EP8: Should the Knowledgable Rule? (On Jason Brennan’s “Against Democracy”)
Sep 20, 2023
auto_awesome
This podcast explores Jason Brennan's controversial argument for replacing democracy with rule by the knowledgeable. They discuss the flaws of democracy, the typology of the electorate, and the potential benefits of Brennan's system. The concept of epistocracy and its critiques are explored, as well as the argumentative moves regarding authority and anti-authority. They also discuss safeguards in democratic structures, individual rights, moral equality, and offer divergent views on democracy's potential for improvement.
The flaws in modern democracy include voter ignorance, bias, apathy, and partisan behavior.
Jason Brennan's proposal of epistocracy suggests rule by the knowledgeable as an alternative to democracy, emphasizing the importance of competent decision-making.
The potential risks of an epistocratic system include the concentration of power, lack of accountability, and potential manipulation, highlighting the need for safeguards and a more inclusive approach to governance.
Deep dives
The Weaknesses of Modern Democracy
The podcast episode explores the flaws in modern democracy, highlighting the problem of voter ignorance and bias. The speaker argues that the current system incentivizes apathy or hooliganism, where people either lack interest or engage in partisan behavior without considering alternative viewpoints. They acknowledge the empirical evidence that shows the disproportionate influence of the wealthy and powerful. While conceding that democracy has had positive outcomes in terms of famine prevention and peaceful relations between democratic nations, the speaker also recognizes that contemporary democracy falls short of its ideal, making the case for necessary improvements.
The Proposal for Epistocracy
The podcast delves into the main ideas of Jason Brennan's book against democracy. Brennan suggests epistocracy, rule by the knowledgeable, as a potential alternative to democracy. While acknowledging the limitations of the current democratic system, he argues that if any form of epistocracy, despite its flaws, were to outperform democracy in practice, it should be implemented. Brennan discusses the need for competent decision-making and evidences how people's lack of political knowledge and their inability to deliberate effectively can lead to poor outcomes. He maintains that his proposal is an exploration of weaker claims rather than advocating for a complete replacement of democracy.
The Challenge of Safeguarding Against Concentrations of Power
The podcast examines the potential risks of an epistocratic system proposed by Brennan. While acknowledging that having knowledgeable decision-makers can be beneficial, concerns are raised about the concentration of power and the potential for an elite group to exert control over others. The speaker emphasizes the importance of safeguards and accountability within the proposed epistocratic system to prevent the dominance of a single ideology and manipulation of power. Critiques are expressed regarding the potential biases and limitations of relying solely on a select group of 'experts' to make decisions, highlighting the need for a more inclusive and pluralistic approach to governance.
The Role of Democracy in Promoting Freedom and Limiting Tyranny
The podcast explores the role of democracy in promoting freedom and limiting tyranny. It highlights the experiences of democratic nations, which have demonstrated a lower tendency to wage war against each other. The podcast also emphasizes the value of distributing power widely in society, making it harder for concentrations of power to emerge and dominate. While acknowledging the flaws in contemporary democracy, the speaker argues for the importance of preserving the positive consequences of democracy, including preventing famines and fostering peaceful relations between democratic nations.
Critiquing Democracy as a Messy Process
The podcast episode delves into the critique of democracy, highlighting its flaws and challenges. It emphasizes the messy nature of democratic decision-making processes and the biases that arise from them. The hosts discuss the need for critical thinking and self-awareness to address these biases and improve democratic deliberation. They also explore the concept of epistocracy as an alternative, where political authority is granted based on knowledge and competence. However, they question the feasibility and potential dangers of implementing epistocracy, ultimately advocating for improving and refining democracy instead.
Reframing the Authority vs. Anti-Authority Debate
The episode introduces the notion of framing the epistocracy debate around authority and anti-authority tenets. Instead of focusing solely on granting political authority based on knowledge, the anti-authority tenet emphasizes excluding citizens who are morally unreasonable, ignorant, or incompetent from exercising political authority. The hosts explore the idea of an ideological Turing test as a potential epistocratic alternative, where potential deliberators must demonstrate both intellectual understanding and empathy for differing perspectives. While the hosts appreciate certain aspects of Brennan's argument, they offer counterarguments, highlighting the challenges and dangers of excluding individuals and emphasizing the need for ongoing democratic improvement.
Most political theorists assume that some form of democracy is the only legitimate political regime. Jason Brennan thinks this is an under-examined assumption. In fact, Brennan thinks there are many reasons to be critical of both the existing forms of representative democracy as well as more radical theories that endorse drastically increased democratic participation. Why? Because Brennan thinks most people are pretty bad at political deliberation.
On this week’s episode, we read Jason Brennan’s 2016 book, “Against Democracy.” In it, Brennan offers a controversial argument for replacing democracy with an “epistocracy” – rule by the knowledgeable. We debate whether any of Brennan’s criticisms of democracy land, as well as whether we should value political regimes on instrumentalist or intrinsic grounds.
