Is it possible that a madman or egomaniac (perhaps combined with an ignoramus) become president of the United States? The same question can be asked for any other country although it takes special importance in the United States given the importance of the country in the world and the extraordinary power of its president.
Liberal governments, that is, classical-liberal governments were ideally supposed to be madman-proof. Even a madman at the helm of the government would have little power to do good and thus to do bad. Friedrich Hayek expressed the gist of this idea in his famous article “Individualism: True and False” (reproduced notably in his Studies on the Abuse and Decline of Reason, Liberty Fund, 2010). He wrote:
[Adam] Smith’s chief concern was not so much with what man might occasionally achieve when he was at his best but that he should have as little opportunity as possible to do harm when he was at his worst. It would scarcely be too much to claim that the main merit of the individualism which he and his contemporaries advocated is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm.
That very few people seem to grasp the importance of this idea, that everybody else wants his kind of superman or superwoman to come to power, a power that needs to be preserved if not increased in preparation for that glorious day, is a tragic mystery of our times.
READER COMMENTS
Alan Goldhammer
Aug 2 2019 at 7:19am
The crux of the problem is that Hayek’s writings, while interesting, doesn’t comport with the vast majority of people’s feelings. A far better understanding can be gleaned from Eric Hoffer’s masterful book, “The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.”
David S
Aug 2 2019 at 9:59am
I’ve been thinking about this recently, and am working through this hypothesis: Ideal economic/government models reward psychopaths better for going into business than politics.
Psychopaths are going to exist either way, and they will get into power either way. But it seems strongly prefered to have them in businesses (and remain ostensibly subject to laws) than to have them in government (and be able to except themselves from laws).
In my mind, this leads to two “good ideas” – minimizing government power controlled by an individual, and having no maximum income for businessmen/women.
Robert EV
Aug 2 2019 at 11:26am
Yeah, sure, but when was the last time an ultra wealthy individual named a vexatious litigant? Non-politicians can still wield political power through indirect means.
Robert EV
Aug 2 2019 at 11:19am
The vast majority of people aren’t heard, except through highly limited and leading opinion polls (which ironically only sample a small portion of the populace, though are statistically valid). The ‘loud’ people who are heard are obviously notably different from the rest of the populace.
Balance of powers should be set up, and I would argue is, to prevent exceptability, though that hasn’t prevented politicians from using extra lawful ‘interpretations’ (which the courts unfortunately allow) to except themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy
Robert EV
Aug 2 2019 at 11:20am
The McElroy url is meant as an example showing this isn’t limited to just politicians.
Robert EV
Aug 2 2019 at 12:31pm
From schooling, to the workplace, we are taught that our personal power is rightly limited by powerful decision makers. There is no mystery here.
From personal experience I know how difficult it is to start claiming my own power when I have been conditioned into having my power limited, sometimes by the threat of economic execution (i.e. being fired).
It’s no surprise that a benevolent dictator is the best that people can imaging, especially when they are convinced into believing that the kind of democracy exercised for hundreds of years by various Swiss cantons is the kind of thing that will lead to mob governance.
Comments are closed.