Politics (2) -- Not Direct Rule But Discovery & Reduction of Ignorance -- (2) Literature Review of My Work on Politics and Freedom

Image credit.

Continued from here.

★

P-004 Rational Ignorance and the Science of Fortune Telling from 11/04/2012

This is a piece that reflects uncertainty and immaturity in the author, and the transition from a libertarian's politically correct contempt for politics and democracy to a more sober assessment of their role in human life and history.

An important thought that I had not yet been able to form at the time is this: even though democracy means literally rule by the people, it is contrary to the spirit and long-standing experience of feasible democracy in populous modern nations to suggest democracy is a scam because it fails to be immediately responsive to the will of the people. 

Democracy Is Not Direct Rule of The People

What this position misses is that democracy is a vast network of cultural habits and expectations, which taken together give democracy its value and central role in supporting freedom. Rule by the people is something that works through layered, roundabout, and intricately interacting cultural practices and convictions. It is misleading to insinuate direct rule by the people, for no such thing can possibly be achieved in a large and populous society. Unfortunately, libertarians, including myself in the below article, rely on this straw man. They are only "kiddin' themselves," as the Americans are prone to say.

Hayek is a sad case in point, as statements like this one attest to:

The inability of democratic assemblies to carry out what seems to be a clear mandate of the people will inevitably cause dissatisfaction with democratic institutions. Parliaments come to be regarded as ineffective “talking shops,” unable or incompetent to carry out the tasks for which they have been chosen. The conviction grows that if efficient planning is to be done, the direction must be “taken out of politics” and placed in the hands of experts – permanent officials or independent autonomous bodies.

— Friedrich Hayek

Democratic Politics Is a Discovery Process - Politics Reduces Our Ignorance

Also, what I was far from being able to grasp at the time is that political activity is a discovery process no less than market activities. Politics is being engaged in to find things out, which includes figuring out options for reasonable interaction in the face of our different variants of ignorance. Yes, incomplete information is a problem. But no only is politics required for us to better adapt to that vast residual of ignorance that is man's lot at any time and in any kind of society. Politics is also a means to become more informed, about what we think, what the stakes and views among us are that need to be coordinated - sometimes just by being considerate. Last not least, politics is a way of creating the society we wish to live in. You cannot grant human beings political freedom and expect them not to use it. Of course, in practising politics people will often fail, but then, they will come up with good results as well. Free and equal means that everyone who cares to participate in the shaping of society is invited to do so. Democratic political participation is, among other things, a reassurance, indeed a proof that we are serious about all humans being free and equal. Now, here is what I wrote more than three years ago:

[P]eople know infinitely less than they ought to in order to make an informed choice. Hence, voting is based on nonsense. And I agree with Bryan Caplan (hat tip to Laura), who belongs to the last of three schools: (i) the first arguing that democracy works well in that it faithfully reflects the will of the people, (ii) the second school holding that democracy is not working well at all, since it is NOT faithfully reflecting the will of the people, and (iii) the third school suggesting that democracy is a bit of a catastrophe because it DOES represent the will of a highly uninformed and ideologically misled electorate. [...]

Elections are a festival, a virtual orgy of the unthinking, including the fact that few things are less likely than finding a voter who has ever seriously thought through the pros and cons of democracy. When I was allowed to vote for the first time, voting was to me like a rite of passage, a proof of my maturity; and for a long time I did think that my vote mattered - vaguely following the line of reasoning, if at all, whereby my party would have no chance to win if each of its supporters thought their individual vote was not significant enough to warrant participation in the election.[...]

Voting is simply a different form of cheap talk. You can get a big kick at very little expense. Finding out what is really going on would be prohibitively expensive and without commensurate reward, indeed depressing. It is better to dream of nicer things, as everyone else does. One votes in order to do the done thing, feel socially accepted, even important.

If voting helps you feel good about yourself, so much the better. If it does not, never mind - what cost is there involved? The rational ignorance tenet should perhaps be rephrased thus: It is rational to vote, despite being uninformed and misinformed, for it can make you achieve a desired state of mind at little expense.

★

Continued here.