In Defense of Stupid People

Someone was talking the other day about the economic situation of stupid people and how it might affect their politics, and I thought it an interesting issue in the ethics of the distribution of economic power. This week: a defense of stupid people.

Do you detect a certain churlishness in my choice of words? Yes, I’m afraid I’m trying to be a bit confrontational or blunt right now to encourage people to think about what may be an awkward issue in the generally awkward area of the ethics of the distribution of economic power. Before anyone gets too worked up, let me say I don’t mean “stupid” as a random schoolyard epithet. I mean relatively unintelligent. I suppose real people will fall in a range or distribution of intelligence, unlike the artificial ciphers of the world of economic theory. Nor am I talking this week about ignorance, a function of education, which is a different issue. Perhaps I’m behind the times, but I suppose some people may have a rather easier time with education than others for a variety of reasons including, I propose, innate intelligence. As always, I’m rather more interested in normative than positive issues, so if one finds the idea of a distribution of intelligence bunk, perhaps one can think in hypotheticals yet derive something of value from the discussion. Even if one doesn’t believe in the existence of stupidity, as opposed to ignorance, the general issue may be of interest as long as one accepts some factor affecting the distribution of economic power in markets may not be under the individual's control. 

Aside from common results-oriented ethics related to real utilitarianism, distinct from the misleading faux “utilitarianism” of the ethical half-theory of neoclassical welfare economics, which doesn’t take up distributional ethics, one very common ethical view involves “merit.” According to that view, equity, fairness, justice in the realm of distributional ethics should take precedence over considerations of welfare or real utility, so an ethical system for distributing economic power will distribute it by individual “merit," not evaluating welfare. (I’m setting aside the apparent complication introduced by common yet seemingly contradictory support for inheritance, which doesn’t involve individual merit, albeit perhaps some sort of familial or ancestral merit. Yes, popular ethics is a rich tapestry.) Of course, talking about “merit” doesn’t get one very far unless one specifies what one has in mind, and one significant issue in that context is whether it can be something one is simply born with or must be derived from personal effort or volition of some sort. This vital issue is typically submerged or glossed over in the context of ethical or normative discussions centering on wages and labor markets using vague references to work, effort, “productivity,” and so on. 

Let’s take the bull by the horns and imagine a stupid person who works very hard, makes great effort, puts in long hours, does everything he or she can possibly do in a real labor market, yet for the most part tanks, ends up with minimum wage, no benefits, part time, etc. Won’t necessarily happen, of course. Plenty involved in real labor market results beyond intelligence, but holding everything else equal, and assuming it exists, I suppose one may accept stupidity less advantageous than cleverness in a competitive labor market. Does this represent an ethical issue we should address or not? Does the proposed innate characteristic of stupidity cancel out everything else potentially related to “merit" under this person's individual control? Is it ethical he or she has little, if any, economic power? Why am I asking such awkward questions? Because I perceive under the influence of bad economics in the conservative style, many appear to view competitive labor markets as a utopian machine or black box providing all with what they should rightly have. But is it what people honestly suppose? Is the labor market doing what they find ethically correct, or are they concluding ethically correct whatever it happens to do? I’d just like confidence people are thinking about the real issues involved, making conscious choices, voting.

Oh, you wanted my personal views? Well, I suppose society should subsidize stupid people. I don’t much care for a world of clever people, often sorely lacking in every other form of merit or laudable characteristic, forever trying to take advantage of stupid people. Sure, smart people are important and should have their due, but ethically their due may not be whatever they can squeeze out of stupid people. Indeed, if I were choosing between stupid with a good heart, and clever with a bad, I’d take stupid every time. And when one considers the relationship of stupid people to crime and all manner of anti-democracy claptrap including fascism and anarchism, due to their inability to think systemically, anticipate consequences, their gullibility, one may see practical reasons to support them.

The stupid, the relatively unintelligent, the slow on the uptake, will always be with us, but we don’t have to let clever people take advantage of them, screw them over at every opportunity, in both word and deed. That’s a social choice we can make or not. Case in point: purposefully opaque neoclassical welfare economics and anti-democracy bad economics in the conservative style built upon it. Again, the clever trying to con the stupid, laughing all the way to the bank. Let’s stop. Speak carefully, honestly about economics too. The stupid can be and often are good people, with plenty to offer, and can show it given the right context to thrive. So why not create conditions to make it happen? Maybe think of society more as a diverse family cooperating and thriving together than a nest of egoistic vipers?

Liberalism, Again

Some fellow was wondering the meaning of “liberalism,” which he explained he formerly associated with “woke-ness” and “The Left” but had started to think through again. In the interests of everyone trying to get along, I thought I might take another whack.

Traditional American (“leftist") “liberalism” is about giving people space to live, be free, exercise their liberty, until their preferences conflict at a certain level of significance with those of other people, in which case law, government, democracy must get involved. Liberalism’s distinctive take on gender issues, sexual orientation, freedom of and from religion, embrace of diversity, abhorrence of forced and unnecessary social conformity, is based on the perception those interpersonal conflicts of preferences do not rise to that level. It’s not based on the belief everyone shares the beliefs, values, ethics, tastes, culture, preferences, behavior, etc., involved, merely that someone being offended by someone else’s ideas or actions in those areas is insufficient justification to use law to suppress them.

Where traditional American liberalism tends to part ways with authoritarian or fascistic forms of conservatism is that the latter tends to have various non-democratic elements typically relating to ostensibly “natural” rights and laws, religious precepts, etc. A typical example of where the difference becomes apparent involves economic power. For liberals, government must be, and indeed always is, involved in establishing the legal definition, distribution, use of economic power. Liberals propose laws in that area are necessary for any society, and interpersonal conflicts of preferences in that area are very significant because they involve the allocation of scare resources, welfare, fairness, justice, etc. Because they see law as necessary, they propose that law be based in the always changing, always evolving ethical beliefs of the governed, the voters, and established using democratic government.

Conservatives are no less interested in the realms of personal freedom, liberty, law but because their ethics are so different, they start from entirely different places and, of course, end up in entirely different places. For authoritarian or fascistic conservatives, there is one correct set of ethical beliefs relating to economic power, those ethics must be expressed in law, and voters, democracy, must be prevented from changing those laws, regardless of the level of interpersonal conflict. Similarly, they may propose law is necessary to enforce social uniformity on, say, religion, because in their ethical world there is again, one correct religion, and voters, democracy should have no role to play in that important area of law.

So the difference between traditional American (leftist) liberalism and conservatism / “classical liberalism,” is not about seeing a role for both law and personal choice, but how to strike the balance, the ethical rationale involved. One big difference is that liberalism sees interpersonal conflicts of preferences even about the role of the state and individual as a significant ethical issue that must be resolved by the governed, democratically, while conservatives of the authoritarian or fascistic sort also suppose it significant but propose for that reason it must not be subject to the views of the voters, the will of the governed, democracy. This is why any discussion of the difference between liberals and conservatives that does not feature prominently the proposed role of democratic government, the governed and their ethical beliefs, is liable to be misleading, rhetorical, unhelpful.

Once that issue is addressed, one may move on to a second level discussion, internal to democracy, about one’s personal views about the ethics of economic power, markets, resource use, etc., which one may express to other voters in a democratic context. There is also a form of “conservatism” operating at this level, democratic conservatism as opposed to authoritarian / fascist conservatism, that makes an ethical case for certain arrangements including about economic power, but leaves it to voters, democracy, to decide socially. “Liberalism” is sometimes also associated with the expression of particular personal views on the ethics of economic power and other matters, which is what gives it its perceived “leftist” or “progressive” quality, but support for democracy is implicit. Liberals and democratic conservatives can happily co-exist in a democratic society. It’s not at all clear liberals and democratic conservatives can happily co-exist with anti-democracy authoritarian or fascistic conservatives.