Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Christie — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:56:08 -0000

Will seems to be quite right in suggesting that he uses Jason's paper as a jumping off point for a different argument. "Polluting the Vote" is a mildly interesting if ultimately unconvincing argument about the responsibility of individuals to abstain from voting if they "vote badly". Will then goes on to argue that efforts to increase the numbers of people voting are nothing more than an invitation to "pretty straightforwardly immoral behavior." Will's argument is that those who are being encouraged to vote are primarily the poor and/or the young, who, although he does not come right out and say it in so many words, are simply by virtue of their youth and/or poverty de facto "bad voters". In other words, they don't share Will's viewpoints or his votes for Republican candidates. Yes, indeed, bad voters. While Jason is encouraging everyone, no matter their economic condition or partisan choice, to not be a bad voter, Will is more interested in either continuing the practical disenfranchisement or adding to it of as many people as possible who will presumably vote for the other side. What an intellectually dishonest argument.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Christie — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:32:16 -0000

The Lysander Spooner demographic seems to me, having read as much of Spooner as I could stomach, to be made up of people who are emotionally still at the two-year old stage of believing that it is, if one can just find the magic method, possible to always have one's own way. They simply have not been able to come to terms with the human condition, that is, the fact, that human beings are as subject to the laws of the universe as is, well, everything else in the universe, from the physical laws that have created the universe as it exists today to the biological laws that determine our characteristics as living beings. Intellectually, of course, they have developed the ability to produce wonderfully eloquent and beautifully reasoned justifications for why the latter imperatives are so distasteful.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Don — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:04:26 -0000

I'm done with this exchange, because I don't think you have a very good grasp on what is happening in the real world, and you seem to be developing some sort of resentment against me that I really don't care to deal with.

First, there isn't an "increasing" importance of "democracy" in our lives. In fact, the United States has never been democratically run. As I mentioned in my comments to Jason's article, a fundamental premise of his argument is that voting is connected to policy. But, I was never asked my opinion on the Iraq invasion, the bailout, or reducing the deficit. There are many problems in the world, but majoritarian tyranny isn't one, in the United States or anywhere else. My personal belief is that the United States would be far better if it were more democratic, and not run by special interests. I also believe that issues like dating won't and shouldn't be decided democratically, because we have a constitution that limits the intrusion of government into the realm of personal freedom. You - and I - might wish that the scope of the protection of personal freedoms be expanded, but that has nothing to do with whether the decisions that remain to be made by the government should be made through representative democracy.

These happen to be the principles that the nation was allegedly founded upon, although never put into practice. I didn't invent these ideas, or even particularly promulgate them. I am not your problem. I can have limitless adultation of democracy, and you can believe that adulation is corrupt, but that really doesn't make a bit of difference in either of our lives.

I am not running your life, or asking to, nor is anyone else. The reality is that elections will continue, and the relatively weak democratic elements of our government will probably not change much in our lifetimes, though you want them reduced and I want them increased. But you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, against me, or someone else. You will not get what you want from the government, and neither will I. What you do with your situation is up to you.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Micha Ghertner — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:47:29 -0000

Passive-aggressive much?

I don't resent you personally; I don't know you. I disagree with your views on the value of electoral politics, just as you disagree with mine.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Don — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:36:31 -0000

Interesting. I'm just a guy on a messageboard with an opinion. I have no special training in political philosophy and no position in the government, but it's quite possible that my opinion is wrong. It happens to be my honest opinion. I'm fairly opinionated, and enjoy debate, and have been wrong more than once in my life, and, as has been mentioned, I can be a little rude. I apologize for my rudeness, but not my opinion.

"I" am not "playing" any "game." "I" am not refusing to let you "out "- I'm not even sure what you want to be let "out" of. I'm not even forcing you to engage in conversation with you, but somehow you seem to resent me.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Good luck to you in your quest for personal happiness.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Micha Ghertner — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:52:03 -0000

I wouldn't consider voting (except perhaps in self-defense, though even in that case it is almost always just a waste of time). I would consider convincing other people not to vote, since I don't think it's healthy for people to always look towards elections and politicians whenever they have problems that need solving.

The Lysander Spooner demographic has no interest in playing your sorts of political games. We want out. You won't let us. That is unfortunate.

Meanwhile, we will continue to point out that democracy rests on irrational and immoral foundations - that most voters are not equipped with either the knowledge or the incentives to run other people's lives for them, and that it is wrong for them to try, and wrong for people to encourage eligible voters to participate more, when they should be participating less.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Micha Ghertner — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:43:59 -0000

I look at efforts to prevent people from voting in the say way I look at lobbying: both are predictable symptoms of the ever increasing importance of democracy and politics in our lives. Both are ugly. The way to treat the underlying disease is to lessen the importance and impact of politics.

If one is concerned with the social impact of racism, and less so with the inner intellectual errors of individual racists, then there are more than your two suggested responses available. An additional option is to reduce the number of questions that are addressed by the political realm. An example: suppose our dating options had to first be approved by democratic vote (much like many business decisions). This would amplify the social impact of racism. Instead of merely worrying about glares and unkind looks, those who would like date interracially might be legally barred from doing so, if enough of the electorate disapproved.

Dating is one obvious example of something that should not be decided democratically, and why democracy would be a horrible nightmare if expanded. Since democracy amplifies the social effects of racism, those who wish to minimize racism should look towards minimizing (and eventually completely eliminating) electoral democracy. And that is why your adulation of democracy troubles me. I have no interest in running other people's lives, and I except the same sort of respect from them. And from you.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Don — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:27:00 -0000

1. Your first comment makes no sense. I really can't make much sense of it, but apparently you think is it wrong to "prevent people from voting" but at the same time my "adulation of democracy" is troubling. If you value voting, you value democracy. If not, I'm not sure what your point about preventing peole from voting is.

2. As to the morality of racism:

a. As a moral question, racism is immoral, no matter how expressed. Period. The degress of harm from each expression is another question.

b. As a practical question, it makes sense to say exactly what I did: the problem is racism, not racists voting. If you strike at the roots of racism, and eliminate the attitudes, you eliminate racist voting as well. If you are only concerned with racists voting, you are either left with stripping racists of the vote, or what Jason does: make the pathetic argument that racists should somehow have the good sense to know their racism is wrong, and stay home. THAT is nonsense.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Don — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:23:24 -0000

I don't know why an anarchist would consider voting in the first place. Hence my confusion.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

GilM — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:21:34 -0000

Thanks Micha. Great excerpts.

And, Don, if you still don't see how it's dangerous then I'm not sure we share enough understanding of politics to communicate about it.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:06:43 -0000

Which, frankly, is troubling in a world with a history of movements to prevent the "wrong" people from voting. Given this history, and given that "bad" voting is undefinable, I find your focus troubling.

When I look at the world, I see a history of movements of various interest groups trying to command and control the lives of other people, and the all too predictable response of some of these interest groups who try to gain control of these commanding heights by preventing other people from voting. Given this history, I find your adulation of democracy troubling.

One of your comments earlier in the thread was:

It is also rather silly to claim that a racist vote is immoral - in fact racism is immoral, on message boards, in coffee shops, anywhere. Singling out voting as a particular instance of the evils of racism is beside the larger point - racism is bad, in any form

This is nonsense. It doesn't bother me very much if some anti-Semite living hundreds of miles away from me hates the abstract concept of my identity. It does bother me when this person's bigoted preferences are expressed through the ballot box, and consequently through policy.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:26:36 -0000

What demographic do you belong to being ruled over without consent?

The Lysander Spooner demographic.

Consent, of course, is a self-evidently absurd notion in the absence of unanimity.

Here is Randy Barnett, explaining Why "We the People" is a Fiction:

This point becomes clearer when one realizes that if consent is an expression of a willingness to go along with something, then this presupposes it is possible to express unwillingness. Just as I can say, "I consent," there also must also be a way to say, "I do not consent." I am not here talking about the likelihood of such a refusal or all the considerations that might leave one "little choice" but to consent. Rather, I am simply insisting that, just as the word "no" means the opposite of "yes," for consent to have any meaning, it must be possible to say "I do not consent" instead of "I consent." But notice where the argument has taken us when consent to obey the laws is based on voting: If we vote for a candidate and he wins, we have consented to the laws he votes for, but we have also consented to the laws he votes against. If we vote against the candidate and he wins, we have consented to the laws he votes for or against. And if we do not vote at all, we have consented to the outcome of the process, whatever it may be. It is a queer sort of "consent" where there is no way to refuse. "Heads I win, tails you lose," is the way to describe a rigged contest. "Heads" you consent, "tails" you consent, "didn't flip the coin," guess what? You consent as well. This is simply not consent.

And on The Dangerous Fiction of "We the People":

Some use such slogans as "We are the government" or "the government is us" (though I heard this more frequently in my youth before Vietnam and Watergate). This view of government gives legislators an enormous power to do what they will, provided only that they muster the requisite number of votes. For if "we are the government," then we would seem to consent to anything the government does. The fiction of popular sovereignty, therefore, becomes dangerous when legislatures are conceived of as a literal surrogate for "We the People" themselves. Because "the people" can "consent" to alienate any particular liberty or right - though not their more abstract inalienable rights - legislatures, as the people's surrogate, can restrict almost any liberty and justify it in the name of popular consent. The fiction of popular rule, as opposed to a popular check on rulers, allows a legislature to justifiably do almost anything it wills. And this, in turn, allows majority and minority factions of the electorate to gain control and wield the power of the legislative branch at the expense of the aggregate rights of their fellow citizens.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Don — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:44:38 -0000

Sorry, I am not be eloquent, but your response is incoherent.

What demographic do you belong to being ruled over without consent?

Let's try this again: If people believe their interests are in some way served by the system, they will vote. If they feel excluded by the system, they will not. Therefore, low voter participation is a symptom of a system that isn't resting on the consent and approval of the populace.

And, if you believe that the system lacks legitimacy, by all means there is no sense in legitimizing it by voting. Work outside the system, if you believe that the system can never be responsive to your needs. You may decide this is a fiction (although it seem logical to me), but I don't see how it is dangerous. The degree of voter disinterest and alienation in the United States throughout my life is a sign of the government's illegitimacy. If voter participation spikes in 2008 in response to widespread dissatisfaction with the current administration, that presents an opportunity for the government to restore its legitimacy. If participation dwindles again, it has failed.

Upon reflection, perhaps "legitimacy" is not the precise word, since that is an up or down, legal concept. I think perhaps moral authority is more appropriate.

That moral authority doesn't exist in the first place, to any degree, unless there is a consistent respect for rights. Hence, a popular authoritarian regime doesn't have moral authority and ultimately destroys the free democratic process that confers legitimacy. I haven't advocated legitimacy or moral authority solely by majoritarian force.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

GilM — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:01:15 -0000

Don,

I'm in a demographic being ruled over without consent. And, whether or not I vote has nothing to do with it.

No real moral legitimacy comes from people voting. Some people vote in self-defense. But, if their side loses (or wins), they can still be abused by the winners. Calling it voluntary, or legitimate, because people vote is a ridiculous, dangerous, fiction.

But, if voter participation grants legitimacy to whatever the government decides to do, in the eyes of people like you, then that's a great reason to favor less voter participation.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Don — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:36:33 -0000

Or, to put it yet another way:

There are purely individual sins, like laziness. No one praises laziness, or promotes laziness - it's just easier not to exert effort. I can decide to be lazy all by myself, and there isn't any laziness club.

Then there are uniquely political sins, like racism. Very few people decide, without any prompting, that Jews are the source of all evil. Instead, a political/religious agenda was furthered over centuries by church and political leaders. I can choose to adopt this world view, which will often be based on outright lies from the leaders, but I cannot adopt it unless it exists, and it exists because of the political system.

In the context of the current election, it works as follows. I have, on my own, as a responsible voter, no reason to research every person who serves on a board with Obama. But I do know who Ayers is. Although there appears to be no relationship whatsoever between Ayers actions and philosophy in his youth and Obama, the leaders of the Republican party have singled out and exaggerated the connection between Ayers and Obama to create an impression that Obama secretly holds radical views. As a responsible voter, I preceive that this could be relevant information, and it gives me one more information I need to research and filter - in this case bad information. But other voters, who don't have the time or resources to research the question, might accept that Obama "pals around with terrorists." The political system doesn't place one red herring before voters, but manufactures several every day.

The voter, then, trying to navigate this minefield of misinformation, may vote a prejudice: that Obama favors violence against the government, or that he may secretly do so, when in fact this is merely a smear. You say he should refrain from voting, rather than vote from prejudice or bad information, but he didn't create the bad information, and the bad information/prejudice was invented precisely to coax him to vote. Again, the moral culpability of the dupe is less than minor.

In focusing on individual voter behavior, you are falsely protraying the real dynamic at work. You are, supposedly, focusing on a "collective action" problem, but ignoring the nature of the collective action. The collective action is not driven at the level of the voter.

Similarly, in viewing the question of legitimacy, you again diminish the responsibility of the government/political system. In fact it is the government's moral duty to solicit support of every citizen, because it is taking every citizen's tax money and imposing laws on each of them. You seem to take this on in one sentence: that it is a tenet of classical Republicanism. You reject it, a claim it is an empirical question, and say a functioning democracy can work with less participation. But, of course, a functioning democracy can work if only three people vote - the question is whether that government has any moral legitimacy to use force against the populace. There are tolitarian governments that stage show elections, that function fine as well. They are not legitimate governments because the consent of the individual voter is secured basically by a fraud of presenting only one choice. Similarly, a false legitimacy is promoted whenever a demographic is excluded, either by law or by promoting a system in which certain people are discouraged from participation. If you could actually devise a system in which nonparticipation were inspired by the sort of reflection and self-policing that you suggest, then in fact less voting could be better voting. But, in the real world, voter apathy comes from a sense of helplessness or alienation - people who have needs or wants and believe they are not served by the system. In the real world nonparticipation is a result of certain demographics being excluded and ruled over without consent. In the real world, and in a philosophically pure world, more voting is always better.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Don — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 04:08:46 -0000

An additional point:

You say that bad voting is a collective harm. But I disagree that the collective harm originates in the voters, rather than the parties or candidates. Say, for example, that 10% of the voting population is racist. They would, for bad reasons, vote against a black candidate. But the more likely and greater wrong would be that certain candidates would leverage their attitudes, and not only have them vote against black candidates, but also go out of their way to point out that a white candidate is cozy with blacks, or take that 10% and rile them into activists. The "collective" aspect comes not from the voters, but from the candidates. These prejudices don't spring up in vacuums, after all, ever, but are the products of propaganda campaigns. And this aspect - playing up the worst in people by political leaders - is clearly identifiable, and even preventable, whereas talking about racists and ignorant people self-policing is admittedly useless and directed at something undefined, of uncertain consequence.

And the use to which the argument is put is very predictable, as here: voter registration drives are condemned, since they include the poor and the young, who are somehow suboptimal voters. Your argument serves no purpose whatsoever, and is inexplicable in ignoring major moral ills in the system, except that it can be used to reinforce certain prejudices among certain conservatives and libertarians.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Don — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:17:59 -0000

Jason,

You point out my most fundamental disagreement with your view. Let's examine it.

The very nature of a right is that it may be exercised in controversial or socially harmful ways. Hence, we have debates on the limits of rights - whether it be pornography, rap music, negligent parenting, etc. Generally, those who accept the notion that free speech is a right will accept that the right should be freely exercised, unless there is a concrete and severe harm. So, in the end, the right is limited by fairly exigent examples. Broader arguments against free speech - such as the argument that there is some statistical connection between pornography and rape or even sexism - are inherently dangerous, and when they are made, they are essentially covert attacks on the right itself. Again, because acceptance of the notion of a right is an acceptance of the inherent legitimacy of self-determination, not the acceptance of the choices made through that self-determination.

Hence, it is commonplace and unexceptional to comment that we all wish that others would make different choices, or that some people make bad choices in the area of rights. I have no problem saying that it would be better if people would refrain from making violent porn or rap music, or if they would read books on child development. It makes sense to make information and education available to people on all topics, so they can live their lives, and exercise their rights, in ways that benefit all. The odd thing about voting, unlike rap music or bad parenting - we can't even define clearly who the bad voters are, or what their influence is. So, it's a little odd to even discuss them.

So, this isn't a question of rights. Instead, you make it a question of morality, and quite a useless one, because you note that it is one that to have any effect requires self-policing. But, as a matter of morality, it is exceedingly odd to single out a right. You say it is morally wrong to participate in a neo-Nazi rally. But that really is just a tiny slice of the moral question at issue. It is morally wrong to be an anti-semite - in the privacy of one's thoughts, at the dinner table, or at a rally. You are issuing an odd injunction: not, "forsake racism" but "don't exercise the franchise in a racist manner." But the practical reality is, as long as racism exists in society, there will be racists voting. Instead of - as anyone who's main concern was morality would be - opposing racism, laziness, and prejudice, you choose to condemn only one action: voting. But, again, voting isn't the moral issue: the underlying attitude is - voting being one manifestion of an actual problem.

Which, frankly, is troubling in a world with a history of movements to prevent the "wrong" people from voting. Given this history, and given that "bad" voting is undefinable, I find your focus troubling.

And, even more to the point, the value of democracy (at least from my perspective) is that racists and ignorant people can and do express their preferences, for several reasons. The government imposes force on the government, and democracy is a way to philosophically legitimize that force. It may be my preference to have no jews in the government. Bigot though I am, I get my say over how I am governed: this is self-determination. If stupid people choose a stupid government, that is an expression of their will, and government gains legitimacy from their will.and nothing else: not the will of a few, or the best, as all are equally subjects. There is no higher value involved. Additionally, I would rather have immoral influences worked out through the electoral process than left to fester in dark corners. The value of democracy thus has nothing to do with the ultimate policy choices.

Now, perhaps I just missed this, but it seems to me that you paid lip service to the value of democracy and rights by merely saying that it would be wrong to force people not to vote or participate in neo-Nazi rallies. I differ. I want people with neo-Nazi attitudes to participate in the political process (the problem with neo-Nazis as a party being not that they are bigots that they ultimately will want to replace democracy and self-determination with force - this is a problem that I will explain a bit below). Only though the open struggle between "bad" and "good" ideas do we progress, and it is a human right to be heard by those who legitimize force over you, however, stupid the exercise.

The neo-Nazi question comes down to whether a political party (not a voter) should be able to advocate for the overthrow of liberal democracy (that is, respect for personal automony and democratic process). This seems to me a different question, more along the lines of limits on free speech at the extreme edges. One can be an anti-semite or racist, and vote against candidates because of race or religion, and not violate the fundamental tenets of liberal democracy. This may not lead to good policy choices, but that isn't the object.

Perhaps you addressed this. If so, I'm sorry I didn't understand.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Jason Brennan — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:03:14 -0000

Don,

May I suggest that you read the paper? Nearly every criticism you have made either mischaracterizes my position or is a criticism I have explicitly addressed and responded to in the paper. So, in the later kinds of cases, if you think my response to those criticisms fails, you would want to explain why. (This means accounting for what my response is. You are making criticisms I thought of on my own and responded 10 months ago when I wrote the first draft.) But so far, unfortunately, I haven't gotten a single objection from you (or, alas, anyone else on this forum) worth considering for when I expand this paper in book form a few years from now. So, it would be a big favor to me (and to my character, perhaps) if you could read the paper and carefully explain where I go wrong, rather than writing the kinds of things you have been writing.

For instance: Your point about wholeheartedly endorsing the right to vote: In the opening paragraph, I wholeheartedly endorse the right to vote as being a right, not a privilege. I then point out that the right to X doesn't imply the rightness of X-ing. (This is, by the way, an uncontroversial claim among rights theorists.)

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Don — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:12:38 -0000

There are only two choices:

One supports, wholeheartedly, the exercise of the franchise as a political right (not a privilege, like driving).

One does not support the exercise of the franchise as a right, but rather seeks to curtail exercise of the right, by direct or indirect means.

Certainly everyone disagrees with others' exercise of rights: for example, I can abstractly wish that free speech wasn't exercised through rap music, or that people would breed only when they were financially prepared. This complaint that not everyone exercises rights responsibly is trivial. It is exceedingly odd to couch this largely irrelevant complaint in the form of a long, supposedly philosophical discourse. By taking the complaint seriously, there is an implied assault on the underlying value of democracy. That is why there is such a strong reaction: the author is laying out a framework for rejecting democracy, while disingenuously claiming that he supports voting as a right.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Steve M. — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:08:12 -0000

Touché.

Although, as an unreconstructed Millian (at least of the On Liberty variety), I believe I am obligated to disagree with whatever Kierkegaard has to say. if I don't, they might throw me out of the meeting next Monday.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Don — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:34:54 -0000

Jason,

Actually, there are so many points that you miss.

First, why do you even equate voting in the modern environment with "policy?" Voters in 2000 weren't informed of the problems with the intelligence megaplex. They weren't asked if we should invade Iraq. No pol that I can recall ran on the notion that something needed to be done about the housing bubble in 2004. These are the most important policy choices of the last eight years, and they were absent from discourse. Interestingly, the solutions adopted to each for Republicans and Democrats, were identical.

Second, you don't even begin to understand the underpinnings of democracy. Democracy is justified on the theory that government has legitimacy only by consent of the governed. The "governed" includes the entire body politic - sinners and saints, intelligent and unintelligent. There isn't any use complaining about the fact that some people are lazy or immoral - that is already assumed in the equation when one adopts democracy as a value. It is also rather silly to claim that a racist vote is immoral - in fact racism is immoral, on message boards, in coffee shops, anywhere. Singling out voting as a particular instance of the evils of racism is beside the larger point - racism is bad, in any form - and does not respect the underlying value of democracy - that is self-determination in itself, regardless of whether the exercise is laudable or not.

Pointing out that your argument is fundamentally immoral isn't rude. I thought we were talking about morality.

Cowardice isn't much of a moral value, either, btw.

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

webgrrl — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:51:06 -0000

"the entire adult citizenry will, in the long run, tend to exercise power more responsibly"

Of course, Kierkegaard argues otherwise, that "the crowd" ought not vote:

"Wherever the crowd is, there is untruth, so that, for a moment to carry the matter out to its farthest conclusion, even if every individual possessed the truth in private, yet if they came together into a crowd (so that "the crowd" received any decisive, voting, noisy, audible importance), untruth would at once be let in. "

- On the Dedication to "That Single Individual"

A crowd - not this or that, one now living or long dead, a crowd of the lowly or of nobles, of rich or poor, etc., but in its very concept - is untruth, since a crowd either renders the single individual wholly unrepentant and irresponsible, or weakens his responsibility by making it a fraction of his decision." (emphasis added)

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Steve M. — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:59:43 -0000

Professor Brennan's point seems to me to be an astonishingly trivial one. Indeed, it's so trivial that I would think it uncontroversial. People should behave responsibly when exercising political authority. They shouldn't exercise power badly, and they especially shouldn't do so ignorantly. Votes lead to policies. Policies have real effects on people's lives. No serious person thinks judges and legislators should vote without looking at the relevant evidence, or purely for reasons of self-expression. (Though, I suppose, one does sometimes hear the deeply immoral claim that we should keep criminal laws on the books -- and use them against real people -- to "express our moral sentiments" or to "send a message that we disapprove" of unpopular conduct.)

The clamor here is a little strange. I would have thought being a democrat *just is* holding the belief that the entire adult citizenry will, in the long run, tend to exercise power more responsibly than any elite we can identify. I suppose one could think securing the consent of the governed *requires* maximal voter participation, but I don't quite understood why, given some well-known chestnuts from public choice theory and studies of viting behavior, that isn't really an argument for liberalism or libertarianism. Call me a Millian, I guess. Though I will say that the self-refuting partisanship and vitriol of the criticism expressed here is amusing -- after all, why care so much whether the political system and culture encourage the maximum possible number of people vote unless one suspects that a system in which everyone who possibly can votes is, for entirely prosaic reasons, *better* than the alternatives?

One comparison here is to driving. Not the duty ot drive responsibly, which has already been raised. But the intense, vitriolic reaction to calls to monitor the driving skills of the very elderly. Or even to the suggestion that the very elderly should keep their diminishing faculties in mind, and not drive unless they're sure they're able to do so safely. People can get angry when someone makes that suggestion, but I've always thought it a trivial claim. Almost as if supporting the driving right -- and its unfettered exercise -- serves an important signalling function.

I should disclose, though I shouldn't have to, that I'm a thoroughgoing democrat. And I think that the United States would be better off if it had higher levels of voter participation. That doesn't mean, however, that voters who vote by flipping a coin or by voting for the better-looking candidate vote responsibly. How it that notion possibly be controversial?

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Thomas C. — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:08:14 -0000

This reminds me of one of those bad arguments on the LSAT:

18. People should be public-spirited, and act with the common good in mind. When enough people vote badly–from ignorance or bias, for example–the result is often bad policy. The quality of policy matters to the public good. Higher-quality democratic decisions, and better policy, can be secured if bad voters choose to abstain. Because the personal cost of not voting badly is so low, a public-spirited person shouldn’t do it. And it seems that a lot of people are quite likely to vote badly. So there are many people who, if they care about the common good, ought to choose not to vote.

The reasoning in the above argument is flawed because it fails to consider:

A) That people who vote badly may not be able to recognize this fact.
B) That voting badly may create benefits which offset or exceed the harm to policy.
C) The quantity of people voting badly may not be enough to cause bad policy to occur.
D) Because each assumption, while probably true, has a significant chance of being incorrect, and it is therefore likely that some assumption is wrong, even though any given assumption is probably correct (this would never appear as an LSAT answer though)
E) All of the above

Re: New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan

Thomas C. — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:02:13 -0000

A parallel argument could be made that bad parents should not have children--- and while you might attempt to distinguish the two arguments in any number of ways, I think that the parallel holds. It *is true* that bad parents should not have children, but to advance the argument in any serious way that they should self-select out is either 1) going to be utterly ineffective as those who possess the traits to be bad parents are not likely to have the patience, judgment, and civic intentions needed to adhere to the principal or 2) May in fact be harmful, as arguing that certain people should not have children may have real psychic/social costs. So, while it might be a "good argument" in the abstract that society would be better off if bad parents elected not to have children, the argument is not a "good argument" in the real world sense--- it is an academic bauble, not to be taken seriously.

The argument might be made that two congenitally deaf people with a 100% chance of having a deaf baby should not having (sure to be deaf) children, but it may well be that the cost of dissuading them from having children (anger, resentment, alienation) exceeds the cost of not attempting to dissuade them.