dramatically rose just after women started voting in each state. This wasn’t just some of the states – it was basically all of them. The trend is extremely clear.
But it’s important to note, of course, that the mere fact that voting is taking place at all is a key cause of statism. So don’t misunderstand me. I’m certainly opposed to voting/democracy in general. It’s just that men tend to vote slightly less stupidly than women tend to.
Perry,
Um. First of all there’s no such thing as an absolute ruler.
Second of all. One can support statism and/or oppose democracy, possess a morally consistent ideology/morality, and not see himself/his colleagues as being morally required to be dictator – or even rule in any lesser capacity whatsoever.
For example, I happen to think that most people are stupid and most people benefit in certain areas of their lives from the consequences of centralized planning overseen by properly motivated and highly intelligent elite. Not in all things, but in some things. You may disagree, but just because I think this does not mean I favor myself/my colleagues/elite people running everyone’s lives in every respect. See the difference? Not everything is black and white. There are shades of gray, degrees of efficiencies to be gained by enacting a properly intrusive but not excessively oppressive approach to governance.
Out of the crooked timber of humanity nothing straight, Perry, was ever made.
So that’s how you raise timber in your parts- crooked! Or just let it grow naturally, twisting and curving to any whim!
Why not raise timber straight, with clear values and a ‘reach for the sky’ attitude? Discourage (with axes) any tendency to lean to any side? Soon you’ll have the best timber on the planet!
(Setting aside these warped metaphors, why can’t you raise uncorrupt individuals? The fact that it hasn’t yet been done is not the same as it being impossible.)
Nicholas Gray,
אין שום דבר חדש תחת השמש
There’s nothing new under the sun
That was true in his day, but had anyone landed on the moon in those days? That’s new, so his observation doesn’t apply!
People are a lot better at making decisions about their own lives (with some exceptions – for example I am bleeping useless at doing it) than they are at political matters.
This is for perfectly logical reasons.
For example – one vote seldom makes any difference, so why think carefully (and study) political matters?
Just vote for whoever seems plausible (because they have the “gift of the gab” or whatever) and get back to things that an individual can effect.
Which is the compelling argument against giving great power to Kings, hereditary or elected.
As an aside, it is remarkable how many people will take sarcasm as serious. You can suggest something patently absurd, you can even write in your posting “I’m trolling you”, and yet certain people (who will not be named but who appear in the above discussion) will answer as though you were being serious.
I dislike the term “Elite” in this context. Being a gross fromage in the Student Union does not make you “Elite”. That word is for folks who win the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor. I recall (vaguely) The SAS and the SEALS are elite. Those that think of themselves as such (or, more to the point, are thought of as “elite” don’t pass muster. So they go into politricks (no sp). So Harriet Harman (current leader of Her Maj’s Loyal Opposition) is elite. In what way I ask? Or Jezza Corbynite? A twatestation on Rick-rolled wheels plus-ultra? God your parents always warned you about the likes of him*. Bearded Trotting pro-am wanking-bowl what he is. The Labour party is in a dreadful state of affairs. Perhaps we ought, in the cause of trans-Atlantic friendship and scientific development to cross him with the Trumpster.
*I’m not calling him a peado. He’d need more blood in him for that.
NickM,
They might not elite by your definition, but their word in the halls of power certainly counts for more than ours combined.
IOW, elite.
@Shlomo M.
In regard to the electoral participation of women and the correlation of distribution of “public goods” through states, you (and others) might want to become familiar with the framework concept of Open Access social orders in the studies of North, Wallis and Weingast (2006-2013).
While it is densely written, Violence and Social Orders (Cambridge 2013 2d Ed.), is a good work to expand one’s perceptions and concepts.
@ N (P) G:
Well now, of course that is what the Daish (ISIS)think they are about, using more than axes. Trouble is that when all are crooked in the same fashion, they seem straight to one another. When most grains are not congruent, all are “crooked.”
Natalie:
I once had a friend tell me that she supported marijuana prohibition because having it illegal helped her resist the temptation to use it herself. The flaws with this argument (that the power to prohibit marijuana necessarily includes the power to prohibit things she does want to do; and that such a narcissistic view of the law is unjust to other people) are self evident to someone with a libertarian perspective, but not at all self evident to most people. Most people assume total power by the state as a given, and see democracy as a battleground for advancing self interest. Under those premises it’s logical to support the use of state power against yourself.
Just my opinion but if we have the ‘elite’ or even
the ‘more intelligent’ running our governments, we’re in a much bigger heap of trouble than I thought !
My experience with government, at any level and as a whole, is that it is populated by persons I would not call ‘elite’.
You tried to demonstrate something about the thought process of people with whom you disagree. You tried and failed. Instead of admitting this you are now saying the whole thing was a joke.
I expect more at Samizdata. Sad.
Perry,
Lets take a quick look at the sentence in which you said you are trolling us:
“I’m completely serious about what the statist belief system implies”
And yet when your reasoning with regards to what statists think is shown to be completely fallacious and without merit whatsoever you conveniently fall back on the first part of the sentence (“Shlomo thinks I was actually trying to make a legitimate point haha!”) instead of actually admitting you were wrong… or trying to defend your perspective.
“So, the smarter must, according to statism, run the lives of the less intelligent and educated, but at the same time it is obvious that even most of the educated in developed countries are incapable of even understanding comparative advantage or supply and demand curves. They are, when it comes to economic education, mere children, unable to help themselves.”
Right there, Perry, is the flaw in your argument. It may be “obvious” to you, but it is not to others. Those “elite” persons do not accept your proposition that they are ignorant of economics. Rather, they believe that their brand of economics is superior to yours, if only because of their own moral superiority. It is an argument you cannot win. You can point to all the failures of socialist and other statist societies, but that will not convince them that the policies were inherently wrong, merely that they were poorly implemented. Such policies cannot be “wrong” in any sense important to the elites, because they are premised on good intentions. And without that key underpinning the rest of your train of logic inevitably falters. Your conclusion is unsupported.
Some misplaced arrogance there given that Rothbard wrote an intro for Étienne de La Boétie’s “The Politics of Obedience” (in addition to his own power elite analysis).
Of course, for a non-libertarian to understand such things is impossible, for then he would be a libertarian.
Andrew,
A cute comment – though curiously devoid of any actual substance.
“Discours de la servitude volontaire ou le Contr’un” contended that tyrants have power because the people give it to them. As a precursor to nonviolent resistance, that essay is as misguided as it is adorable. That Rothbard wrote an intro for such misguided rubbish only demonstrates how juvenile libertarian thinking really is.
In my youth I adored such writers as Bastiat, Rothbard, and Mises. I called myself a libertarian for many years. Then I learned how the real world works.
Libertarians have been trying to reign in the size and scope of government for centuries and they have with virtually no exception failed miserably. I expect this trend to continue, since I know why this trend started – long before Étienne de La Boétie.
Best of luck fighting genuine power with libertarian theory and nonviolent resistance.
My argument is that regardless of the system, the smarter will, eventually, end up running the lives of the less intelligent and educated.
I’m not sure that was the case in the Soviet Union: the thugs killed anyone clever, and ruled by dimwitted brute force. Even in modern Russia, it’s hard to believe the cleverest are ruling and have not fled.
Going right back to Perry Metzger’s original concern, there is a socialist argument that most people in society need taking care of. I was wondering along similar lines while away and somewhat separated from the blogosphere (and so not seeing Perry’s post until yesterday).
My first thought was about the bringing up children. Clearly, as parents (and even as other adults), we protect them from the dangers of the world that they have not yet learned or at least been taught. But we also expect them to learn of these dangers and so, with the passage of time, teach them and allow them more freedom – even though such greater freedom involves greater risk to them. And eventually, they are fully fledged and off they go: well, at least in theory. The trouble is that, whilst society/government is supposedly allowing young people greater freedom, eg in the UK: voting at 18 when it was 21 (with some wanting to drop this to 16), doctors assuming parental responsibility in secretly dishing out contraceptives, etc. There is also a reduction in such freedoms (eg compulsory schooling to 16 rather than the less that used to apply, making it illegal (or highly constrained) to get a job before ever higher ages, vastly encouraging full-time education to even greater ages, raising the smoking age from 16 to 18, increasing the age of sexual ‘consent’ from 15 to 16, totally prohibiting increasing numbers of ‘recreational drugs’). The thing is that adults are different from children, and setting government in place of parents (so in a childhood extended, perhaps for ever) is an intrinsically foolish way to make lives better.
My second thought is that we are all members of a vast number of non-elite groups: the ignorant, if not the stupid. This is quite simply because we cannot know everything, and must rely on the skills of others to advise us and to undertake the tasks beyond our skill-sets. This is particularly true in our modern hi-tech society, but (paraphrasing distinctly from somewhere above) “it was ever thus”. What we do in these frequent circumstances that require us to act outside our knowledge is to judge whom to believe, what to buy, whom to buy from, and whom to commission with works. Though we here are probably each elite in our own individual and particular ways, we really have only a little trouble dealing with the parts of the world in which we are the non-elite: the ignorant if not the stupid.
Thirdly, and this after reading Perry’s blog post, I was reminded of some of the the words in Max Ehrmann’s “Desiderata”.
Yes, we do have our stories, and they all matter.
And that between fields the elite and the non-elite are different persons.
Flipping back to learning, we all make mistakes and we all learn from our mistakes. Is not education the learning from other people’s mistakes: so learning more quickly, more efficiently and (very importantly) more generally. Others (probably including Paul Marks) would introduce history into this concept: and I have no objections.
On to representative democracy as we currently (and mostly) do it, there is a big problem with that, as pointed out long ago (and variously attributed, perhaps both incorrectly, to Alexis de Tocqueville and to Alexander Fraser Tytler): “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.” My suggested solution is a bicameral parliament, with a House of Existence (one person one vote) and a House of Taxpayers (one pound of tax paid, one vote). This would, at least somewhat, swing the balance of government expenditure towards the worthwhile, rather than straightforward short-term bribery of the mass of the less discerning electorate.
The big thing about statists is their reluctance to learn from the previous mistakes of statists. That’s why they are still with us.
Best regards
“The recent rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in U.S. polling demonstrates that even the bulk of people in the U.S. have no understanding of the barest rudiments of economics.”
To be fair, none of the candidates or even potential candidates seem to have any understanding of the barest rudiments of economics. Yes, Trump is touting xenophobic protectionism, but this “Job creation measure” is popular among the right wing, especially the Paleo-conservatives, and it’s touted by the left pro-union ilk as well. Neither side will call it what it is, cronyism at the consumer’s expense. Ironically, Trump may win points on both sides of the voting constituent isle with this position, even though protectionism reduces total economic surplus of a nation, lowers productivity and reduces total jobs in the nation and has a negative effect on the economy, not to mention raising prices on not only imported items but domestically produced “substitute” items as well. In other words, tariffs on Japanese import cars raises the price of domestically produced cars by lessening competition and creating an artificial greater demand for domestic cars.
Natalie said: “Something very like this has long bugged me, too. Why do people sincerely support having others use force on them?”
It is a curious thing, especially when the ones saying it are self-made billionares. Consider Warren Buffett. He says that people should be taxed nearly to death (I’m paraphrasing) yet he can send in whatever extra amount he deems fit for himself above and beyond what is required. (Believe it or not, there is even a form for that). But of course Mr. Buffett never sends in more than he legally has to. So what is he advocating after all? He’s advocating the government FORCE him to send in more money than he’s currently willing to send in. Yes, he wants the government to financially rape him. He’s the metephorical whore walking around a biker bar in a leather miniskirt and no panties. This is the part where we, being politically correct of course, pretend that it’s impossible for anyone to “ask for it”. He is indeed asking for it, and we should be asking WTF is wrong with his brain.