Is the U.S.a democracy? The framers, as Madison explained, did not think they were creating a democracy. How much popular control is necessary for democracy? If democracy is good, is more democracy always better? Should the U.S. as a whole have a referendum system like California? How do you reconcile the election of Donald Trump (and of Joe Biden) with your enthusiasm for democracy? Doesn't Mencken's observation that "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard" have a certain resonance? I for one look forward to turning governance over to AI and depoliticizing society. I am quite confident that Claude would already do a better job than typical large city elected officials.
One way I have always thought about democracy is that it is something like an individual right in principle. I'm not, I think, the first to view it this way. Article 21, sections 1 and 3, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document I like a whole lot, nicely articulates the idea:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
...
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
I admit to some attraction to the Churchillian "sneer" (and to even the more acid Menckenite one). One does not necessarily walk around with a tremendous amount of faith in the judgment of one's fellow citizens. One is not, I'd say, necessarily wrong to have this thought (or suspicion or anxiety), whether as an empirical matter or as a moral one (though one can certainly overdo it and one should be open to the very real possibility that the people will surprise you, maybe even systematically so).
At the same time, a list of libertarian rights, where Hayek "soars," could just as plausibly be framed in that sneering mode. Free speech is the worst rule except for all the others. After all, an awful lot of human expression is crap or worse. And yet, the principle feels so salient that it overwhelms that sneering sense of begrudging adherence.
To my mind, the arguments on behalf of free speech that focus on social benefit -- a free marketplace of ideas produces the best ideas; a restricted marketplace stifles them -- are worthy and important but insufficient to capture that individual salience.
The same insight, I suggest, applies to democracy. As Dierdre McCloskey has put it, the motto of what she calls "primary liberalism" is "no involuntary masters." She's a secondary liberalism, i.e., FDR/LBJ liberalism, skeptic as I am not, but I find that formulation compelling. I'm guessing Hayek would like it too. Doesn't it have the most bite when considering how government leaders, literal masters in a sense, are chosen?
The question of the moment seems to be, What if some other large and wealthy and powerful country -- let's call it "China" -- is capable of producing gobs of social benefit with little dissent, while at the same time systematically stifling the free exchange of ideas and eschewing competitive processes for choosing masters. There's "consultation," sure. And it's true that no government, not even "China's," is immune from popular discontent. Even the ancient dynastic model worked on that principle -- when it all went south, the rulers had, it seemed, lost the "mandate of heaven" and thus the right to continue ruling.
But a system that relies on revolution to change course is insufficiently respectful of the people's right to participate in their own government. I feel that in my bones.
I know you've written about the Second Bill of Rights, but I only recently learned that there were originally 12 amendments proposed as the first Bill of Rights, one of which was later ratified as part of the Constitution. A Scott Alexander guest post (https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/last-rights) really got me thinking because it highlighted the proposed language of the remaining amendment: Congress must not be "less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons."
Today that would mean over 8,000 members of the House. Even expanding to 3,000 would greatly undercut the value of gerrymandering and big money. Practically, it could allow people like high school teachers to keep their jobs while sharing a staff with like-minded representatives. The much shorter distance between voters and their representatives would make our system feel closer to what the Founders envisioned. Any thoughts?
THe most immediate benefit would be to make California presidential votes be represented in the Electoral College with close to the same weight as Wyoming's.
Is the U.S.a democracy? The framers, as Madison explained, did not think they were creating a democracy. How much popular control is necessary for democracy? If democracy is good, is more democracy always better? Should the U.S. as a whole have a referendum system like California? How do you reconcile the election of Donald Trump (and of Joe Biden) with your enthusiasm for democracy? Doesn't Mencken's observation that "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard" have a certain resonance? I for one look forward to turning governance over to AI and depoliticizing society. I am quite confident that Claude would already do a better job than typical large city elected officials.
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords…
One way I have always thought about democracy is that it is something like an individual right in principle. I'm not, I think, the first to view it this way. Article 21, sections 1 and 3, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document I like a whole lot, nicely articulates the idea:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
...
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
I admit to some attraction to the Churchillian "sneer" (and to even the more acid Menckenite one). One does not necessarily walk around with a tremendous amount of faith in the judgment of one's fellow citizens. One is not, I'd say, necessarily wrong to have this thought (or suspicion or anxiety), whether as an empirical matter or as a moral one (though one can certainly overdo it and one should be open to the very real possibility that the people will surprise you, maybe even systematically so).
At the same time, a list of libertarian rights, where Hayek "soars," could just as plausibly be framed in that sneering mode. Free speech is the worst rule except for all the others. After all, an awful lot of human expression is crap or worse. And yet, the principle feels so salient that it overwhelms that sneering sense of begrudging adherence.
To my mind, the arguments on behalf of free speech that focus on social benefit -- a free marketplace of ideas produces the best ideas; a restricted marketplace stifles them -- are worthy and important but insufficient to capture that individual salience.
The same insight, I suggest, applies to democracy. As Dierdre McCloskey has put it, the motto of what she calls "primary liberalism" is "no involuntary masters." She's a secondary liberalism, i.e., FDR/LBJ liberalism, skeptic as I am not, but I find that formulation compelling. I'm guessing Hayek would like it too. Doesn't it have the most bite when considering how government leaders, literal masters in a sense, are chosen?
The question of the moment seems to be, What if some other large and wealthy and powerful country -- let's call it "China" -- is capable of producing gobs of social benefit with little dissent, while at the same time systematically stifling the free exchange of ideas and eschewing competitive processes for choosing masters. There's "consultation," sure. And it's true that no government, not even "China's," is immune from popular discontent. Even the ancient dynastic model worked on that principle -- when it all went south, the rulers had, it seemed, lost the "mandate of heaven" and thus the right to continue ruling.
But a system that relies on revolution to change course is insufficiently respectful of the people's right to participate in their own government. I feel that in my bones.
Liberties are individual. Democracy (or any other form of popular sovereignty) is collective. Isn’t that the rub from a Hayekian perspective?
This was a good piece. Would you care to share several of your favorite books that give a good, thoughtful defense of democracy? Thanks.
I know you've written about the Second Bill of Rights, but I only recently learned that there were originally 12 amendments proposed as the first Bill of Rights, one of which was later ratified as part of the Constitution. A Scott Alexander guest post (https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/last-rights) really got me thinking because it highlighted the proposed language of the remaining amendment: Congress must not be "less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons."
Today that would mean over 8,000 members of the House. Even expanding to 3,000 would greatly undercut the value of gerrymandering and big money. Practically, it could allow people like high school teachers to keep their jobs while sharing a staff with like-minded representatives. The much shorter distance between voters and their representatives would make our system feel closer to what the Founders envisioned. Any thoughts?
THe most immediate benefit would be to make California presidential votes be represented in the Electoral College with close to the same weight as Wyoming's.