TGIF: Who Rules? That Is Not the Question

by | Sep 8, 2023

TGIF: Who Rules? That Is Not the Question

by | Sep 8, 2023

vote

Today’s two major contenders for political power seem to be elitists and populists. Funnily enough, both types are present in each of the big tribes known as progressive/liberal and conservatism, left and right, or Democratic and Republican. (Here’s the lowdown on paleoconservative elitists.)

However, the elitist/populist framework should leave everyone dissatisfied. It omits too many details. Namely, it presents a contest apparently over who should rule: an anointed elite or “the people,” which is not always well-defined. I put the term in quotes because the whole people cannot possibly rule.

The common framework ignores the far more fundamental question: which rules? In other words, what are the rulers, whoever they are, proposing to do? Exactly which orders are to be enacted as legislation and imposed by force? Are there to be limits on this rule? By what means? What happens if the limits are breached, as they have been constantly over the years?

That’s what libertarians care about first: the rules. Who rules comes second. But everyone should care about this. Under certain rules, it wouldn’t matter who was “in charge.” Imagine a rule against anyone — even “rulers” —  initiating force in any way against anyone else.

The problem is that the rules typically administered by the state, including representative democracies, shouldn’t exist. We shouldn’t want anyone enforcing those rules because they are bad rules. They may constitute legislation, but, as F. A. Hayek and others have taught, they are not (natural) law.

We cannot assume that populist, or unfiltered democratic, rule would be preferable in all circumstances to elitist rule. I think of the self-styled “extreme libertarian” H. L. Mencken’s famous observation, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

Take the Federal Reserve System — please! If a gun were held on me, I’d choose the current system over a Fed run by Congress or by plebiscite. I’m not sure that’s a tough call, but I’m marking on a steep curve. (Ron Paul wanted to end the Fed, not hand it over to “the people.”)

In The Myth of the Rational Voter, libertarian economist Bryan Caplan reports that surveys consistently indicate that better-educated individuals tend to give more sensible answers on economic-policy questions than the general, less-educated population do and thus are less, say, anti-trade and anti-foreign.  What might that mean for trade, immigration, and even monetary policies? Of course there shouldn’t be trade, immigration, and monetary policies. They override individual freedom, cooperation, and spontaneous order.

Look across the Atlantic and consider Brexit. With good reason, a majority of Britons didn’t like policies being made by distant and largely unaccountable politicians and bureaucrats. Most voters chose to exit, that is, they opted for decentralization. At the same time they favored nationalism and national sovereignty, that is, immigration control and protectionism.

Notice what wasn’t on the ballot: individual sovereignty — not just for Britons but for everyone. In the Brexit case, decentralization coincided with more national government power over the freedom to trade and to deal with would-be migrants. That’s hardly a win if the standard is individual liberty. (Decentralization has a potential advantage: it lowers the cost of voting with one’s feet.)

It’s not that “the people” are stupid — far from it. While most of us are reasonably competent in normal life, in the political realm we face special incentives and disincentives that make us act stupid. When one vote is impotent, why would most individuals spend scarce time and money studying complicated subjects to investigate whether to vote for Smith or Jones? They might as well vote their feelings and biases. Besides, most individual voters will bear a only microscopic fraction of the total expense that the winning candidate will help to impose. Bad incentives all around.

Admittedly, democracy as a way to pick officeholders is certainly preferable to violence in the streets, but that is faint praise. We can do better.

But we don’t want an elite to rule either. Elitism’s track record here and elsewhere is nothing to brag about. It includes war, depression, and other lamentable political maladies. Of course, the rejection of elitism doesn’t mean the wholesale rejection of expertise, as some people seem to think. That would be irrational. Who doesn’t consult a doctor when ill? No, what must be avoided is endowing select experts with access to political power. The damage can be seen in the recent pandemic.

The alternative to elitism isn’t more democracy, which would trade one form of authoritarianism for another. The alternative is individual liberty in markets and civil society, and that calls for the strictest limitation on — as we work for the elimination of — all coercive political power. The objective is to free all peaceful relations from government. Instead of elitism and populism, let’s have individual liberty and cooperation.

Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman is the executive editor of The Libertarian Institute and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com. He is the former senior editor at the Cato Institute and Institute for Humane Studies; former editor of The Freeman, published by the Foundation for Economic Education; and former vice president at the Future of Freedom Foundation. His latest books are Coming to Palestine and What Social Animals Owe to Each Other.

View all posts

Our Books

libertarian inst books

Related Articles

Related

TGIF: “We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us”

TGIF: “We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us”

The famous line "We have met the enemy and he is us" is from Walt Kelly's comic strip, Pogo. Kelly adapted the line from a U.S. naval commandant who, during the War of 1812 against Great Britain, reported to his superior, “We have met the enemy and they are ours.”...

read more
Rights for the Synthetic

Rights for the Synthetic

"The future of human-AI coexistence depends on acknowledging the potential for sentient machines and reevaluating responsibilities towards them. It's crucial to consider the ethical implications of creating beings that may possess their own interests, desires, and...

read more
A Critique of Pure Hasbara

A Critique of Pure Hasbara

Hasbara is a central feature of genocidal Zionism: “Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has successfully created a new illogic of its own; an illogic that has made the illegal seem legal, the immoral appear moral and the undemocratic sound democratic. It has...

read more
On Wealth Inequality, the Left Has a Point

On Wealth Inequality, the Left Has a Point

The federal government has been waging a war against the middle class and working poor since at least 1970. Wealth inequality has steadily increased since the early 1970s, and it’s not a coincidence. It’s a result of a series of policies. The government wants the...

read more
Joe Biden’s Time Interview Should Set Off Alarms

Joe Biden’s Time Interview Should Set Off Alarms

On May 28, U.S. President Joe Biden gave an interview to Time. His delivery and content were concerning for a number of reasons. Biden, at times, seemed misinformed and detached from reality. Sometimes, he seemed off message; other times, he seemed convinced by his...

read more
DOJ, Lay Off Live Nation!

DOJ, Lay Off Live Nation!

Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) finally came out with their long anticipated antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment. Alleging anti-competitive practices which “suffocates its competition,” everyone’s least favorite Attorney General (since...

read more

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This