Patri buzzes that Garrett Jones tweeted the following :
Democracy more popular than markets for same reason driving perceived safer than riding a plane: Illusion of control.Brilliant, in any number of ways. It's hard to say enough nice things about this comment. But it's wrong anyhow.
ASIDE: Now someone should chain email their friends that I posted this, so we could say that Andrew emailed what Aretae posted about Patri buzzing that Garrett tweeted. Then we could be in junior high again....
As regular readers of this blog know, I'm a devotee of the Hanson-Falkenstein-S.Roberts status explanation. And that has a more parsimonious, and better explanation for democracy's popularity.
Democracy is more popular than markets because democracy positively impacts the status of the participants (I helped pick the leader, + we leveled the status hierarchy), while markets do the opposite (your opinion doesn't matter).
Any solution to the political problem (in rich countries) that doesn't also address the status issue will fail.
Posts
3 comments:
People believe in democracy because they were taught to believe in democracy by their democratic government. In countries with monarchies, people believed in monarchy and generally approved of the king. In China, people generally believe that democracy is not a good system. Democratic revolutions are almost never the act of a majority, but the act of a small minority who seek to ride the mob to gain power.
People don't believe in markets, because the scholar/intellectual caste derives its power from putting "democratic" government (ie, various administrative agencies) in oversight of corporations. So the scholars must teach the public that corporations are not good, and experts/regulators must be put in charge to oversee the corporations.
Devin,
People believe in democracy because they were taught to believe in democracy by their democratic government.
Hard to argue with that. How 'bout instead...people like to change towards democracy, but not towards markets because....
Also...I am suspicious of your over-broadness. People want democracy when their current form of government is either not working, or apparently not working. In Lebanon, it's because the current form sucks. In Singapore, it's nominally democratic, but not too much.
Aside...what's the formalist position on the distance between corporate leader (large industry) + government. The left-lib position is that they're not quite, but awful close to interchangeable.
How 'bout instead...people like to change towards democracy, but not towards markets because...
Well, again, that depends where we are talking about. In China, people want markets, not democracy. That's because the elites want money, but do not want to share power. So they teach people that democracy is bad, but that "to get rich is glorious."
Why did the U.S. move towards democracy, and away from markets? Well we moved towards democracy at a time when military power favored a militia with muskets. The mob seized power because it could. Everyone likes power. This mob was almost definitely not a majority of the American population. And they won partly by luck, and partly because the military technology of the time favored them.
People want democracy when their current form of government is either not working, or apparently not working.
That's not true at all. The colonial governments of the Americas were probably in the top 99th percentile for quality of government in the history of the world.
A country moves towards democracy if an elite desires to incite the mob in order to gain money/power, the mob goes along, and the king either refuses to fire on the mob (or makes concessions to the mob), or the soldiers refuse to fire on the mob.
There is also a basic ratchet effect to voting rights. One of the two parties will always gain advantage by enlarging the franchise. When they are in power, they will attempt to enlarge it. Once the franchise is enlarged, it's almost impossible to make smaller, since that group is now voting.
Any solution to the political problem (in rich countries) that doesn't also address the status issue will fail.
I agree that any new form of government needs to figure out how to avoid the mistakes of previous monarchies and republics, and avoid devolving into mob revolution or democracy. But the key is not so much addressing the status issue. The key is creating a stable Schelling point that the military will accept. The military must be willing to use force to put down any sort of revolt. What the people think only matters as far as it impacts the decision making of the military.
People will always seek power and money. Some will always desire to incite a mob revolt, and ride the mob to gain said power and money. But as long as the inciters will be put down by the security forces and hung for rebellion, then there is no danger to the government.
Aside...what's the formalist position on the distance between corporate leader (large industry) + government.
Well, my own opinion is that it depends when and where you are talking about. The U.S. of 1900 was 80% plutocracy and 20% populist. The corporate barons could buy politicians, buy journalists, buy countries, run their own foreign policy, etc.
The U.S. of 2010 is probably about 20% populist, 20% plutocracy and 60% theocracy/civil service state.
Post a Comment