This post is a follow-up to my previous post on ten books that have had an oversized impact on my thinking and reading. I’d recommend reading that first post if you haven’t already, to get an understanding of what I mean by that – that said, this is the second half of the list.
The Art of Living by Epictetus
This is a classic work by one of the big names in Stoic philosophy, chiefly about how to live a good life. And its reputation is well deserved – you can find wise advice on every page. But what I most took from this book is an appreciation of how little the human condition has changed. This book was written thousands of years ago – yet its contents are as applicable to modern life as when it was initially written. For example, Epictetus writes “The flourishing life is not achieved by techniques. You can’t trick yourself into a life well-lived. Neither is it achieved by following five easy steps or some charismatic figure’s dogma…The untrained brood about the constituent elements of their lives. They waste precious time in regret or wishing their particulars were different (‘If only I lived in a better house or town, had a different spouse, a more glamourous job, more time to myself …’)…When we succumb to whining, we diminish our possibilities.” These struggles Epictetus describes thousands of years ago are immediately relatable today – how many articles and books have you seen arguing that if you just follow this easy five step process you can achieve success, happiness, or perfect six-pack abs? How many people do you know who lose sight of just how good their life really is, because they’re caught up in obsessing over their relative status? How much potential happiness is wasted because someone holds no gratitude about how much they have, because they’re too busy being upset that someone else has even more? This consistency in the things that trouble us helps you understand just how real, strong, and persistent human nature is.
The Ethics of Voting by Jason Brennan
There have been many books written about the epistemic shortcomings of voters, but Jason Brennan’s book does something more than this. Brennan argues powerfully that voting carries strong ethical obligations – it’s not always better to vote than to not vote. Indeed, most of the time and for most people, it’s probably better not to vote. The outcomes of elections have a powerful effect on people’s lives, wealth, and prospects for a better future. To attempt to influence the outcome of this process when you’re not deeply informed about the policies in question and the outcomes they are likely to create is no different from attempting to influence how a bridge will be built despite lacking any understanding of construction or engineering. If you don’t know the first thing about engineering, any attempt to influence bridge construction will almost certainly make things worse – and endanger people’s lives in the process. This is no less true of uninformed voting. Prior to reading this book, I held something like the common view of voting and democracy, and to the extent that I gave any thought at all to the epistemic problems of voting, my usual glib response was to say that all I really needed to know in order to cast a vote was to decide who to vote against. While this isn’t literally the dumbest view I’ve ever held, it’s for some reason one of the ones I find most embarrassing to have ever believed – probably because I experience a lot of second-hand embarrassment because I still hear it so often from people who imagine, like I once did, that its some kind of insightful, useful, or clever approach.
Governing Least: A New England Libertarianism by Dan Moller
Dan Moller’s Governing Least was the first book I came across that gave a complete and systematic examination of the fundamental disposition that drew me towards libertarianism and classical liberalism. There are many roads to libertarianism, of course. Some come to libertarianism due to a deontological worldview. Many others come to libertarianism for utilitarian or consequentialist reasons. But what a lot of writers from these traditions left out, or at least failed to emphasize, is something Moller puts front and center. As he puts it, libertarian policies come not from an overly strong emphasis on our rights as individuals, but instead from a modesty about what we can appropriately demand from other people. I have struggled with various hardships in my life, some due to poor choices and others due to bad luck. But it’s just never been obvious to me why that would make it appropriate for me to forcibly transfer the costs of my misfortune onto other people. All this brand of libertarianism requires is a sense that it’s wrong for us to compel others to bear the costs of our misfortunes. I could never look someone in the eye and say, “I’m struggling terribly right now, therefore it’s okay for me to use force to make you worse off for my benefit.” That’s not the kind of person I want to be. Moller unpacks this line of thinking, and anticipates and refutes various objections, in a way that few scholars manage to equal.
Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism by Michael Huemer
This is a bit of a slippery entry on the list, because it wasn’t exactly the book that had the kind of impact I’m talking about – but this book was written as a direct result of what did. Several years ago, Bryan Caplan and Michael Huemer debated on EconLog about the ethical treatment of animals. Prior to the start of that debate, to the extent that I had given the matter any thought at all, I was solidly in the same camp as Caplan, and my diet was so meat centered that I was essentially living on a perpetual Atkins diet. However, I found Huemer’s arguments much more compelling, and Caplan’s arguments, despite defending a view and lifestyle I also shared, struck me as very weak. I clearly remember reading one of Huemer’s final replies to Caplan on my phone, then setting it down and informing my then fiancé and now wife that I was going to become a vegetarian. And just like that, I stopped eating meat and the next year moved on to being vegan. This book by Huemer was written as a result of that debate and the discussion that followed. In the years that have followed, when people ask me why I stopped eating meat, I just reference them to the Huemer-Caplan debate – and several other people I know have made the same choice I did after reading that exchange. While I’ve learned a lot from many books over the years, it would be hard to name that many that have caused me to change my behavior in such a significant way due to the moral force of the argument. For example, Huemer’s excellent book The Problem of Political Authority changed my mind in favor of philosophical anarchism (though not political anarchism), but nothing about that change of mind caused me to act very differently in my day-to-day life. But his writings on what would later be made into this book definitely had a huge impact on my life, for the better.
The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies by Bryan Caplan
One of the things I enjoy most about bookstores over shopping for books online is the ability to browse rather than search. One of the great joys in that experience is stumbling across something you weren’t even looking for. The best browsing experience I had came from perusing a Borders Bookstore (remember those?) in 2007. I had received transfer orders from Camp Pendleton, California to Cherry Point, North Carolina, so I had quite a long drive ahead of me. I wanted to pick up some books to read during breaks and in the hotels at night during the drive. While browsing, I stumbled across and bought two books to read over my travels – Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature and Bryan Caplan’s The Myth of the Rational Voter. By that point my interest in economics had been on the rise, but I devoured Caplan’s book and completely fell in love with the subject. My decision to pursue an economics degree at George Mason University was due in no small part to this book. That book also led me to discover this very blog, which I spent years reading before eventually becoming fortunate enough to be able to write here myself. While I have plenty of disagreements with Caplan, of course, I still hold The Myth of the Rational Voter up as one of the best and most insightful books on economics and politics of all time, and its impact on my life would be difficult to exaggerate.
READER COMMENTS
David Henderson
Aug 13 2023 at 11:45am
Really nice discussion. Thanks.
Yes. In the past, when I voted, I often left blank my choice about city councilors in my small city of Pacific Grove. Even after reading their literature, I couldn’t figure out what they thought or how they would vote. Let people who know better decide the outcome, I thought. Granted that many who voted would know even less than I did, but still, in not voting, I at least didn’t push the outcome further in the possibly wrong direction.
Well put. I apply that all the time. Here’s an instance, although it’s not one due to poor choices. On my way to Winnipeg from San Francisco via Vancouver about 15 years ago, I made arrangements to meet with Walter Block in the Vancouver airport. At the time he was spending his summers in Vancouver. But we arrived a little late and there was a large line waiting to go through Customs and Immigration. The wrong thing to do was push forward without anyone’s consent because my meeting with Walter just had to be more important than what others in line were concerned about. The right thing to do is what I did: explain to the person in front of me why I would like to switch places and wait for the person to decide. I moved up 14 places before the 15h said no, and I had a somewhat longer visit as a result.
robc
Aug 14 2023 at 8:42am
I used to do that with judges elections. Then I changed my mind after some interactions with a few of them…and I chose the method of voting against any I had heard of. You made the news for some reason? I vote for your opponent. Too many yard signs, I vote for your opponent.
In cases where I had heard of neither or both, I didnt vote.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Aug 13 2023 at 5:20pm
The Ethics of voting argument seems self defeating. If you understand it you are probably well-informed enough to vote.
“modesty about what we can appropriately demand from other people”
Modesty is pretty vague criterion but asking a person to pay a Pigou tax does not strike me as immodest, at all.
“to forcibly transfer the costs of my misfortune onto other people.” I feel the same way (though by fortune I have seldom been in a position to be tempted). But that feeling does not translate into a belief that it is ipso facto illegitimate to tax some people in order to transfer resources to some others others.
Kevin Corcoran
Aug 14 2023 at 11:19am
I disagree. Sticking with the bridge building analogy, the implication of your statement would be that if Bob understands that people should not attempt to influence bridge construction without a sound grasp of engineering, Bob himself is probably well-informed enough in engineering to try to influence how a bridge is constructed. Or, if Bob understands he should not attempt to influence how a surgery will be carried out without a detailed understanding of human anatomy, Bob probably also understands human anatomy well enough to try to influence how surgeries are performed. Etc. Understanding that X requires a certain degree of knowledge to be preformed well is independent of being well informed about X, whether X is construction, surgery, or voting. Kenneth Minogue quips in his book The Servile Mind how “our rulers manage so much of our lives that they cannot help but do it badly. They have overreached themselves.” In the same way, because politics has leeched into so many areas of life, the amount of knowledge needed for a voter to vote well is so staggeringly superhuman that voters cannot help but do it badly. (It doesn’t help that, when it comes to political issues, people systematically and massively overestimate how well-informed they actually are, so lots of people who correctly understand that you should be well-informed to cast a good vote will still falsely think themselves well-informed enough to do so.) Outside the most narrow and highly specific set of circumstances, I certainly don’t believe myself well-informed enough to cast a justifiably good vote.
Governing Least is not an anarchist tract, and is not against all forms of taxation. For example, the book has an extended discussion on why taxation for the provision of certain public goods is justified. However, taxation for the welfare state does run afoul of the moral obligation against burden shifting – the idea that it’s wrong to force other people to bear the costs of your misfortunes. If I insist that you must pay your share of taxes to support the standing army that keeps the hordes of Atilla the Hun from invading, I am not attempting to shift the costs of my misfortunes onto you. If, however, I fall on hard times through bad luck and insist the taxman take money from you and give it to me, that is me attempting to force you to bear the costs of my misfortune. And I don’t think it’s right for me to do that.
nobody.really
Aug 15 2023 at 3:07am
Not following this rebuttal.
1: To start, even if we assume that everything Kevin Corcoran says is accurate, I don’t see how his strategy helps. At most, the strategy seems designed to assuage Kevin Corcoran’s feelings of responsibility for any adverse results from an election. I subscribe to the view that the people who FAIL to vote are responsible for the adverse outcomes. But I also embrace freedom of religion, so I acknowledge that we’re each entitled to embrace our own theories about moral responsibility.
2: Moreover, voters are not designing bridges or conducting surgery; they’re picking the people who will determine whether to build a bridge or finance a surgery, and who will initiate the process to hire the people to do it. Now, perhaps Kevin Corcoran thinks that voters should NOT be in the business of picking such people, and if so, Kevin is entitled to his opinion. But as far as I can tell, his opinion has no consequence; if the election will determine who will make these choices, then Kevin Corcoran’s abstention will not alter this fact.
3: Finally, I concur with Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” I don’t so much love democracy as I hate civil war. So for me, the point of voting is not to influence the outcome (although I believe in and support that, too). The point is to show that the PROCESS of voting enjoys widespread approval, and to signal to anyone who might attempt to thwart an election (not naming anyone in particular) that he should expect the public to respond with fury as if they had been robbed of a cherished birthright.
Kevin Corcoran
Aug 15 2023 at 11:02am
Hey nobody.really –
You say:
I don’t know what strategy you’re talking about? I didn’t lay out a strategy for anything, so I’m a bit puzzled by what you mean here. However, I can at least assure you that, as per usual, your speculation about my motives is incorrect, and that I am not concerned with trying to assuage any “feelings of responsibility for any adverse results from an election”, because I don’t know how to judge whether the results of a given election were in fact adverse so I harbor no such feelings one way or another. In order to know that, I’d have to know a lot of counterfactual information about how things would have played out if the election hypothetically went another way, and I simply don’t have that knowledge. I doubt anyone else does either.
However, I gather that you do think of yourself knowledgeable enough to make such judgments, given that you also say:
In order to hold this view, you’d need some positive reason to believe that the outcome was adverse compare to the counterfactual, plus be able to know that if the people who failed to vote did vote, their votes would have in fact prevented the adverse outcome, rather than contributed to it or created an even worse outcome. I don’t know how you think you know this, though. Can you elaborate?
To the extent that I view this as a matter of moral responsibility, I see it this way. The fact that other people – even the majority of people – around you are behaving badly or irresponsibly, does not make it okay for you to do the same. Even if most people are doing something morally irresponsible, you still have a moral obligation to keep your own hands clean. Perhaps you disagree, or perhaps you agree with that but think that my casting a vote despite my ignorance is a morally responsible act. I’m not sure which.
Right, I didn’t say anything to imply voters would be designing bridges or conducting surgery. What I said was people who lack knowledge on how to competently perform such tasks should not attempt to influence how those tasks will be carried out – i.e., whether the hypothetical Bob should “try to influence how a bridge is constructed” or “try to influence how surgeries are performed.” I didn’t claim Bob himself would be carrying out those tasks, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at here? If someone asks me if I want to design a bridge, my answer would be “no, I don’t know how to do that.” If they then followed up by asking me if I wanted to help pick out who would design the bridge, my answer would be the same. I’ve written before here about why voting for who will make those kinds of decisions doesn’t actually solve the fundamental problem. Jeffrey Friedman also make the same argument in his final book, as I outline here. As he puts it, trying to solve the problem of voter ignorance by having voters choose who will choose doesn’t solve the problem, it just hand-waves the problem away by begging the epistemic question. You do point out that nonetheless this is the system we have, but at that point I return to my belief that one still has an obligation to keep their own hands clean, even if we have a system that encourages us to do otherwise.
And my participation will not alter that fact either, or the outcome. The only difference will be whether or not I behave in a morally and epistemically irresponsible way, and so far nothing you’ve said gives me any reason to believe that my behaving that way would be morally or epistemically responsible.
This has always struck me as more of a thought-terminating cliche or semantic stopsign than a serious point. Even if democracy is the least-bad form of government…what is meant to follow from that exactly? Once upon a time, it could have been truthfully said that blood-letting was the worst form of medical treatment except for all the others that have been tried. But, so what? It doesn’t make much difference that blood-letting was the least-bad known medical treatment unless it was also true that blood-letting would also be actively helpful. Democracy, too, might make things better or worse when applied. If you want to advocate for its use in a given instance, that’s great, but you still need to make a positive argument for why using it would actively make things better than they otherwise would be. Simply saying that it’s the least bad form of government intervention we know of gets you zero percent of the way there.
This seems to assume that greater use of democracy lowers the risk of civil war, which may or may not be true, but I don’t see any intrinsic reason for that to be the case. I also did a long review on this blog of a book which argued, among other things, more extensively using democracy in a society leads to more and more polarization in that society, rather than less, which could very well have the effect of making civil war more rather than less likely. Or maybe not – I’m not sure one way or the other, but at the very least “more use of democracy = less risk of civil war” seems like something that needs to be argued, not merely asserted.
nobody.really
Aug 17 2023 at 2:08am
That the other tried forms of government have been worse, so we should stick with democracy (including voting). I’m sorry that I (and Churchill) have been so obscure.
Let’s try this: I surmise you don’t believe in voting, yet you acknowledge the need for some taxes. How do you propose that we identify those who will set the tax and spending policies?
Kevin Corcoran
Aug 17 2023 at 7:25am
Right, but I still don’t see how this addresses the problem I raised with this line of thought. If a doctor recommends using leaches to treat a patient and I ask them why, saying “other forms of medicine have been worse, so we should stick with leeches and bloodletting” doesn’t do any good. We shouldn’t use bloodletting if draining someone’s blood doesn’t actually make things better than they otherwise would be. And saying that democracy is the least bad form of government we know of doesn’t do anything to recommend putting something up for a vote, without some independent reason to believe that putting it up for a vote would make it better than it otherwise would be.
You surmise incorrectly. The book, after all, is called The Ethics of Voting, and not Why Voting is Unethical. The argument isn’t that voting is bad, or that nobody should vote. The argument is that it’s wrong to cast a vote without being deeply informed about the issues you’re attempting to influence, and if one isn’t informed enough to do that well, then one shouldn’t vote. As Brennan puts it:
Because of this, Brennan argues:
Saying one shouldn’t do something morally significant that will impact the lives, fortunes, and futures of other people unless they are able to do it well, is different from being against it altogether, right?
nobody.really
Aug 17 2023 at 9:15am
Delighted to hear what Brennan says. But what YOU said is this:
Does the US presidential election provide a sufficiently narrow and highly specific set of circumstances such that you might regard yourself as sufficiently well-informed to cast a justifiably good vote, thereby overcoming the moral and epistemic responsibility to keep your hands clean?
If not, how would you propose the next president of the United States get designated?
Kevin Corcoran
Aug 17 2023 at 10:53am
I’m confused. You seem to think there is some kind of conflict or contradiction or incompatibility with what Brennan said, and the various things I also said that you put in block quotes. But I don’t see it. Brennan is arguing that people who “lack the knowledge, rationality, or ability to vote well should abstain from voting.” And all the extended quotes you pulled from me just boil down to my own assessment that I lack such knowledge, so I therefore abstain from voting. If you want to declare that means I therefore “don’t believe in voting” as some kind of blanket statement, you’re free to keep insisting that. I’ve been on the internet long enough to realize that once things begin to approach the the point where the other person is telling me what I think about things, or suggesting that I’m somehow misunderstanding my own opinion when I try to tell them otherwise, it’s usually fruitless to try to convince them that I might know what I think better than they do.
Still, you did ask some questions and I’ll go ahead and answer them. You ask:
No. The impact and influence of a presidential election is not “narrow and highly specific” – it has a gargantuan impact on multiple areas of life, the vast majority of which I know next to nothing about.
This question only makes sense to me if you somehow conflate the claims “I don’t consider myself knowledgeable enough to cast a vote in this particular election” with “I’m against voting and elections.” But why can’t someone think the president should be designated by an election process, and also think that they themselves are not well informed enough to justifiably take part in that process and therefore abstain? There’s no mystery or incompatibility here, or at least none that I can see. The only way I can see to rule that out is if one takes as a premise “If you think the president should be determined by an election, then you must also consider yourself obligated to take part in that election, no matter how little you know or how poorly informed you are.” But I doubt you believe that.
nobody.really
Aug 17 2023 at 1:14pm
1: Recall Kant’s Categorial Imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
You articulate a standard for voting that renders yourself unfit for the task. Indeed, you go beyond that, saying “the amount of knowledge needed for a voter to vote well is so staggeringly superhuman that voters cannot help but do it badly,” and that under-informed people have “an obligation to keep their own hands clean.” What would happen if everyone adopted this same maxim? You assure us that you believe in voting—just voting by people with superhuman abilities. Meaning no offence, I hope you can see how a person might reach the conclusion that you’re not all that supportive of voting.
You might have a better chance making this argument if you had made more of an effort to demonstrate that you’re an ignoramus. But to the contrary, you’ve demonstrated yourself to be thoughtful and well-read. (Heck, I could probably name 10 books you’ve read….) How many readers of this blog will see this discussion and be persuaded, “Sure, obviously Kevin Corcoran is unqualified to vote—but not to worry; we can defer to the votes of the myriad other people who fully understand the ‘gargantuan impact on multiple areas of life’ implicated in choosing a US president….” I humbly submit that your standard is unworkable, and the primary witness in support of my argument is … you.
Look, I admire people with self-restraint, respect for others, and epistemic modesty. But I know of no society composed solely of people who embrace chastity, pacifism, and skepticism. Because I value the perpetuation of my society, I conclude that purity standards for sex, force, and decision-making fail Kant’s categorial imperative. Sure, some subset of people within a society can embrace these standards of purity and “keep their hands clean”—but only if other people in society do the necessary dirty work for them.
2: Alternatively, perhaps you have been speaking hyperbolically. Perhaps you don’t really expect people to vote for president on the basis of superhuman levels of knowledge—merely on the basis of more knowledge than you have.
Fine. But, in round numbers, how many people would meet this qualification? And how representative would this group be of the US population?
In short, are you making an argument for meritocratic oligarchy? Rule by philosopher-kings? By the Supreme Court (which arguably IS a meritocratic oligarchy)? By the donor class?
I’d be interested in hearing arguments for meritocratic oligarchy. I’d be especially interested in hearing proposals for maintaining the meritocratic part, and for managing public discontent when you can’t simply direct people to funnel their energies into influencing the next election. But maybe that’s a topic for another post.
Kevin Corcoran
Aug 17 2023 at 1:57pm
Hey again –
Probably my last reply here, because I feel like we’ve reached “going in circles” territory. But just a few quick follow ups –
You invoke Kant’s categorical imperative. However, I find the categorical imperative a pretty poor guide to ethical behavior (and Kantian reasoning a pretty poor system of moral philosophy more generally), for reasons I’ll just have to defer discussing for now, so that whole part of your reply leaves me unmoved.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by a “meritocratic oligarchy,” but I think you might mean something similar to what Jason Brennan calls an “epistocracy” in his book Against Democracy. If you’re curious about what the case for such a system would look like, that’s a good place to start, I think. (I’m much less convinced of Brennan’s case for epistocracy, for what it’s worth, but it’s still an interesting argument worth considering.)
nobody.really
Aug 18 2023 at 10:10am
Then how ‘bout the principle “No special pleading”?
I understand Brennan to make a policy argument in favor of informed decision-making in voting. Fine—but how informed? You take it to the extreme of saying that voters must have superhuman levels of knowledge—which would eliminate voting (at least among mere humans).
How to reconcile your argument with the preservation of voting?
1: Maybe you mean that the level of knowledge required to vote is not literally superhuman, but just extremely high. We’d end up with a society governed by a very small group picked on the basis of their elite levels of knowledge—thus, meritocratic oligarchy.
We might argue that academia is a kind of meritocratic oligarchy. And we might observe that academia skews hard left. Be careful what you wish for.
2: Alternatively, perhaps you were merely arguing that you believe in maintaining that degree of purity for yourself, and you acknowledge that elections can still work because other people will not hold themselves to that standard. But if you candidly acknowledge that voting can only work when people less knowledgeable than yourself vote, then the policy rationale for refraining from voting evaporates. Instead of a policy argument, we end up with a personal purity ritual (“keep your hands clean”) that would arguably undermine the policy objectives that Brennan desired. As I say, I believe in freedom of religion—but I don’t confuse religious conviction with policy arguments.
I agree with all the criticisms about the idea that voters are especially wise or well-informed. But, like Caplan, I see little prospect of making much change in that situation. As Lord Acton observed, “The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.”
Instead, I support democracy and voting because it provides a vehicle for people to peacefully channel their frustrations with government. Liberalism is a philosophy forged from the furnace of Europe’s religious wars—a philosophy designed primarily as a way to resolve conflicts without resorting to civil war. And it has generally succeeded—so much so that people now take that goal as a given, and seek to manipulate the levers of liberalism to achieve their political ambitions. I remain committed to the original goal.
That said, maybe there are ways to improve upon voting. Making voting easier arguably strengthens the hand of demagogues and fads, but restricting voting arguably strengthens the hand of the incumbent government. I remain open to suggestions.
Thanks for the discussion.
Kevin Corcoran
Aug 18 2023 at 10:57am
Okay, one last reply, mostly to clarify one point and one final comment. You say:
You understand incorrectly. Brennan is making an ethical argument, not a policy argument. He’s arguing that people who lack the knowledge and ability to vote well should abstain from voting, not that policy should forbid them from voting.
Regarding your other objections, both in your most recent comment and in the previous ones (like the concern about what would happen if everyone applied that idea, or the concern that it might cause elections to collapse or democracy to cease to function, etc), those are all things I used to believe as well, and all of those objections are anticipated, evaluated, and rebutted in the book. I found those rebuttals compelling, and I changed my mind as a result. I freely admit I could still be wrong, of course, and could easily change my mind again in the face of new arguments, though.
Also, while I appreciate that you don’t consider me an ignoramus (you sweet talker!), I think there’s maybe just a tiny gap between being an ignoramus and being knowledgeable enough to cast a well-informed vote that you might be defining out of existence. I view myself as occupying the (actually rather large) space between those two thresholds. Presumably you hold a higher opinion of your own knowledge levels than I have of mine, and you do think yourself that knowledgeable and well-informed – justifiably, for all I know! But, again, nothing you’ve said so far has given me a compelling reason to think that I possess that kind of knowledge, or to think that I should still vote even if I don’t have enough knowledge to vote well.
nobody.really
Aug 19 2023 at 3:11pm
Well, I concur that one of us has defined voting out of existence–but the relevant gap was not defined by me. You said that a vote for US president “has a gargantuan impact on multiple areas of life,” that “the amount of knowledge needed for a voter to vote well is so staggeringly superhuman that voters cannot help but do it badly,” and that people who cannot marshal that level of knowledge have “an obligation to keep their own hands clean.” Could you name one actual human being that you think would pass your standard and qualify to vote for president? Or, if this is solely a matter of personal purity, can you think of any level of education you might obtain that would let you ethically vote for president?
Alternatively, perhaps you didn’t really mean what you said, and merely meant to argue for a high standard for voting, resulting in a meritocratic oligarchy. This idea intrigues me.
Iran kind of has such a system: A broad swath of the population can vote for president, but only from among the list of candidates that the ideological oligarchs found acceptable—thereby reconciling democracy with oligarchical control. And for much of its history, the US had a similar system: Political parties served as “gatekeepers” limiting who would appear on the ballot, and the people who controlled the parties effectively vetoed the candidates they found unacceptable. (This was called the “invisible primary,” controlled by the donor class.) But Trump crashed through this barrier, neutering the Republican gatekeepers. The Democrats, by creating a cadre of “superdelegates” who vote on candidate selection, have enabled their party to retain its gatekeeper function. In this sense, the Democrats have more of the qualities of an oligarchy than the Republicans.
Or you might presume that I find your test unworkable and counterproductive, and so decline to apply it to myself or anyone else. Like Caplan, I regard my vote as having a trivial consequence on the outcome of an election. But I regard the act of voting as demonstrating a commitment to democracy—and signaling opposition to anyone who might try to overthrow it. As Eisenhower said, “Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.” For me, maintaining the system is the ultimate goal of every election. If nothing else, this perspective lets me attend a lot of election-night celebrations!
Again, thanks for the discussion.
nobody.really
Aug 15 2023 at 3:13am
I’m Attila’s brother and so I have cause to expect good treatment from him. Why should I contribute to financing opposition to Atilla? Moreover, I’m big and intimidating. Why should I have to pay taxes to maintain a police force for the benefit of scrawny people who neglected to study martial arts? Finally, I’m poor—and as Adam Smith observed, “Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.” Why should I have to pay for that? All of this looks like one person trying to shift the cost of their own misfortunes onto me.
Did the authors of Governing Least have anything substantive to say about the support of social safety nets espoused by F.A. Hayek and John Rawls?
Kevin Corcoran
Aug 15 2023 at 11:16am
This is all a very good example of why one should make sure they read and understand an argument before they attempt to offer rebuttals or counterpoints to it. Suffice it to say that none of the situations you describe are at all relevant to what Moller describes by burden-shifting or compelling others to bear the costs of our misfortunes, because he clearly defines what those terms mean for his argument. None of what you brings up makes any contact with the argument that is actually made.
I do like that quote from Adam Smith in its original context, however. Lots of people like to quote mine it to suggest Smith was critical of private property. But read in context, Smith isn’t criticizing the institution of private property. He’s arguing that even when it comes to a legitimate institution like private property, the state is such a corrupt and inept organization that they can’t even do that right.
Rawls more than Hayek. Hayek only comes up a few times, if memory serves, and even then mostly in the context of the knowledge problem. He does give Rawls’ argument attention though, although for my money a better response to Rawls is found in Michael Huemer’s The Problem of Political Authority, which refutes not just Rawls’ arguments for a welfare state, but the entire framework of Rawlsian analysis. But I suspect Moller doesn’t say much about Hayek’s arguments in favor of a welfare state is that Hayek didn’t ever actually argue in favor of a welfare state. He asserted support for some degree of minimal welfare provisions on a few occasions, but he never offered an argument for them in the way that Rawls did. He just asserted it.
nobody.really
Aug 21 2023 at 7:32am
I was motivated to finally look it up. Here’s the larger quote:
“[In society’s first period–the age of hunter/gatherers–no one can amass a material fortune, so society does not require much civil government to administer a justice system.] It is in the age of shepherds, in the second period of society, that the inequality of fortune first begins to take place, and introduces among men a degree of authority and subordination which could not possibly exist before. It thereby introduces some degree of that civil government which is indispensably necessary for its own preservation…. The consideration of that necessity comes no doubt afterwards to contribute very much to maintain and secure that authority and subordination. The rich, in particular, are necessarily interested to support that order of things which can alone secure them in the possession of their own advantages. [Unlike men of poverty, m]en of inferior wealth combine to defend those of superior wealth in the possession of their property, in order that men of superior wealth may combine to defend them in the possession of theirs. All the inferior shepherds and herdsmen feel that the security of their own herds and flocks depends upon the security of those of the great shepherd or herdsman; that the maintenance of their lesser authority depends upon that of his greater authority, and that upon their subordination to him depends his power of keeping their inferiors in subordination to them. They constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves interested to defend the property and to support the authority of their own little sovereign in order that he may be able to defend their property and to support their authority. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
True, Smith was not criticizing private property. And true, Smith later notes that civil government can be corrupted by those offering the biggest bribes (presumably the rich). But as far as I can tell, Smith offered the linked text simply to describe how civil government arose to defend the interests of property-owners.
nobody.really
Aug 14 2023 at 7:59pm
At the risk of hijacking a delightful post, would anyone want to commend favorite audio media?
I’ve already listened to Myth of the Rational Voter, thanks. And I really enjoyed EconLib’s multi-part review of Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments with Dan Klein & Russ Roberts. Other recommendations?
Kevin Corcoran
Aug 15 2023 at 11:18am
Here, unfortunately, I can be of no use to you. While I enjoy podcasts when I’m driving, I’ve never been able to get into audio books. I can read books much faster than I can listen to them, plus I find I retain the information much, much better from reading rather than listening to someone else read. That, and audio books are not nearly as conducive to compiling notes the way books are.
Comments are closed.