Should dumb people be allowed to vote? That’s the provocative question posed by Jason Brennan, an associate professor of strategy, economics, ethics, and public policy at Georgetown University and the author of the recently released book Against Democracy, in an essay published last week on Aeon and on Quartz. - Jesse Singal, What a Georgetown Professor Got Wrong When He Argued That Maybe Dumb People Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Vote
Brennan, of Bleeding Hearts Libertarians, recently wrote a book advocating epistocracy – the argument that politics ought to be restricted to those who know enough to participate in it. Specifically, he suggests among other possibilities that voting ought to be restricted to those who demonstrate in an exam that they have sufficient knowledge of politics to be allowed participate. - Henry Farrell, Uber Menschen
It's super fascinating to see so much backlash against requiring a license to vote. Part of the fascination stems in no small part from the fact that ignorance is frequently used as an argument against allowing people to choose where their taxes go (pragmatarianism). Somewhat ironically, my counter-argument is rational ignorance.
Bob: people are too ignorant to allocate their taxes
Me: you're ignorant about rational ignorance
If you're not entirely ignorant about economics then you know that our society is based on a division of labor. Specialization increases productivity. But a division of labor is the same thing as a division of knowledge. However, a division of knowledge really isn't an argument against choice. You'll have to search pretty long and hard in order to find an economist who will argue that doctors shouldn't be allowed to choose which accountants, plumbers, mechanics, lawyers, contractors and gardeners they allocate their money to.
What would happen if we did prevent doctors from choosing who they allocated their money to? We can logically guess that it would no longer be worthwhile for doctors to engage in due diligence. There'd be no point in the doctors spending their time and energy shopping around.
The idea of a division of labor/knowledge means that it's rational that we aren't experts in everything. But the idea of rational ignorance means that choice is correlated with a certain amount of knowledge outside our area of expertise. This "extra" knowledge is eliminated when choice is eliminated.
We don't allow kids to vote. Therefore... what? Therefore we can reasonably guess that kids are more knowledge about things they can choose (musicians) than things they can't choose (representatives). We don't allow kids to allocate their taxes. Therefore... what? Therefore, we can reasonably guess that kids are more knowledge about things they can choose (video games) than things they can't choose (environmental protection).
Should we be worried about kids spending their taxes on the wrong things? Well yeah. In all cases we should be worried about money being spent on the wrong things. But... relatively speaking... it's not like kids would have very many taxes to spend. Same thing with idiots.
In my opinion... Jason Brennan is right to be worried about idiots... but he doesn't quite understand the relationship between choice and knowledge. He doesn't understand that more choice means more knowledge. As a result, he's trying to solve a really big problem by going in the really wrong direction. Right diagnosis, wrong remedy (rothberror).
What's your opinion?