Jump to Navigation
Home

Main menu

  • Home
  • News
  • Markets Map
  • Sentiments
  • Topics
  • Data
  • Comments
  • Images
  • Blog
  • About

Secondary menu

  • Latest News
  • Top Rated
  • Most Popular
  • Archive
  • Discussions
  • CHART OF THE DAY: The Long View Of Amazon (AMZN)
  • H7N9 Is More Adapted To Spread Among Humans Than Other...
  • America's Hottest CEOs Are Devoting More Time Than...
  • Analysis: Markets face rough summer ride as Fed pullback...
  • Chart Of The "Keynesian Normal": America's...
  • Dish Secures $9 Billion in Financing for Sprint Bid
  • Bringing Skepticism (and Math) to Electric Vehicle Fuel...
  • Bull Of The Day: Flowers Foods
  • 4 Market Risks Worth Worrying About
  • The Most Scandalous Gowns On The Cannes Red Carpet

    Democracy: in defence of scepticism

    Thu, 02/03/2011 - 10:11 EDT - Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Comments

    In one of those “suddenly everyone gives a damn about Egypt” pieces, David Aaronovitch (£) says that scepticism about democracy “dovetails into the aggressive apologia that undemocratic regimes invent for themselves.” This is silly.Those of us who are sceptical about democracy do not deny that democracy is superior to dictatorship - not least because, As David says, democracy is intrinsically good even if its consequences leave something to be desired.Instead, our concern is that there are trade-offs between democracy and other values such as liberty or justice. These trade-offs are not a big problem in benighted nations, as these are so far from the efficient frontier of values that they can (possibly) achieve more of every one. But they are more pressing in liberal democracies.And herein lies my beef with the so-called decent left. For me - and I’ll grant this might be just a personal idiosyncrasy - the issue is not one of liberal democracy versus dictatorship. Arguing that the former is superior is like me saying I’m a better guitarist than Abu Hamza. It is uninterestingly true, because our standards should be much higher, Instead, there are two more interesting questions. One is: are there ways of improving existing democratic institutions? In particular, can we mobilize the local knowledge of people, rather than their mere irrationalities and prejudices?My hunch is that this might be possible - be it through more associative or deliberative democracy such as citizens’ juries; through demand-revealing referenda (making people pay is a way of making them think); or perhaps through efforts to wise people up to their cognitive biases.The second question is: why are there trade-offs between democracy and other values? Could it be that it is (partly) because cognitive biases and adaptive preferences help to entrench support for inequality. The problem is that empty sloganeering about the value of democracy, in effect, functions to deflect attention away from these questions. In doing so it helps to entrench an imperfect - and, I would stress, inegalitarian - quasi-democracy.

    • Original article
    • Login or register to post comments
     

    Related

    • Occupy, & democracies

      Liberty, said John Stuart Mill, “is often granted where it should be withheld, as well as withheld where it should be granted.” I’ve often thought that the same could be said for democracy. And this is how we should interpret the Occupy movements.

    • Democracy, liberty & minarets

      In an earlier post, I wrote: “There’s a conflict between liberty and democracy.” The Swiss decision to ban minarets illustrates this perfectly.

    • Character, institutions & the left

      What’s the relationship between personal character and political institutions? I’m prompted to ask by Laurie Penny’s call for us to change the world, not ourselves: Why should we improve ourselves? Wouldn't it be a lot more useful - and a lot more liberating - finally to accept our own filth and fallibility and try instead to change the world for the better?

    • The Incentive Compatibility of Dictatorship

      Dani Rodrick has a widely praised piece about the superior economic performance of liberal democracies relative to authoritarian countries:

    • In defence of tribalism

      Liam Murray says he really dislikes tribalism in politics. My motives for voting, though, were tribal. So, I'll try and defend tribalism.It's justification lies in the fact that our knowledge and rationality are bounded. No-one is, or can be, an expert on all policy areas. And no-one knows what future issues will arise that could well shape the next government.

    • Media bullying and cognitive biases

      Reading Andrew Rawnsley’s piece on Gordon Brown’s “attack machine” reminded me of Kahneman and Tversky’s paper, “Conflict Resolution: A Cognitive Perspective“*. In this, they show that cognitive biases can lead to overly aggressive, and counter-productive, negotiating behaviour. The same biases, I suspect, can help explain why people - Brown, Terry, Schillings, Carter-Ruck and the like - try to bully the media, only to end up looking stupid.

    • Does Germany or Greece leave the Euro first?

      I've heard (non-serious) talk that Germany should leave the Eurozone instead of Greece.  The Euro would then fall in value and all would be better, supposedly.

    • Cognitive biases & state intervention

      Leigh Caldwell says that, thanks in part to people’s cognitive biases, markets can fail and so “Government regulation …may be a way of improving how the market works rather than replacing it.” His use of the word “may” is well judged. The fact that decision-making is subject to cognitive biases is not, in itself, an argument for government intervention, because governments can be as irrational as market participants.

    • Gordon Brown: a defence

      Gordon Brown says he has “has nothing to apologise for” about the recession. You know, I think he has a point.

    • In defence of bonuses

      Everyone’s moaning about “bonus culture.” So I will too. You know what the problem with “bonus culture” is? There ain’t enough of it.Now, I’m not defending bankers’ multi-million bonuses - they were just legalized extortion. What I mean is that a bonus should be a larger part of ordinary workers’ salaries. I say so for four reasons:

    Latest

    Seaworld Antarctica Opens: Empire of the Penguin
    Seaworld Antarctica Opens: Empire of the Penguin
    Chart Of The "Keynesian Normal": America's Tragic Divergence
    Chart Of The "Keynesian Normal":...

    User login

    • Create new account
    • Request new password
    • Click on the icon to sign in with your social network login or enter your Bullfax.com login

    Our Blog

    • Pandora: the charm might fade away
    • Japanese Market, Indian Rupee, China’s Stocks and Oil Prices in Our Daily Round-Up for 05/23/2013
    • IMF calls on Osborne to spend on infrastructure

    Markets Map

    Markets Map

    Follow Us

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS
    S&P 500: 1650.51 -0.29% FTSE: 6696.79 -2.14% Nikk.: 14483.98 -7.89% DAX: 8351.98 -2.14% HSI: 22669.68 -2.61% FX: EUR/GBP: 1.1682 USD/EUR: 1.2933 JPY/USD: 101.955 Commodities: Gold: 1392.40

    Bullfax.com - Market News & Analysis 2008-2011
    Contact Us | About Us | Terms & Conditions

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS .

    Secondary menu

    • Latest News
    • Top Rated
    • Most Popular
    • Archive
    • Discussions