Can I address this week what seems to me a major fault line in the politics of the USA just now, which is whether voters are or are not meant to take up issues relating to the ethics of economic power, economic objectives, economic policy, and so on?
There seem two elements. First, the specific question of whether voters in the US, under the US Constitution, are able to take up issues relating to economic power. Second, more generally, whether voters in a democracy should be able to take up such issues. Readers will recognize the familiar positive versus normative split that complicates many issues I take up. Here, are we discussing what voters in the US can now legally do, under the US Constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court? Or about what they should do? Ethics?
The answer to the first, positive question, is that voters in the US under the US Constitution may take up issues relating to economic power, property rights, distribution of economic power, use of economic power in markets versus alternative allocation schemes. Voters in the US may take up property rights, taxes, contracts, labor unions, regulations, non-market allocation systems (as scarce vaccines by medical need during pandemics), inheritance, economic policy, goals, objectives. All that. Voters may take up economic issues. Therefore, if one supports the US Constitution, one will accept voters’ current right to do that. Of course, one may not like it. One may support revising the US Constitution so they can’t do it (or finding justices who will say so). That’s a different issue.
Should voters in a democracy be able to take up issues of economic power, the ethical issues relating to resolving interpersonal conflicts of preferences, allocating scarce resources, markets, that sort? Well, someone must do, if we’re to have peaceful, lawful society. The ethos of democracy suggests that’s something that should be based on the consent of their governed and their constantly changing, evolving ethical views on such issues. Of course, that’s not the only possible view. One may reject democracy in that area on ethical grounds. If one rejects democracy and the consent of the governed in that area, one may suppose we should have an ethical arbiter of some kind who can provide answers on those issues no matter the objections of the governed, so maybe economists, priests, philosophers, someone. So that’s the familiar distinction between trying to install someone one thinks knows best, or more commonly agrees one’s own views, to make the call, as fascism or theocratism versus democracy and being able to discuss the issues, present one’s arguments, that sort of thing.
Let’s have an example. I read a right wing anti-democracy “libertarian” / fake anarchist trying to package economic and political power in a combined economic / political concept he called “capitalist democracy.” He was opposed to democracy that wasn’t “capitalist democracy.” One supposes by “capitalism” he meant certain conservative views on laws and ethical issues relating to economics, economic power, resolving interpersonal conflicts of preferences, allocating resources. So he’s talking about democracy that doesn’t take up those things. By putting those economic views on the same level as “democracy,” he’s suggesting voters in such a democracy would not have the ability to address them. But notice the typically sly conservative language, he's meant to support democracy, albeit an oddly limited form of democracy.
So is he a fascist, even what I call a small fascist? Well, that’s a judgment call. Economic issues are a big deal for most, so taking those out of democracy seems quite close to fascism, but fascism typically tends to reject democracy generally, not just about economics. If we’re to be precise, I suppose some sort of quasi-fascism may be the most apt description? However, precise labeling doesn’t seem that important here. One thing that is important is his view is clearly inconsistent with the US Constitution as currently written and interpreted. Of course, he may simply be recommending voters revise the US Constitution to support his system, so the other important question is a normative or ethical one, should voters be able to register opinions on economic issues or not? I would say under the ethos of democracy, yes, of course. The economic system is a very important part of society, government, law. I would say someone who supposes that area should be based on ethical arbiters of some sort rejects to a large degree the ethos of democracy. Of course, people needn’t support the ethos of democracy. But I’d recommend not rushing to toss it on the rubbish heap without considering its benefits as far as stability, channeling concerns including about economics into more or less sensible discussion rather than violence. What’s a more reasonable formulation of the values suggesting “capitalist democracy?” Maybe simply that one supports democracy and would like to present to voters certain views on economics, economic power, resolving interpersonal conflicts of preferences, allocating resources?
Want to talk sense, stop passively following the latest bit of word play? Think about the fundamentals, the need to resolve interpersonal conflicts of preferences, as over resource use, how it’s meant to happen, on what basis, who’s meant to decide, the ethics involved. Think about economic power, ethics and laws relating to how economic power is defined, distributed, used or not used in particular cases to resolve interpersonal conflicts of preferences, allocate resources. Who decides such matters? Think about democracy and its alternatives.
