I The People: Egoism And Democracy

 I did a post recently that had a great many anti-liberal real or fake “leftists” trying to tell me what’s what and through that great rushing torrent of noise some issues emerged I’d like to discuss this week, let’s call it the clash between egoism and democratic values. 

My main observation about anti-liberal real or fake “leftists” is the issue they seem concerned to address is not changing the views of other voters, indeed they rarely mention such matters, but schemes to force the leadership of the Dem Party to meet their demands, play king maker, etc.

I saw two justifications for this view. One justification I heard quite a lot was that democracy, or our type or level of democracy anyway, has no real significance and hence they don’t really care how other people vote, they simply want to force politicians to do as they say some old way. I saw many varieties of this argument: voters are ignorant, stupid, deluded, easily manipulated, incompetent, led about by economic power, media, etc. Basically just the traditional Marxist take on what they derisively call “bourgeoise democracy.” They’re the Vanguard of the Proletariat. The other justification was to just assume other voters already agree with them, but politicians routinely ignore the voters to pursue their own agendas. This is the “I, the People” or “The System Is Broken” line that casts elected politicians in our democratic system as virtual hereditary despots.

I’m not really interested here in addressing the arguments, so just telegraphically, the ethos of democracy is not based on the supposed intellectual prowess or ethical insight of voters but on consent of the governed, and what evidence are we using of that if not voting as best we can manage? No, the interesting thing to me is one can hear the same arguments from conservative, right wing, Republican fascists. Specifically, voters are too ignorant to resist leftist ideas, their opinions are irrelevant, but also all voters really agree conservative values but politicians ignore them. In other words, whatever views distinguish the real or fake anti-liberal “left” from the conservative right wing, they seem on the same page with respect to one thing: their assessment of democracy and people who accept and support it. While the conservatives, right wingers, go on and on about the “sheeples” they suppose take voting and democracy seriously, grant it significance, the real or fake anti-liberal “leftists” go on and on about those who work within the context of democracy inaptly designated “centrists.” I say inaptly because supporting democracy says nothing really about one’s views on any other issue, and one can thus hardly be assumed to hold a “center” position on say, conservative economics / market utopianism versus real economics or indeed any other issue.

The congruity of the arguments and aims at the level of attacking the democracy we have, denying its significance, is one thing that leads me to associate real or fake anti-liberal “leftism” with right wing trollery. The other is the complete lack of any corresponding political party or movement. However, I also see the egoism and anti-democracy sentiment of conservative, right wing, Republican ideology that saw its apogee in the 1980s conservative Reagan Revolution may have so thoroughly poisoned popular culture in the USA that anti-democracy sentiment may transcend many other differences.

Whatever the cause, the USA seems full just now of voters who suppose democracy doesn’t matter, voting doesn’t matter, talking to voters doesn’t matter, nothing matters beyond stratagems to force politicians to do as one demands. It’s why I say pro-democracy liberals / progressives / democratic leftists are really fighting what at least appears a two-front war, although possibly really only a one-front war with part of that front occupied by false flag trolls in the form of a fake anti-liberal “left.” I would ask everyone to consider the relative significance of the political mechanism by which policy decisions are meant to be made relative to particular decisions, results, outcomes. Determine the political significance to you, if any, of discourse, democracy, voting. Act accordingly.

The Fairyland

I thought this week I might say a few words about a term I occasionally invoke when discussing neoclassical welfare economics: the Fairyland, as the Fairyland of Economic Theory. Why do I say that? Everyone knows economic theory is false but simple, right? Let’s discuss.

To understand the point of calling out the Fairyland as such, one must appreciate the issue of normative versus positive economics: ethical / moral arguments about what one ought to do, what policies are best, what is optimal, versus positive economic prediction. In the world of positive economics, economic prediction, it would be facetious to refer to a simple but false engineering model meant for prediction as involving a Fairyland because there is no presumption it conform to reality; it’s just a model. However, in the world of normative economics, where ethical or moral arguments are being made about what one ought to do, what is preferable or optimal, the issue of whether any relevant factual premises are true or not is relevant and concern about a Fairyland apt. (The same may be said of ostensibly positive engineering models that propose to serve an objective predictive function and be evaluated on that basis but actually serve a normative, storytelling function and are evaluated on that basis.)

To understand the role of factual premises in normative or ethical arguments, an example I used before and rather like and will thus repeat here is to imagine an ethical theory about murder set in a fictional world in which, by assumption, no one ever wants to kill anyone else. It might be a fun and interesting thought experiment. One might analyze arguments, develop and debate ethical propositions, fret about logical consistency, all manner of things. However, if one were tempted to apply any findings to the real world, one would of course have to make some adjustments. When thinking about ethical philosophy, propositions, theories, it’s not just the normative propositions that matter; it’s also the positive issues in the ostensible factual premises that provide the context under which those propositions are to be analyzed and evaluated.

The theoretical context of normative neoclassical welfare economics famously includes several false factual premises, as perfect information and rationality, but I think maybe the most interesting example comes from the methodological critique relating to the range of subjects’ preferences. While neoclassical welfare economics famously takes up consumer preferences as they relate to goods and services, and in that context can entertain any motivation for buying goods and services including interpersonal ethical values, it ignores other preferences of a more systemic sort. Most notably, it ignores the issue of whether the subjects, let’s call them ciphers as we’re in the Fairyland and don’t want to confuse them with people in reality, have preferences relating to the normative propositions, findings, recommendations of economists, economic theory, good or bad. One suppose that bit necessary for logical consistency because an important principle in neoclassical welfare economics is the exogenous quality of consumer preferences as expressed in the famous de gustibus non est disputandum principle. 

In reality, full ethical theories are relevant, not ethical half-theories. Real subjects, real people, have normative preferences / beliefs, values, concerns relating to equity issues, interpersonal ethics, the allocation of scarce resources, economic systems, markets, democracy, all sorts. The confusion introduced by that particular difference between the Fairyland and reality, between an ethical half-theory and an ethical full theory, between the role bad economists would like to play and the one their theory actually supports, can sometimes manifest in rather funny ways. I’m thinking in particular of the version of bad economics in the conservative style that presents trying to make reality more like the Fairyland a part of the normative argument, thus not only telling people they should be more informed, rational, but also devoid of equity concerns. The confusion is often manifested in a context I call actors and roles. Who does neoclassical welfare economics propose is meant to not have or express opinions on interpersonal ethics / equity issues? Economists dealing with that theory, only? Their audience? The subjects themselves? 

Another example along similar lines is the determination by some bad economists that because neoclassical welfare economics deals only with markets, it must include an implicit ethical proposition everything is best handled via markets, the extent of the market should be complete. It doesn’t. Talk about your ethically controversial stances, am I right? But to understand the controversy, one must must understand the rhetoric. A great many taken in by bad economics in the conservative style cannot perceive the normative controversy in even their most outrageous policy recommendations.

When thinking about real neoclassical welfare economics or the misinterpretation I call bad economics in the conservative style, consider always if one is talking about reality or the Fairyland, about real people or theoretical ciphers. Don’t equivocate on context as well as terms. Normative neoclassical welfare economics is not logically wrong. That’s not its problem. It’s simply bad, confusing ethical philosophy written by people who are not trained in philosophy and thus unused to rigorous thinking about normative issues, which can then be used to deceive and manipulate.