In choosing between various political parties and programs for the commonwealth’s social and economic organization most people are uninformed and groping in the dark. The average voter lacks the insight to distinguish between policies suitable to attain the ends he is aiming at and those unsuitable. He is at a loss to examine the long chains of aprioristic reasoning which constitute the philosophy of a comprehensive social program. He may at best form some opinion about the short-run effects of the policies concerned...But in buying a commodity or abstaining from its purchase there is nothing else involved than the consumer’s longing for the best possible satisfaction of his instantaneous wishes. The consumer does not—like the voter in political voting—choose between different means whose effects appear only later. He chooses between things which immediately provide satisfaction. His decision is final.| (L. Von Mises "Profit and Loss," 18-19 [HT David Gordon])
As recounted last week, these were remarks first delivered at the Mont Pèlerin Society in 1951 at the zenith of Von Mises's public influence. Economics was taking a formal turn toward technocratic self-understanding, and Von Mises had a gift of antagonizing his allies so now he is mostly remembered for his influence on Libertarian thought. Unlike many others so influential, Von Mises was no eugenicist (a disease that also infected plenty of Progressives) and an enemy of racism (see Sandra Peart and David Levy). He thought economists should necessarily assume that all agents are equally capable of rationality, and I am unfamiliar with any text in which he expresses fondness for either rule by experts or rule of an enlightened dictator.
Even so, in his defense of markets (against Communist/Socialist criticism), he generates a Meme about the dumb voter that has been enduringly popular among those that pine for variants of expert rule (Jason Brennan) or those that wish to introduce the rule of Fortune (David Van Reybrouck). Let's stipulate that voters (not just average types) are badly informed not just for the idiosyncratic reason that Von Mises stipulates (namely ignorance of his approach to economics), but because the world is a complicated place, there are many unintended consequences of one's actions, and there are a wide variety of extremely detailed/fine-grained bits of expertise that enter into any serious policy decision. In addition, lots of folk have incentives to generate false information, not to mention that elected politicians behave in ways that are hard to control and predict. So, when a voter enters a polling booth with limited choices to pick from, she is in a terrible epistemic situation. This much is agreed.
First, does it follow that the buyer of goods is in much better circumstances? Oddly, Von Mises claims that purchasing goods "immediately provide satisfaction." It's true those exist; just like voting against candidate X in a primary caucus also provides some such satisfaction. Von Mises's stance is peculiar because lots of economic goods are meant to be more durable than that. Whole industries exist to inform purchasers of quality, durability, ecological imprint, etc. (in ways similar to how voters can be informed.) Moreover, unintended consequences also exist in the market-place: there are so-called externalities. There are also complicated moral-economic issues about human rights violations, trade restrictions, the impact on others self-esteem, etc. These days when we buy a commodity we also buy a life-style and we know that we impact world-wide trade flows, ecological patterns, and enhance producers' influence elsewhere for good and ill.
I am not claiming that voting and buying goods are symmetrical in causal complexity, but the causal impact of any economic transaction is not a simple matter. The 'nothing else is involved' claim is just rubbish. In fact, given that economic agents are more fragile than re-election rates of incumbents, it's not obvious the maker of one's dishwasher-maker will be around to honor the warranty while one's congresswoman is running for office again.
More important, while undoubtedly some markets can exist in the state of nature, in advanced societies markets require complex legal structures in which they can be sustained; as the Ordoliberals emphasized, these rules need to be made, sustained, and judges and regulatory agencies appointed (see Kolev's dissertation). The decisions about the most important of these rules are inevitably political not technocratic. If one thinks that my use of 'political' begs the question, replace it by 'driven by conflicting values and interests.'
This gets me to the nub of the matter.
One often senses with modern defenders of rule by experts, that they presuppose value agreement/unanimity or that they are convinced that moral truth can be attained by the relevant moral experts with consensus producing mechanisms. (Both feed into a technocratic conception of legislation that seduces Rawls and Milton Friedman alike.) Let's leave aside this dangerous fantasy. What makes Von Mises interesting is that he rejects this commitment. For, Von Mises is convinced that values,
are derived from intuition; they are arbitrary and subjective. There is no objective standard available with regard to which they could be judged. Ultimate ends are chosen by the individual’s judgments of value. They cannot be determined by scientific inquiry and logical reasoning. (33)
While, undoubtedly, Von Mises is driven to this position by his version of Kantianism ('intuition'), and his reading of Max Weber (with a strong distinction between facts and values), the position is attractive to him because it blocks rule by experts, which, in context, he fears will be Communist. While I am critical of Von Mises's position on values, what he gets right is that one can't stipulate value agreement.
Now, let's grant that markets are a good mechanism to facilitate peaceful exchange of goods. But as Adam Smith already recognized (recall) commerce often is "the most fertile source of discord and animosity." Markets can generate as many conflicts as they prevent. So, we need alternative forms of conflict resolution over the rules and over the externalities (positive and negative) that markets generate. Not to mention, of course, that our values may lead us to conflicts over...well...values and other non-trade-ables.
In a sentence: democratic voting is an excellent means to abate conflict. For the losers can always hope to fight another day in two years or four years (etc.). Moreover, they can disagree in parliament, congress, state-house and aim to make their influence felt one issue at the time. Undoubtedly, democracy presupposes a lot of other institutions (free press, free judiciary, markets, etc.), including all kinds of cultural commitments (which may include already a tacit understanding not to resort to force). Of course, elections also generate passions, so like all institutions, they may produce side-effects that can be worse than the problem they are solving. But the history of voting suggests that on the whole it has done well to prevent civil wars and lower level violent conflicts, including lots of places with a history of prior violent conflict. The record is not perfect, but it is very decent.
So, even leaving aside questions of legitimacy, and the undeniable fact that those groups excluded from voting often suffer lots of harms that those that pine for expert-rule are happy to wish away, we should not wish away those dumb voters. Experts are prone to overconfidence, often lack expertise of wider causal patterns outside their own narrow niche, and are especially likely to discount the views of those that disagree with them as less informed; this, too, generates conflict. Tot put it with sobriety: be careful what you wish for! For nearly all contexts that involve disagreement over values (that is, just about anything that matters), letting deluded voters have a regular say is to be preferred over violent militias, sectarian conflict, and even experts. If this means that there will be regular, lesser foolishness, this is a fine price to pay.
This is a very informative post, but you should note that Mises himself accepted the argument that democratic voting is a means to abate conflict. See, e.g., here: https://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec8.asp
Posted by: David Gordon | 04/15/2014 at 02:56 PM
Thank you, David. I am glad to be in agreement with Von Mises.
Posted by: Eric Schliesser | 04/15/2014 at 02:58 PM