I’d like to think that I’m the but-for cause of this paragraph, but either way, the world should listen:
[I]t is a mistake to assume that equality of democratic voice improves
the prospects of the poor and working classes unless the poor and
working classes support policies that actually promote their interests.
This is a pretty simple point many people have a hard time getting
their heads around. But it’s pretty clear that populist socialist
revolutions around the world have not been very kind to poor and
working-class people, because populist socialism doesn’t tend to work
very well. The now-vast public ignorance literature (subscribe to
Critical Review!) would seem to suggest that the best case scenario for
the poor and working classes is to have a relatively weak voice in a
coalition with relatively strong-voiced highly-educated elites
sincerely conerned with poverty alleviation and economic mobility. This
presents another magic button for egalitarians. Suppose there is a
button that simultaneously equalizes the democratic voice of the poor
and working classes and reduces their expected lifetime income by 50%.
Would you push it?
No? Good. How about a button that disenfranchises the poor and working classes and doubles their expected lifetime income?
READER COMMENTS
RL
Feb 16 2009 at 1:14pm
I love that pedagogic trick. I think I first saw it used with car speeds and safety. You ask those who don’t believe making a car safer makes people drive faster and less cautiously if they think making a car less safe makes people drive slower and more cautiously
The Timid Scholar
Feb 16 2009 at 2:31pm
I would push your disenfranchisement button.
You should take a highly informal and in no way statistically sound poll on this question. A la Wilkinson.
David R. Henderson
Feb 16 2009 at 2:37pm
Bryan,
You didn’t ask this but I’d give up my vote if it kept my expected lifetime the same but substantially raised my freedom.
David
Kurbla
Feb 16 2009 at 2:45pm
I’d prefer democracy over income in both cases.
dearieme
Feb 16 2009 at 2:47pm
Life is not all monotonic functions.
Jeremy Nighohossian
Feb 16 2009 at 2:49pm
I believe that few people would push the button that equalizes democracy, but I’d also be very cautious about giving so much power to the “elite.” There are many people among the highly educated that agree with the populists about how best to reduce poverty. I’m going to have to agree with David Henderson. I would give up my vote if I could live in a society with much more individual freedom.
Dain (Mupetblast)
Feb 16 2009 at 3:15pm
Happiness Research has discovered that “procedural utility” is important to well-being too. The feeling that one has a voice in matters of public policy is of some more than trivial importance to the less tangible elements of “living standards,” and the notion of autonomous experts antithetical.
There is no way to avoid sounding Machiavellian, but the perception that people have more say than they do may be an important part of an elitist strategy.
See this: http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/can-procedural-utility-lend-a-hand-to-paleo-libertarianism/
George
Feb 16 2009 at 3:22pm
Dain wrote:
“Happiness Research has discovered that….”
See, the thing is, I stopped reading right there.
Kurbla
Feb 16 2009 at 3:33pm
Jeremy:
“I would give up my vote if I could live in a society with much more individual freedom.”
You’d trade your right to vote for the very thing you’d vote for (with uncertain success.) Not bad idea! 🙂 I’d give up my freedom to chose woman if I could get Cathrine Deneuve.
Sean
Feb 16 2009 at 4:28pm
except that it is always the awesome intellectual elites like yourself bryan that have been saliently responsible for the rise of populist socialism, and not from the ground up.
Neal W.
Feb 16 2009 at 5:28pm
Bryan, thank you for opening my eyes about the foolishness of democracy.
I would definitely push the disenfranchise button.
Tom West
Feb 16 2009 at 8:29pm
How about a button that disenfranchises the poor and working classes and doubles their expected lifetime income?
Neat idea. Too bad that given reality, the question would be “How long would the poor and working classes likely keep their doubled income if they were disenfranchised?”
Will Wilkinson
Feb 17 2009 at 12:20am
Bryan, You’re in my blood. Well, that sounds gross. You have been assimilated into my weltanschauung… sounds dirty. Anyway, you get the drift.
asdfsd
Feb 17 2009 at 4:40am
[Comment removed for supplying false email address. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring this comment. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog.–Econlib Ed.]
Thomas DeMeo
Feb 17 2009 at 12:10pm
Conflating “equality of democratic voice” with “populist socialist revolutions” muddies things up a bit.
Let’s look at the 10 richest and 10 poorest nations. The poor of the rich nations have considerably more “equality of democratic voice” than those in the poorest nations, and of course, they live more comfortable lives.
Larry Peoples, Sr.
Feb 19 2009 at 8:29am
Pavlov’s dog was a Democrat voter too!!
Comments are closed.