民主原教旨主義的警報

民主原教旨主義的警報

https://www.econlib.org/the-siren-of-democratic-fundamentalism/

作者：布萊恩·卡普蘭

蒂莫西·泰勒（Timothy Taylor）在一本關於斯堪的納維亞經濟政策的傑出入門讀物中說道： 我不會試圖在這裏支持或反對斯堪的納維亞資本主義模式。 生活在這些國家的絕大多數人似乎都喜歡這種權衡，這就是所需要的全部理由。

“所有需要的理由”？！ 坦率地說，這是我所說的“民主原教旨主義”的教科書案例。
幾乎所有經濟學家，無論意識形態如何，都會嘲笑以下論點：“市場決策是自願的，所以我們應該尊重市場結果。” 但如果說“政治決策是民主的，所以我們應該尊重政治結果”，甚至經濟學家也會敬禮。

每本經濟學教科書都解釋了市場結果如何出錯。 外部性。 壟斷。 非對稱的信息。 非理性。 由於同樣的原因，民主的結果很容易出錯。 斯堪的納維亞人是否有可能隻是低估了他們的政策所產生的抑製因素的嚴重性？ 他們是否有可能忽視福利國家強加給他人的外部性——最明顯的是，通過提供移民限製的理由？ 斯堪的納維亞人是否有可能投票支持聽起來不錯的政策，即使他們偏愛的政策的實際效果很糟糕？

當然，你可以反對，“美國人就不能犯類似的錯誤嗎？” 答案當然是：“當然。” 我的觀點很簡單，政治受歡迎程度幾乎毫無意義。 斯堪的納維亞人可能是錯的。 美國人可能是錯的。 兩者都可能是錯誤的。 如果是的話，糟糕的政策通常會因民眾的需求而獲勝。

評論

馬克 Z 2018 年 11 月 10 日上午 12:26
在為泰勒辯護時，他可能隻是說，如果足夠多的人在投票站更喜歡一套政策，那麽即使按照市場標準，它也可能與最優政策相當一致。 顯然，如果每個人都一致支持一項政策，那麽經濟意義上的最優政策和民主意義上的最優政策之間的區別就消失了。 但如果 95% 的人更喜歡一項政策，人們可能會說，給 5% 的人帶來的負效用的幅度可能比給 95% 的人帶來的效用小得多。

當然，完全沒有理由推斷斯堪的納維亞的政策在其他地方也是可取的。 這個論點本質上是循環的。 我們如何了解斯堪的納維亞人喜歡斯堪的納維亞警察？ 因為他們絕大多數投票給他們。 對他們有好處。 但價值是主觀的。 如果一個國家不投票支持此類政策，那就很好地表明他們不喜歡上述政策。

主張我們應該在美國實施在斯堪的納維亞半島流行的政策，而這些政策在美國不受歡迎，因為它們在斯堪的納維亞半島很流行，這就像爭論說，如果一個國家的大多數人午餐吃漢堡（即，他們民主地投票） 午餐吃漢堡），我們應該強迫不同國家的每個人午餐吃漢堡，因為另一個國家的公民有多少喜歡漢堡。

艾倫·戈德哈默 2018 年 11 月 10 日上午 8:53
馬克·Z 對卡普蘭教授的論點進行了精彩的反駁。 我隻想補充一點，一個更有趣的回應是品欽式關於選民和過去的人在《萬有引力之虹》中的討論。

jc 2018 年 11 月 15 日下午 2:22
奴隸製曾經或曾經在政治上流行過嗎？ 如果大多數人投票讚成，這就是所需要的全部理由嗎？

這顯然是一個過於極端的例子，無法直接相關。 程度很重要，無論我們是在談論服用多少阿司匹林，還是可以/應該從一個人的勞動中服用多少。

但它確實很快表明，僅僅因為大多數人想要某樣東西，並不自動意味著給他們想要的東西就是正確的做法。

是這裏嗎？ 如果我們把“合理性”的極端程度調回來，是否存在一個點，大多數人的情緒會自動“足夠正確”？

羅伯特 EV 2018 年 11 月 15 日晚上 10:03
是這裏嗎？ 如果我們把“合理性”的極端程度調回來，是否存在一個點，大多數人的情緒會自動“足夠正確”？

什麽時候少數人可以相對直接地通過跨越邊界來逃避它？

2/3 的斯堪的納維亞國家是歐盟成員國，其公民可以相對直接地跨境流動。 另外 1/3 是 EEA 成員，也可以這樣做。

這種自由運動難道不是相對於國家概念和國家強製法律的自由主義基本原則之一嗎？ 好吧，他們已經做到了，那還有什麽問題呢？

陶馬斯 2018 年 11 月 16 日下午 4:57

啊？ 經濟學家不斷反對流行的（或至少在選舉中成功的）政策——貿易限製、充分就業赤字、經濟衰退期間的緊縮政策、缺乏街道和道路的擁堵定價、缺乏二氧化碳排放稅。

The Siren of Democratic Fundamentalism

https://www.econlib.org/the-siren-of-democratic-fundamentalism/
By: Bryan Caplan

In an otherwise outstanding primer on Scandinavian economic policy, Timothy Taylor remarks:
I won’t try to make the case here either for or against the Scandinavian model of capitalism. Strong majorities of people living in those countries seem to like the tradeoffs, which is all the justification that is needed.
“All the justification that is needed”?!  Frankly, this is a textbook case of what I call “democratic fundamentalism.”
Almost all economists, regardless of ideology, would scoff at the following argument: “Market decisions are voluntary, so we should respect market outcomes.”  But say, “Political decisions are democratic, so we should respect political outcomes,” and even economists salute.
Every economics textbook explain how market outcomes can go wrong.  Externalities.  Monopoly.  Asymmetric information.  Irrationality.  Democratic outcomes can easily go wrong for all the same reasons.  Is it possible that Scandinavians simply underestimate the severity of the disincentives their policies generate?  Is it possible that they ignore the externalities their welfare state imposes on others – most obviously, by providing a rationale for immigration restrictions?  Is it possible that Scandinavians vote for what sounds good, even if the actual effects of their preferred policies are bad?
Sure, you could object, “Couldn’t Americans be making analogous mistakes?”  The answer, of course, is: “Of course.”  My point is simply that political popularity proves next to nothing.  Scandinavians could be wrong.  Americans could be wrong.  Both could be wrong.  And if they are, bad policies will normally win by popular demand.

COMMENTS

Mark Z Nov 10 2018 at 12:26am
In defense of Taylor, he may merely be saying that, if a large enough preponderance of people prefer a set of policies in the voting booth, then it’s probably fairly concordant with the optimal set of policies, even by market standards. Obviously, if everyone unanimously supports a policy, then the distinction between what optimal in the economic sense of the word and the democratic sense disappears. But if 95% prefer a policy, one might argue the disutility rendered to the 5% is probably much smaller in magnitude than the utility rendered to the 95%.

Of course, there is no reason at all to extrapolate that Scandinavian polices are desirable anywhere else; the argument would be inherently circular. How do we know Scandinavians like Scandinavian polices? Because they overwhelmingly vote for them. Good for them. Value is subjective though. If a country doesn’t vote for such polices, it’s a good indication they don’t like said polices.

To argue that we should impose policies popular in Scandinavia in the US, where they’re unpopular, because they are popular in Scandinavia, would be like arguing that, if most people in one country eat hamburgers for lunch (i.e., they vote, democratically for hamburgers for lunch), we ought to force everyone in a different country to eat hamburgers for lunch, because of how much citizens of the other country like them.

Alan Goldhammer Nov 10 2018 at 8:53am
Mark Z provides an excellent riposte to Professor Caplan’s argument.  I’ll only add that a more intriguing response is the Pynchonian discussion of the elect and the preterite found in ‘Gravity’s Rainbow.’

jc Nov 15 2018 at 2:22pm
Was, or has, slavery ever been politically popular?  If a majority voted in favor of it, is that all the justification that’s needed?

That’s obviously too extreme an example to be directly relevant.  Degree matters, whether we’re talking about how much aspirin to take or how much of a person’s labor can/should be taken from them.

But it does quickly show that just because a majority wants something, that doesn’t automatically mean that giving them what they want is the correct thing to do.

Is it here?  If we dial back the extremity in degrees of “reasonableness”, is there a point where majority sentiment is automatically “correct enough”?

Robert EV  Nov 15 2018 at 10:03pm
Is it here? If we dial back the extremity in degrees of “reasonableness”, is there a point where majority sentiment is automatically “correct enough”?

When the minority can relatively straightforwardly escape it by moving across a border?

2/3rds of the Scandinavian nations are members of the EU, and their citizens can relatively straightforwardly move across a border.  The other 1/3rd is a member of the EEA and can do so too.

Isn’t this free movement one of the libertarian fundamentals vis-a-vis the concept of statehood and state-enforced laws?  Well, they’ve got it, so what’s the problem?

Thaomas  Nov 16 2018 at 4:57pm

Huh?  Economist are constantly arguing against popular (or at least electorally successful) policies  — trade restrictions, deficits at full employment,  austerity during recessions, lack of congestion pricing of streets and roads, lack of CO2 emissions taxation.