Elitism and Populism

Economics Political Theory
21

One could easily believe that people do adopt ideas from elites (Like Hayek) yet they can be educated about the basics.

People are quite able to learn technical aspects, especially those which directly involve their own survival or status. However, abstract ideas come up against inherently loaded and exploitable psychological factors in human beings; largely due to evolutionary pressures. People are not just ‘tricked’ into being statists and meddlers, they have a natural inclination towards it. Whereas things like indirect coordination by market behavior are mysterious and a bit offensive to their sensibilities. If you haven’t noticed, most libertarians are pretty weird and the more normal they are the less libertarian they tend to be. Compare Mencken and Rothbard to the run of the mill LP sort.

It would be much easier if people were simply stupid, actually, stupid people are often less socially dangerous than intelligent people. But they’re not just stupid, they’re stupid, bigoted, hysterical and identarian.

Politics is the Mind Killer

Robin Hanson on Signaling (mp3)

The Science of Libertarian Morality

The Pournelle Chart

22

The problem isn’t that some will be smarter than others, or stronger, faster, more productive, etc.

The problem is when you start thinking this gives them an inherent right to make decisions for others, or to guide the social order.

Smart, fast, productive != ethical. No man should rule another man, ever.

23

What I wrote was in response to your: >>Those with the material and intellectual capital will control the rest, that’s just how humans work.

not some obvious claim that smart innovating path breakers are path breakers…

If some smart alec has the idea that bathing more often is conducive to hygene, and is an aesthetic improvement, and others adopt the idea, are they ‘controlled’ ? If some cleverclogs thinks of an ingenious way to make a mechanical chariot; we will only see these mechanical chariots adopted if to do so is economic, if it is in accord with consumer sovereignty..And so in a world where horse drawn carriages are replaced by model-T’s, is Ford controlling us? or do we ‘control’ him? make mechanical chariots for us Ford, or else no money for you…

The majority of people are both dull and herdish

against what standard? how is this not mere rhetoric?

All humans are animals dressed up in clothes. What else would they be?

rational animals? perhaps to be accorded a modicum of respect?

That being said I don’t hate ordinary people, I just find them pathetic and obstructionist.

For your own mollification I would encourage you to count your blessings that although the ‘masses’ lack the various qualities you might wish them to have, they yet participate in the division of labour (many of them do…) and as such have a stake in the good.

It strikes me that an easy way to boil this down, is to realise that the ‘obstructionist’ sullen masses that are not bright enough to jump to play the tune you would have them play, are proof enough that ‘control’ lies to a great extent with them…

24

The problem isn’t that some will be smarter than others, or stronger, faster, more productive, etc.

The problem is when you start thinking this gives them an inherent right to make decisions for others, or to guide the social order.

The problem is when you imagine there is some other option. The majority will adopt their ideas from the elite, and the elite will determine social order. Whether they’re Nazis or anarcho-capitalists, this is inevitable.

Smart, fast, productive != ethical. No man should rule another man, ever.

What do you mean ‘rule’? I ask again, are you some kind of left libertarian? Because there are some seriously egalitarian vibes coming off of your hype.

If some smart alec has the idea that bathing more often is conducive to hygene, and is an aesthetic improvement, and others adopt the idea, are they ‘controlled’

Again, you’re missing the point.

against what standard? how is this not mere rhetoric?

Anyone with a brain in their head and eyes to see. Even herdish idiots admit that most people are herdish idiots.

For your own mollification I would encourage you to count your blessings that although the ‘masses’ lack the various qualities you might wish them to have, they yet participate in the division of labour (many of them do…) and as such have a stake in the good.

I never said they weren’t valuable capital goods.

It strikes me that an easy way to boil this down, is to realise that the ‘obstructionist’ sullen masses that are not bright enough to jump to play the tune you would have them play, are proof enough that ‘control’ lies to a great extent with them…

No, it just proves that I’m not the sort that appeals to ordinary people. As I explained earlier, they are naturally bigoted, anti-intellectual and socialistic; obviously some scornful nerd who thinks charity is a waste of money is not going to appeal to them. Which is why, as I pointed out, actual ‘natural’ elites in the sociological sense tend to be Puritan patriarchs or rabble rousers, not anyone who is individualistic and liberal; the latter simply does not appeal to the masses nor the masses to him.

25

People are quite able to learn technical aspects, especially those which directly involve their own survival or status. However, abstract ideas come up against inherently loaded and exploitable psychological factors in human beings; largely due to evolutionary pressures. People are not just ‘tricked’ into being statists and meddlers, they have a natural inclination towards it. Whereas things like indirect coordination by market behavior are mysterious and a bit offensive to their sensibilities. If you haven’t noticed, most libertarians are pretty weird and the more normal they are the less libertarian they tend to be. Compare Mencken and Rothbard to the run of the mill LP sort.

Yet history shows that abstract ideas do resonate with common people even when it actually runs contrary to their immediate status. The most obvious example being England’s abolition of slavery, even though the English people still benefited greatly from it. Yes, folk-economics and other psychological factors persist amongst average people but as the article you linked mentioned, it definitely can overcome it.

Libertarian morality, by rising above and rejecting primitive moralities embodied in the universalist collectivism of left-liberals and the tribalist collectivism of conservatives, made the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and modern prosperity possible.

26

Libertarian morality, by rising above and rejecting primitive moralities embodied in the universalist collectivism of left-liberals and the tribalist collectivism of conservatives, made the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and modern prosperity possible.

By becoming popular among the intellectual and economic elite. It was not a spontaneous uprising of peons who gave birth to the free-trade movement, it was a bunch of foppish intellectuals like Cobden and Condillac. It was not the superstitious and puritanical masses who gave birth to the idea of religious freedom, it was a group of people who were practically atheistic.

27

No, it just proves that…

please spell out for me how you are not having it both ways

  1. the masses are a herd led by their betters (elites)

  2. don’t bother trying to lead the herd, they wont be led by you…

It seems the only way to square this away is to solve the paradox by admitting that if you were an elite you could lead the herd, but you aren’t so you can’t

28

please spell out for me how you are not having it both ways

  1. the masses are a herd led by their betters (elites)

  2. don’t bother trying to lead the herd, they wont be led by you…

A terminological confusion, when I say the masses are led by elites I mean it in the sociological sense; people with brains, money and friends who have some or all of these. Earlier I distinguished between the ‘natural’ elite, as Hoppe calls them, which tend to be puritans and rabble-rousers, and the more individualistic/existentialist elite which many hardcore libertarians stem from.

I am reacting here against populism, i.e. the idea that liberty will be achieved by convincing people who are foreign to it intellectually and emotionally; the change towards liberty, if it is to come, will derive from an opinion and power structure shift amongst the elites and then the masses will, with some grumbling, accept it.

29

you make a distinction between accepting something and being convinced of something… it all seems so arbitrary.

Yes, the way the masses will go is pointed out by the direction of some minority elite (probably in competition with other ‘elites’), someone must birth the meme, before it can spread… how could it be otherwise, it will either go on the scrap heap of history or become accepted (convince) a sufficiently large number of the populous so as to become a feature of the community.

I’m pretty sure populism/elitism as you have it is a false dichotomy.

30

you make a distinction between accepting something and being convinced of something… it all seems so arbitrary.

Believing, expressing and submtting to ideas are not the same thing as understanding, articulating and practicing ideas. I am certain nobody was ever convinced of a self-contradictory omnipotent magical entity who lives in another dimension of indescribable rapture, because there is no cognitive content to it. Nonetheless, there are certainly Christians and Muslims. To make a Wittgenstenian distinction, not all mental actions are thoughts; in the sense that they are logical.

I’m pretty sure populism/elitism as you have it is a false dichotomy.

I am pretty sure it is not. There are people, like Paine, who believe in the virtue and educability of the masses. Then there are people like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn who believe that the dominance of popular opinion is a positive bane to liberty.

31

I have no problem with the idea of aristocracy or elitism, I’m pretty elitist in most regards. My problem is when people like Hoppe find ad hoc reasons to condemn anybody who might currently, or historically, fit that description and appoint themselves to that position instead. That’s really, really not how it’s supposed to work Hans.

32

I have no problem with the idea of aristocracy or elitism, I’m pretty elitist in most regards. My problem is when people like Hoppe find ad hoc reasons to condemn anybody who might currently, or historically, fit that description and appoint themselves to that position instead. That’s really, really not how it’s supposed to work Hans.

I agree, and I think it is his conservative-bent that generates this.

The modern liberal bureaucrats and politicians are the elite; the high level ones (like priests of ages gone by) do tend to be more intelligent and capable than your average man on the street; that doesn’t, however, mean that their ideas are sound. The capacity of intelligent people to believe stupid things boggles the mind.

33

At this point, I’m going to have to ask you what exactly your definitions are for “populism” and “elitism”. Whatever they are, they seem to be vastly different from my own.

34

At this point, I’m going to have to ask you what exactly your definitions are for “populism” and “elitism”. Whatever they are, they seem to be vastly different from my own.

Populism: the belief that social change and progress can or should be achieved by mass appeal and mass movements. Usually stems from a belief that people are just confused and would all be libertarians (or communists, or what have you) if only we could teach them.

Elitism: the belief that social change and progress is a product of the economic, intellectual and status elite and that it is this group which must be convinced and incetivized to alter the course of society. Usually stems from a belief that most people are incapable or temperamentally unsuited for facing reality and contradicting popular fantasies, and that their opinions and actions are basically molded directly or indirectly by their betters.

35

This thread was quite a surprise. I think I’m the only ‘elitist’ here so far. I’d never noticed that.

36

This thread was quite a surprise. I think I’m the only ‘elitist’ here so far. I’d never noticed that.

I think the Mises Institute, due partly to Rothbard’s views and Lew’s long association with various ‘libertarian’ candidates, has a somewhat populist orientation and message. Which is funny because many of the wonderful writers whose books they archive here were not only anti-democracy but anti-populism altogether, and of course anyone who has ever talked to a normal person would realize that their chances of comprehending economic science are slim.

I have always been rather elitist in orientation; not in the sense that I think we should try to convince the media and bureaucratic elite (who, indeed, ARE the elite) because I don’t think they’re in a situation where that makes sense for them; but in the sense that when we do end up with a more liberal society it will have little to do with Tea Parties and campaign buttons as to how we got there.
I have always been rather elitist in orientation; not in the sense that I think we should try to convince the media and bureaucratic elite (who, indeed, ARE the elite) because I don’t think they’re in a situation where that makes sense for them; but in the sense that when we do end up with a more liberal society it will have little to do with Tea Parties and campaign buttons as to how we got there.I think the Mises Institute, due partly to Rothbard’s views and Lew’s long association with various ‘libertarian’ candidates, has a somewhat populist orientation and message. Which is funny because many of the wonderful writers whose books they archive here were not only anti-democracy but anti-populism altogether, and of course anyone who has ever talked to a normal person would realize that their chances of comprehending economic science are slim.

I have always been rather elitist in orientation; not in the sense that I think we should try to convince the media and bureaucratic elite (who, indeed, ARE the elite) because I don’t think they’re in a situation where that makes sense for them; but in the sense that when we do end up with a more liberal society it will have little to do with Tea Parties and campaign buttons as to how we got there.I think the Mises Institute, due partly to Rothbard’s views and Lew’s long association with various ‘libertarian’ candidates, has a somewhat populist orientation and message. Which is funny because many of the wonderful writers whose books they archive here were not only anti-democracy but anti-populism altogether, and of course anyone who has ever talked to a normal person would realize that their chances of comprehending economic science are slim.

I have always been rather elitist in orientation; not in the sense that I think we should try to convince the media and bureaucratic elite (who, indeed, ARE the elite) because I don’t think they’re in a situation where that makes sense for them; but in the sense that when we do end up with a more liberal society it will have little to do with Tea Parties and campaign buttons as to how we got there.

37

It’s rather worrying for libertarianism. We are either relying on a herd of irrational sheep to ‘find rationality’… or we are relying on a herd of power-crazed authority junkies to give up what they love the most. Looks like all we really have left is historical accident, whatever that means.

38

It’s rather worrying for libertarianism. We are either relying on a herd of irrational sheep to ‘find rationality’… or we are relying on a herd of power-crazed authority junkies to give up what they love the most. Looks like all we really have left is historical accident, whatever that means.

There are things that work so well in well organized property and tort systems that some remnant of these has been pretty persistent since the dawn of time; societies without the bare minimums will be overran or absorbed by societies that do. However, people are still basically jungle monkeys and will never quite be comfortable with this workaday, impersonally coordinated, highly inegalitarian system. They still want status, though it demands heights which the majority of them know they could never ascend to.

Anti-liberalism is something of a character flaw, and the reason it isn’t so prominent in local communities and among our friends and family is because those are situations where we are closest to our sharing, lazing about, taboo-ridden evolutionary past of relatively high equality and relaxed property norms. Once you get into the broader world, where people don’t even know they exist and stand have immeasurable social superiority they feel jealous, helpless and isolated, which is the natural precursor to mobs.

The occasional happenstance of increased liberalism has something to do with people’s learned attitudes, but more to do with a lack of polarizing circumstances and a relatively secure upper class (in the social, not necessarily money, sense). However, such a relaxed and comfortable upper class is rare; since status climbing is big sport with most people, and it is very easy to status climb by exploiting human psychological deficiencies and social tropes.

39

I agree, and I think it is his conservative-bent that generates this.

See, I don’t entirely agree with this. I have no problem with conservatism (of a Hayekian sort), in fact, under my liberal exterior I’m actually pretty conservative. My problem is with the whole idea of appointing yourself to the position of aristocrat, that’s not really how this whole business works…

Moreover, I’ve heard some rather unbecoming things about how Hoppe conducts himself in public.

40

See, I don’t entirely agree with this. I have no problem with conservatism (of a Hayekian sort), in fact, under my liberal exterior I’m actually pretty conservative. My problem is with the whole idea of appointing yourself to the position of aristocrat, that’s not really how this whole business works…

I’m not conservative at all, though I am all for people bearing the consequences of their actions. I think a lot of conservatives are attached to certain social norms that are just as useless as mankind’s anti-capitalistic bias.

I do agree that it is rather arbitrary to say, “I am ze elite.”