What is the crowd's opinion of
The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies - New Edition?
From 3.5 billion comments
32 reviews of this product found across the web:
Demokrasinin en zayıf yönü: seçmenlerin kimi neden seçeceği hakkında bilgi sahibi olmaması ve çoğu kişinin aslında rastgele oy kullanması. Çoğu kişi çünkü kimi seçeceği hakkında araştırma, okuma yapacak vakti yok. Bu kitapta bahsediyor.
> How are monopolies not irredeemable failures of a laissez faire market?
Because the solution to monopolies is not... a monopoly. In any case, monopolies are pretty much always state enforced or short lived. Even Standard Oil was heavily broken by the time anti-trust legislation against them (pushed by a competitor, big surprise there) was adopted.
Monopolies are only bad if they actively prevent competition and use their position to extract higher prices from consumers. Just because something is a monopoly does not mean it's bad for consumers. A monopoly can exist and consumers may not care because nobody can compete to provide a better service at a lower cost.
> How are information asymmetries not irredeemable failures of a laissez faire market?
Information asymmetries are byproducts of life. You definitely can't solve them through government, because everyone knows the Myth of the Rational Voter. If people can't make ideal purchasing decisions, they sure as hell can't make ideal political decisions.
> Land monopoly was demonstratably the direct reason behind the feudal system
No, that's a huge misunderstanding of history. Also, there is no one "feudal system". It is a very poor way of describe an incredibly complex series of allegiances, practices, and cultures across centuries. It'd be like reducing all of the governments today into 1 model.
> we found ourselves under in the Medieval period
Damn, you must be old. But I, in fact, was not under feudalism in the Medieval period. I was not born yet.
Democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be. All you're really doing in the end is replacing a boss with either politicians or collective incompetence. Read Myth of the Rational Voter. The basic premise is that you have limited capacity for information, and likely have expertise in only a limited number of areas, thus you're likely not good at choosing good policies on a wide variety of topics.
Additionally, there are workers who absolutely do not want to bear the burden of controlling (and being on the hook for) an equal share of a business. I.e. they just want to work for a set wage and go home and not have to worry about how the business is doing (to the extent that they still have a job the next morning, but that's where it ends).
There's also the matter of how to even get a worker co-op off the ground. It is much more feasible for an entrepreneur to pitch a business plan to a bank/investors and acquire the necessary capital to get the business started. Organizing a bunch of workers together (who are more workers and not so entrepreneurial) to accomplish the same feat is going to be tricky, to say the least.
I honestly don't mind if people want to try. I know a handful have been somewhat successful. More power to 'em. I just don't see it being the only model, thus if it is going to exist it needs to exist in a free market where there are also traditional capitalist-organized structures, where workers have the choice of which type of organization at which to seek employment.
I'll just address one thing you said.
> Educated adults are more likely to be informed about and participate in electoral politics.
Except there is The myth of the rational voter.
Most adults who have gone through 12 years of public education and then 4 years of college are still woefully uninformed and/or misinformed about most major topics of politics: economics, medicine, ethics, philosophy, military policy, business, etc.
Hell, the US history taught in public school is so laughably incorrect that calling anyone who graduates from high school "informed about electoral politics" is a strong claim to make. Half the people on this website still think US Steel and Comcast are examples of free market monopolies.
The political landscape wouldn't look that much different if these people never went to college, and a ton of money would be saved for more productive uses.
>Well, we as a society have decided that...
No, some men with political power and guns decided they would extort you this way. If you think democracy and a majority legitimizes taking from people against their will, I'm not sure what to say to you.
>Oh. Erm. Care to explain why an educated populace doesn't benefit us all?
Several reasons:
What is considered 'education' is the mind-numbing of children by placing them in rows for 8 hours a day and having them memorize useless facts. The government has kids for TWELVE years and they leave high school with no skills worth value to an employer, hence the need to go to the extended high school that we now call undergraduate college.
Educating all people to the same level regardless of the intelligence or abilities is a waste of resources that could be better spent
Educating people doesn't matter to the health of a democracy. See The Myth of the Rational Voter
A more pertinent book would be Bryan Caplan's <em>The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Make Bad Choices</em>. Individual voters have no incentive to inform themselves; they know their vote will never swing the outcome of an election, so the biggest payoff for them is to vote in a way that makes them feel good.
Thoroughly debunked
Leftist rich citygoers vote against their own objective economic interest too, don't be so surprised! Voting is about social signalling, not securing optimal outputs for yourself
The Myth of the Rational Voter by Bryan Caplan
Publisher's Blurb: The greatest obstacle to sound economic policy is not entrenched special interests or rampant lobbying, but the popular misconceptions, irrational beliefs, and personal biases held by ordinary voters. This is economist Bryan Caplan's sobering assessment in this provocative and eye-opening book. Caplan argues that voters continually elect politicians who either share their biases or else pretend to, resulting in bad policies winning again and again by popular demand.
Boldly calling into question our most basic assumptions about American politics, Caplan contends that democracy fails precisely because it does what voters want. Through an analysis of Americans' voting behavior and opinions on a range of economic issues, he makes the convincing case that noneconomists suffer from four prevailing biases: they underestimate the wisdom of the market mechanism, distrust foreigners, undervalue the benefits of conserving labor, and pessimistically believe the economy is going from bad to worse. Caplan lays out several bold ways to make democratic government work better--for example, urging economic educators to focus on correcting popular misconceptions and recommending that democracies do less and let markets take up the slack.
The Myth of the Rational Voter takes an unflinching look at how people who vote under the influence of false beliefs ultimately end up with government that delivers lousy results. With the upcoming presidential election season drawing nearer, this thought-provoking book is sure to spark a long-overdue reappraisal of our elective system.
All four of your arguments against laissez-faire are also arguments against government intervention. The state is a monopoly; market failures are the exception in the economic market but the rule in the political market; the government often fails at internalizing externalities and creates new negative externalities; and voters are even more irrational than consumers.
https://www.amazon.ca/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691138737
Myth of the Rational student voter
Check out this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691138737
​
And this lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5maguX5x8c
​
If you want to go deeper, look up public choice theory.
Yes, the guy who doesn't participate is the problem.
Read Caplan: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691138737
So this is why we needed Caplan's Myth of the Rational Voter.
VI. Logrolling and Vote Trading
The public choice concept of ‘ logrolling ’ denotes the exchange of favors among the political factions in order to get one’s favored project through by supporting the projects of the other group. This conduct leads to the steady expansion of state activity. Through the ‘quid pro quo’ of the political process, the lawmakers support pieces of legislation of other factions in exchange for obtaining the political support for their own project. This behavior leads to the phenomenon of ‘legislative inflation’, the avalanche of useless, contradictory and detrimental law production.
VII. Common Good
The so-called ‘ common good’ is not a well-defined concept. Similar terms, such as that of the ‘public good’, which is defined by non-excludability and non-rivalry, misses the point because it is not the good that is ‘common’ or ‘public’ but its provision when this is deemed more efficient by collective than individual efforts. However, this is the case with all goods and the market itself is a system of providing private goods through cooperative efforts. The market economy is a collective provider of goods as it combines competition with cooperation. Any of the so-called ‘public goods’, which the government supplies, the private sector can also deliver, and cheaper and better as well. In contrast to the state, the cooperation in a market economy includes competition and thus not only economic efficiency but also the incentive to innovate.
VIII. Regulatory Capture
The term ‘ regulatory capture ’ denotes a government failure where the regulatory agency does not pursue the original intent of promoting the ‘public interest’ but falls victim to the special interest of those groups, which the agency was set up to regulate. The capture of the regulatory body by private interests means that the agency turns into an instrument to advance the special interests of the group that was targeted for regulation. For that purpose, the special interest group will ask for extra regulation to obtain the state apparatus as an instrument to promote its special interests.
IX. Short-Sightedness
The political time horizon is the next election. In the endeavor that the benefits of political action come quickly to their specific clienteles, the politician will favor short-term projects over the long-term even if the former bring only temporary benefits and cost more in the long run than an alternative project where the costs come earlier and the benefits later. Because the provision of public goods by the state severs the link between the bearer of the cost and the immediate beneficiary, the time preference for the demand for the goods that come apparently free of charge by the state is necessarily higher than in the market system.
X. Rational Ignorance
It is rational for the individual voter in a mass democracy to remain ignorant about the political issues because the value of the individual's vote is so small that it makes not much difference for the outcome. The rational voter will vote for those candidates who promise most benefits. Given the small weight of an individual vote in a mass democracy, the rational voter will not spend much time and effort to investigate whether these promises are realistic or in a collision with his other desires. Thus, the political campaigns do not have information and enlightenment as the objective but disinformation and confusion. What counts, in the end, is to get votes. Not the solidity of the program is important but the enthusiasm a candidate can create with his supporters and how much he can degrade, denounce, and humiliate his opponent. As a consequence, election campaigns incite hatred, polarization, and the lust for revenge.
>When you claim the government collecting taxes is theft, you are claiming the government has no right to collect taxes. For example, a parent can strike a child without that child having recourse to pressing assault charges. A parent can ground a child without the child having recourse to kidnapping and false imprisonment charges. This is because parents have the right to do those things to the children under their authority. Likewise, the state has certain rights it secures over the people under its authority.<
This is a terrible analogy. The government isn't a family. They aren't our parents. It's a separate entity full of people you and I don't know. Taxation is theft, but I pay my taxes only because I don't want to spend my time in prison.
>I never said the common good is from the state. The common good exists anytime you have two people in the same room. What I, and the Church, are saying is that it is the responsibility of the state to safeguard the common good.<
My apologies - I thought you did say that. But my point remains, though. What I'm saying is that if The State only supports the protection of property rights and courts, then I'll concede to your point, although I do believe that The State isn't necessary for either of those functions. However, a limited State hardly exists. It's expansive powers corrode away at individual freedoms, are riddled with bureaucratic waste, and it supplies benefits in the form of rents to the concentrated and well-informed while socializing the costs on the dispersed and uninformed. That's the logic of public choice. Because resources are scarce, we need to take extreme care that those resources aren't wasted. I'm arguing that the government, by it's very nature, does create waste when it transfers resources from X to Y, which comes at the expense of everyone else.
I'm guessing you'll reply with "doesn't matter - although the government might be doing bad things A, B, and C, it's still promoting the common good by doing D, E, and F." So how should we fix this? I think you'll say "exercise their power" by voting or calling their legislators, but voting is an unaccountable action that pollutes democracy and, in the case of activist governments, lead to terrible policies that come at the expense of the general welfare. I think we can do better than that. You're right that if I conceded to your point (based on my comment above), then what I'd accept the fact that some tax is owed. However, because of those biases and realities, I would argue that starving the beast (withholding taxes) is the more ethical approach to direct government toward promoting only the common good.
But I have also been arguing that there is no way to know if the government is promoting the common good. There is no metric that will assure an outside observer (you) that the loss to A (me) from being forced to pay for G's (government) common good intervention on behalf of B (a stranger) is less than the loss to B of persisting in a world without that particular public good. Because there is no solid evidence, or strong reason to believe, that A's losses aren't at least as great as B's gains from G's action, the presumption of liberty should keep G and B out of A's pocket.
This is getting pretty long, but I think I've addressed all your points. But regarding FICA, all I'm trying to show is that it is possible that your dollar can be earmarked. What that means to me is that the government does have the ability to institute a tax for a very specific purpose (which does happen - especially in local governments). If I was guaranteed that my money was earmarked only to the provision of courts and property rights, then I'll concede as I mentioned above. But to a large degree (with exceptions), we don't know where our money is going and, to me, that is the problem.
Fake news shouldn't be that hard to define. It's mostly exemplified by hyperpartisan news sources that either doesn't completely fact check it's information or presents information that is misleading due to lack of sufficient pertinent information. I explained how propaganda works. You've proven you do not understand the difference between a conspiracy theory and an opinion. " Clintons did have power simply because they accumulated it. Why would they acculumate that power? The oldest reason all. She wanted it. Thats all." Those are not the words of an epistemic rationalist, those are the ramblings of a cynic. She "wants power" is such a cartoonish unrealistic motive. The world cannot be interpreted and broken down using motifs from your typical Hollywood movie. I've listened and read the speeches of Goeebels at the Nurenburg rallies, I've read Bryan Capland books on rationality, I've read Orwells 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World. If you want to talk about books, I suggest you try out The Believing Brain and The Myth of The Rational Voter.
Anthony Reiner was a completely separate case.
"Sounds like a man who had evidence but couldnt use it." Which just so happens to sound exactly like someone who doesn't have evidence to indict to begin with. I'd take Occram's razor on this one.
Disney owns a lot of companies. So what? Conglomeration is apart of capitalism. It only proves they are on the same side and unlikely to compete, doesn't necessarily prove they are guilty of a sinister plot simply due to association. Obviously MSM is controlled by corporations. Would you expect the worlds top grossing films to come out of some Hungarian teenagers basement? No, that is not how the free market works. The MSM is merely a pet name given to major monopolies in journalism. They are owned by corporations because that is how they get the necessary resources and funding to adapt to the growing needs of the world for information. I like to keep it civil, but seriously? Implying that FOX news is a paragon of good journalism over any other mainstream media is laughable. This is not real journalism. I will admit to my Liberal bias, now you need to admit to yours. Why did Trump win despite the hate? If you've ever lived in Manhattan and dealt with professional con men, then you would know. He has mastered only the art of the New York style con. Making all these impossible promises while showcasing a massive amount of confidence and bravado. He's demonized all of his opponents and critics. He's convinced you and millions like you to block out all of his criticism as meaningless propaganda. Propaganda doesn't need to come from corporations, it's all within your head m8. You put all corporate media under the same category of legitimacy as every fringe site out there. You do this to justify believing only in media that matches your beliefs, the truth doesn't matter to you because you already admitted you don't think it exist. The fact you think FOX news is exceptional helps prove my theory that you truly believe your way of thinking is superior. So you judge news by how closely it aligns with your preconceptions. You think labeling me with an overused psychology term proves anything?
>there is nothing else meaningful to base your government policy, or your ethics off of.
My ethics are based on providing maximum freedom to the individual, irrespective of what they do with it. I'm not concerned about promoting the greater good by central planning. Why does the good of the group outweigh the good of the individual?
>I am not sure there is any realistic example in which some can suffer a lot for others benefit, and this maximises utility.
I would say this depends on the scope of the group you are talking about benefiting. The US harms many overseas to benefit the domestic population, for example.
>Ultimately I have some faith in governments... to fail less than the market does. i simply think they fail less (or have the potential to fail less) than the free market.
When the government fails, it does so after having threatened the people with violence, taken their money, and then wither wasted it, lost it, and hurt the many to benefit the politically connected. Market failures certainly do happen, but they are the result of the choices people make, which to me is far less unethical than a government failure. Do you think governments have the potential to fail worse than the market, with worse outcomes from those worse failures?
>I am a Keynesian, so I think deficit spending is terrific.
Even Keynes only suggested deficit spending during recessions, not every single year during good times as well.
>The only way to deal with this is a very informed electorate, which is hardly an exciting solution.
It's an irrational solution. Have you ever read anything like They Myth of the Rational Voter? The amount of time it takes to become educated on all the relevant topics compared to the meaninglessness of your vote statistically among many millions makes it a very poor investment of your time.
>These are deeply heterodox views, and you would have a hard time finding a respectable modern academic to back you up on them.
The government isn't exactly known for its historical honesty, and supports people who support its views. However, there are some recognized works, including this Pulitzer Prize winning book. Ben Bernanke has a concurring view of Milton Friedman's work to show the great depression worsened by Federal monetary policy
>respectable
The trouble with this word is that in today's discourse anyone who supports a heterodox view of anything is instantly branded as "not-respectable."
I'm going to skip your stuff on austerity, as I am not familiar with the particulars of those countries and don't have anything informed to say about them. My apologies.
>I am all in favour of a smaller military
Yes, but if you're concerned about the environment, then the military is currently and ongoing government failure, dare I say a disaster. Can you point to something the market is failing at that has an equally large impact?
>that energy would have been consuming by the free market equivalent of the services provided by government anyway.
This assumes the government programs are as efficient as market ones. Would you make that assumption?
>Again, while the government is not perfect, it is the better than the alternative.
False dichotomy. What is the alternative? There can be many alternatives.
>Almost all of the top universities in the world are publicly run, Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford etc.
Harvard is private. The Ivy league schools are private. Also, what does "top" mean? Top at what? Promoting an orthodox view? Producing the best minds to go into politics and lord over people?
>higher than many poor people could afford in the free market, this is the ultimate problem of education in the market.
In much of the developing world private education is stepping in where the government fails.
>What sort of social mobility can you expect when the lower classes are educated so badly relative to their more rich counterparts?
The US government is a worst offender of this I can think of, because it funds schools on property taxes. Government education is a massive failure, yet it produces people at the ready to denounce private education.
Caplan even wrote a book ! Nevermind, I asked how that place is perceived!
There is a wide consensus among holders of PhDs in economics that price controls are a net negative. The only people who disagree are non-economist leftists.
Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies/dp/0691138737
>they don't understand human irrationality even a little bit.
I don't think this is true. Anyone who is interested in a libertarian perspective of irrationality should read this book, in which economist Bryan Caplan argues that people are most likely to be irrational when they bear a minimal cost for being wrong -- such as in the sphere of political opinion. Caplan calls this "rational irrationality" which is related to the concept of "rational ignorance" found in public choice theory.
> decided to actually treat the customers as logical actors
LOL, such silliness!
You don't treat people as logical actors, ever.
- Invalid contract, horrible morality.
- Theft is not ok just because you repay a part of it to the victim.
- Voting is not consent. It's a political game.
- What? Putting someone in jail is an act of aggression. What are you talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:\_The\_God\_That\_Failed
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691138737
and basic ethics. That's teh homework
Wouldn't matter much if people did care about the issues.
The Myth of the Rational Voter
>Caplan argues that voters continually elect politicians who either share their biases or else pretend to, resulting in bad policies winning again and again by popular demand.
Popular alternatives to The Myth of the Rational Vo...
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America
