Against Democracy

By Jason Brennan

Most people believe democracy is a uniquely just form of government. They believe people have the right to an equal share of political power. And they believe that political participation is good for us—it empowers us, helps us get what we want, and tends to make us smarter, more virtuous, and more caring for one another. These are some of our most cherished ideas about democracy. But, Jason Brennan says, they are all wrong.

In this trenchant book, Brennan argues that democracy should be judged by its results—and the results are not good enough. Just as defendants have a right to a fair trial, citizens have a right to competent government. But democracy is the rule of the ignorant and the irrational, and it all too often falls short. Furthermore, no one has a fundamental right to any share of political power, and exercising political power does most of us little good. On the contrary, a wide range of social science research shows that political participation and democratic deliberation actually tend to make people worse—more irrational, biased, and mean. Given this grim picture, Brennan argues that a new system of government—epistocracy, the rule of the knowledgeable—may be better than democracy, and that it's time to experiment and find out.

A challenging critique of democracy and the first sustained defense of the rule of the knowledgeable, Against Democracy is essential reading for scholars and students of politics across the disciplines.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Release date: Aug 19, 2016
• ISBN: 9781400882939

Reviews for Against Democracy

[dcunning11235 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Levels serious critiques at American democracy in particular (though, as a work of political philosophy it clearly aims at 'democracy' in general) and proposes 'epistocracy' as a replacement... though what epistocracy means in practice is left loose, and how we get there from here is barely waved at.

To really argue against this I'd have to re-read it. But a first major objection would follow the outline that, while the criticisms are entirely valid -in my experience, anyway- and the merits of epistocratic government plausible, the empirical vs. theoretical argument leveled at democracy hasn't been thoroughly explored re: epistocracy (e.g. we have some analogous experience with judicial review, as covered for different purposes in the book.) Secondly, while Brennan cites plenty of evidence that our voting doesn't really give us choice, really improve us, or genuinely invest legitimacy in the government, he seems to fail to address how actual people really feel about that (a fairly glaring oversight, given the repeated insistence on empirically lead thought.) Even if I shouldn't feel that e.g. my voting makes the government legitimate, I certainly do feel that way... and I can imagine defending that physically should it be threatened (e.g., with a gun, going to war, etc.) I imagine that a lot of other people feel similarly. Could we convince people otherwise?

Maybe. But it seems like that this second issue will be incredibly difficult, making real testing re: the first issue next to impossible.

But... the critiques are worth discussing. And the solutions, even if theoretical, are too.

[davidwineberg · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Crowdsourcing is not consent of the governedThe day after the Brexit referendum, the top internet search requests were for “benefits of EU membership”. This compactly explains Jason Brennan’s thesis in Against Democracy. Democracy is an operating system, nothing more. If you give it bad input…. His main argument boils down to governance being instrumental. If there is a better instrument than democracy, then we should use it and reap the benefits. Because in democracy, “knowledge and rationality do not pay, while ignorance and irrationality go unpunished”. A US senator is worth an average of $14 million, and a congressman $6 million. This is not even representative democracy; this is the Ruling Class. Democracy isn’t working. Brennan says the only thing democracy has going for it is that we haven’t found anything consistently better. Absolute power might corrupt absolutely, but so does politics. It seems to improve nothing. If you get voters away from politics, everything will improve.He says there are three broad categories of voters, only one of which provides valid input. Hobbits know and are pleased to know nothing. Their input is worse than flipping a coin. Hooligans hold tightly to political positions despite the facts. Their votes are fixed and wasted. Vulcans analyze, are open to new sources and can convincingly take different sides. They seek correction so as not to appear in error. Brennan’s solution is an epistocracy. The epistocracy is a collection of the brightest Vulcans. They have to pass a test: economics, immigration, environment – everything. Only they get to vote. It keeps politics away from the masses, and (in Brennan’s theory) leads to more effective government.The main problem with epistocracy is visible today. The Supreme Court is made up of nine people: educated, bright, sharp, beyond politics (theoretically) or bribery. Yet they predictably come down on ideological sides every time. Most of them can stay home because we know how they’re going to vote. All we really need is to hear from the swing voter. This is epistocracy at work. The other problem is that democracy was never intended to be the most efficacious system. It’s like the post office: never intended to be profitable, it was a service that united the country for the benefit of all. So with democracy; it gives voters the feeling of belonging and making a difference. Epistocracy addresses solutions democracy never intended to match. Brennan is right: the math for democracy doesn’t work. But it isn’t meant to.There are two terrific reasons to read Against Democracy. Brennan is challenging. He attacks the sacred foundations fearlessly, logically and thoroughly. You are always on your toes looking for faults, loopholes and disagreement. And he is direct. I particularly like his critiques of other authorities. He just comes out and says they are wrong. And then he tells you why. It is not qualified with “I must take issue with” or “They might be missing a point here”. They are out and out wrong. That is refreshing from a philosopher.The basic difficulty I have with Brennan’s quest is that it seeks truth. Voters don’t do that. They choose who they want, not what is correct or best. There is no analysis, no meeting of the minds, no informed decision. So yes, our democracy is mostly sham. Voters are not qualified to decide, and nothing they decide will affect the outcome anyway. It’s just an opiate. What’s wrong with Brennan’s whole thesis is that I might not want him in the epistocracy. David Wineberg

[jamestomasino · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Brilliantly argued. Logically presented