民主原教旨主义的警报

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

作者：布莱恩·卡普兰

蒂莫西·泰勒（Timothy Taylor）在一本关于斯堪的纳维亚经济政策的杰出入门读物中说道： 我不会试图在这里支持或反对斯堪的纳维亚资本主义模式。 生活在这些国家的绝大多数人似乎都喜欢这种权衡，这就是所需要的全部理由。

“所有需要的理由”？！ 坦率地说，这是我所说的“民主原教旨主义”的教科书案例。
几乎所有经济学家，无论意识形态如何，都会嘲笑以下论点：“市场决策是自愿的，所以我们应该尊重市场结果。” 但如果说“政治决策是民主的，所以我们应该尊重政治结果”，甚至经济学家也会敬礼。

每本经济学教科书都解释了市场结果如何出错。 外部性。 垄断。 非对称的信息。 非理性。 由于同样的原因，民主的结果很容易出错。 斯堪的纳维亚人是否有可能只是低估了他们的政策所产生的抑制因素的严重性？ 他们是否有可能忽视福利国家强加给他人的外部性——最明显的是，通过提供移民限制的理由？ 斯堪的纳维亚人是否有可能投票支持听起来不错的政策，即使他们偏爱的政策的实际效果很糟糕？

当然，你可以反对，“美国人就不能犯类似的错误吗？” 答案当然是：“当然。” 我的观点很简单，政治受欢迎程度几乎毫无意义。 斯堪的纳维亚人可能是错的。 美国人可能是错的。 两者都可能是错误的。 如果是的话，糟糕的政策通常会因民众的需求而获胜。

评论

马克 Z 2018 年 11 月 10 日上午 12:26
在为泰勒辩护时，他可能只是说，如果足够多的人在投票站更喜欢一套政策，那么即使按照市场标准，它也可能与最优政策相当一致。 显然，如果每个人都一致支持一项政策，那么经济意义上的最优政策和民主意义上的最优政策之间的区别就消失了。 但如果 95% 的人更喜欢一项政策，人们可能会说，给 5% 的人带来的负效用的幅度可能比给 95% 的人带来的效用小得多。

当然，完全没有理由推断斯堪的纳维亚的政策在其他地方也是可取的。 这个论点本质上是循环的。 我们如何了解斯堪的纳维亚人喜欢斯堪的纳维亚警察？ 因为他们绝大多数投票给他们。 对他们有好处。 但价值是主观的。 如果一个国家不投票支持此类政策，那就很好地表明他们不喜欢上述政策。

主张我们应该在美国实施在斯堪的纳维亚半岛流行的政策，而这些政策在美国不受欢迎，因为它们在斯堪的纳维亚半岛很流行，这就像争论说，如果一个国家的大多数人午餐吃汉堡（即，他们民主地投票） 午餐吃汉堡），我们应该强迫不同国家的每个人午餐吃汉堡，因为另一个国家的公民有多少喜欢汉堡。

艾伦·戈德哈默 2018 年 11 月 10 日上午 8:53
马克·Z 对卡普兰教授的论点进行了精彩的反驳。 我只想补充一点，一个更有趣的回应是品钦式关于选民和过去的人在《万有引力之虹》中的讨论。

jc 2018 年 11 月 15 日下午 2:22
奴隶制曾经或曾经在政治上流行过吗？ 如果大多数人投票赞成，这就是所需要的全部理由吗？

这显然是一个过于极端的例子，无法直接相关。 程度很重要，无论我们是在谈论服用多少阿司匹林，还是可以/应该从一个人的劳动中服用多少。

但它确实很快表明，仅仅因为大多数人想要某样东西，并不自动意味着给他们想要的东西就是正确的做法。

是这里吗？ 如果我们把“合理性”的极端程度调回来，是否存在一个点，大多数人的情绪会自动“足够正确”？

罗伯特 EV 2018 年 11 月 15 日晚上 10:03
是这里吗？ 如果我们把“合理性”的极端程度调回来，是否存在一个点，大多数人的情绪会自动“足够正确”？

什么时候少数人可以相对直接地通过跨越边界来逃避它？

2/3 的斯堪的纳维亚国家是欧盟成员国，其公民可以相对直接地跨境流动。 另外 1/3 是 EEA 成员，也可以这样做。

这种自由运动难道不是相对于国家概念和国家强制法律的自由主义基本原则之一吗？ 好吧，他们已经做到了，那还有什么问题呢？

陶马斯 2018 年 11 月 16 日下午 4:57

啊？ 经济学家不断反对流行的（或至少在选举中成功的）政策——贸易限制、充分就业赤字、经济衰退期间的紧缩政策、缺乏街道和道路的拥堵定价、缺乏二氧化碳排放税。

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.