In the just-published issue of Regulation (Winter 2024-2025), I consider H.L. Mencken’s aphorism:
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
My short piece points out one problem in taking the aphorism literally:
The common person does know what he wants: to improve his condition in life according to his own preferences. And he succeeds so well in his private life that, once he was left individually free, he and his fellows generated an Industrial Revolution and what economist Deirdre McCloskey calls the “Great Enrichment.” …
It is when the common person is given the power to decide what his fellow humans should want that things can go very wrong. … When the common people elect a strong leader or would-be master, Mencken’s aphorism seems to take all its force.
After some explanations that my readers might be interested in, I conclude by reformulating Mencken’s aphorism with more precision but albeit a bit less pithiness:
Non-liberal democracy (as we know it) is the theory that the majority of voters think they know what they want and that everybody deserves to get it good and hard.
I end the article with the hope that the current political situation in the United States may “serve as a bitter lesson for a better future.”
He got what he wanted good and hard
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Dec 23 2024 at 2:36pm
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
Indeed I voted to end the endless wars, i stead I might get a forced ourchase of Greenland, an annexation of Canada and an arbitrary and capricious invasion of Panama.
Mactoul
Dec 23 2024 at 9:00pm
Your grandchildren might well enjoy these expansions as you do the purchase of Alaska and Louisiana, annexation of Texas and California and other sundary territories like Hawaii.
There were plenty of quibblers even then.
Jose Pablo
Dec 24 2024 at 1:08pm
There was no need to annex Alaska, Louisiana, Texas or California to enjoy them.
Americans enjoy Baja or Yucatan or Paris a lot even though they were never annexed (had Paris been annexed there is little doubt it would be way less enjoyable).
You seem to have an extremely narrow idea of “joy”
Mactoul
Dec 24 2024 at 9:10pm
So America would have been fine with just 13 states. Why even that?
Puritans could stay in Europe and just enjoy Non-America equally well.
Jose Pablo
Dec 25 2024 at 12:07am
Puritans could stay in Europe
No, they couldn’t. They were expelled from England by the church and crown. They were, so to speak, the first political refugees in North America. Fortunately for these prosecuted outcasts, Native Americans were not politically organized and DJ Trump wasn’t their leader back then.
So America would have been fine with just 13 states. Why even that?
As far as “joy” is concerned, you could argue that individual Americans (I don’t know what “America” “is” or “feel”) would have the same (or even more) joy if they were now divided into 4 countries with 13 states each.
That your country’s government controls a bigger chunk of territory should do very little for your individual “joy” (Russia or China as an example). Except if you are the kind of poor pathetic soul whose only joy comes from being an individually insignificant part of a powerful empire.
Mactoul
Dec 26 2024 at 1:14am
I meant if America were restricted to 13 colonies only. Was it beneficial to the present Americans that the American leaders decided to expand their territory or not?
MarkW
Dec 24 2024 at 9:12am
None of these things are actually going to happen. Trump’s anti-trade agenda seems likely to be his most damaging legacy.
Pierre Lemieux
Dec 24 2024 at 12:22pm
Craig: Public choice theory in action. It’s not just theory.
Jose Pablo
Dec 23 2024 at 7:38pm
“Democracy (and “leading” and “governing”, there is not such a huge difference at the end of the day) is the art of letting the common people think that they can get whatever they want for (almost) free”
Some individuals master this art better than others. But this mastering of cunning politicians (or “leaders” or “tyrants”, there is not such a huge difference), does nothing positive for the advancement of humanity.
Jose Pablo
Dec 23 2024 at 7:51pm
“Except in the special case of children,”
This is a more relevant part of your article than it may seem at first sight.
I have found so many “children” among “grown adults”!
What is the right test to differentiate “adults” from “children”?
How many “children” would this test find among Trump’s voters? (or Marie Le Pen’s voters, or Alternative for Germany’s voters or Viktor Orban’s voters or …)
First draft for “adults-children” test:
Do you believe your country of origin is the “most beautiful, incredible, amazing country” in the world?
Do you believe that most of your problems are caused by foreigners?
Do you think that somebody (ie the government or a strong paternal figure or the CEO of your company) should protect your actual way of living?
…..
Pierre Lemieux
Dec 24 2024 at 12:30pm
Jose: You ask:
There is no test, or at least no official test (everybody can have its own), for it would imply the power of somebody to administer it. In a free (or would-be free) society, the rule fixing the age of majority can only be a general rule of law: 18, 21, or whatever. This is what has existed in our would-be free societies, as inherited from common-law-type conventions.
Jose Pablo
Dec 24 2024 at 12:40pm
for it would imply the power of somebody to administer it.
Blockchain could administer it.
The rules built into that piece of software could be reached by consensus.
The consensus of the wannabe children could be bought out. Leaving the children out of political decisions would do wonders for the advancement of a free society (free of leaders, demagogues, wannabe tyrants …)
Convincing an electoral body composed only of fully grown adults would be much more difficult than it is now.
A liberally acceptable way of building up a demagogue-proof group of individuals should exist. We do need it!
Pierre Lemieux
Dec 24 2024 at 5:15pm
Jose: I have to think about this. One immediate objection is that to build an automated unanimous-consent system, everyone needs to be persuaded that the automated system will forever work as intended; otherwise, its creation cannot be unanimously approved. The response, of course, is to unanimously agree to a general set of rules (a social contract) that allows for amendment following an agreed set of procedures–instead of a blockchain for each and every issue. The difference seems to be that life in society is desired by every individual, which obliges them to reach a compromise (“political exchange”), while not every rational individual may agree to a specific blockchain. Who would agree that only one currency will be used until the end of times: Bitcoin. The problem then, as diagnosed by de Jasay, is that the majority may be able to amend the social contract to exploit minorities.
Mactoul
Dec 23 2024 at 11:05pm
American system was established with the best of 18c liberal theory with checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism and the Bill of Rights. It has delivered prosperity and freedom. Why the continued laments ?
What more can be done? An amendment “There shall be open borders“?
On more general grounds, you wish for satisfaction of all individual preferences except the preference all individuals have viz for self-government. There are contradictions upon contradictions in this position, first being that you don’t want a democracy, liberal or otherwise.
You might wish for all individuals be concerned for their own private property only. But this brings up Milton Friedman’s question of what grounds or defines this private property.
Jon Murphy
Dec 24 2024 at 7:52am
Because that tradition has been whittled away, killed off in the committees and left to die by the roadside. It’s been slowly replaced by illiberal collectivist policies like protectionism, nationalism, progressivism, nativism, etc., and the subsequent social and economic stagnation that comes with.
Jose Pablo
Dec 24 2024 at 12:54pm
There is no good reason for stopping the advancement of human politics in what was a great achievement almost 250 years ago. Humans should have been able to come up with something much better by now.
Making fire with flink rocks “delivered prosperity and (lots of) freedom” (to the point that the Gods, these unforgiving tyrants, punished the discoverer of fire to untold suffering for the rest of eternity). And yet, we kept developing better techniques for making fire. Thank god!
Political science has greatly advanced since 1789. For the most part away from leaders (these wannabe tyrants!) and towards the development of individual rights and the advancement of markets as the most effective way of pursuing individual happiness.
Our political framework has not reflected in any way this advance. And not only that, as John points out, the wonderful 18th-century experiment has not only failed to evolve in the (right) direction of political thinking (which it should have, after all, it was very flawed to start with), it has gone backward!
Mactoul
Dec 26 2024 at 1:18am
So the Founding was either a perfection that we need to reclaim (which is conservatism) or an imperfect stepping stone to a future perfection (which is progressivism)
I get conservatism but not progressivism (because it is so indefinite as to what it wants). I hope Pablo could expand on the progressive ideal he has in mind,
Monte
Dec 24 2024 at 11:30am
I’m personally willing to gamble the pain of the last 4 years for the presumed “bitterness” of the next 4. But maybe we should allow the jury to deliberate after the fact before handing down a guilty verdict.
Comments are closed.