Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Animal rights types post manual on sabotaging wolf hunts | Main | Gov. Christie vetos ..50 BMG ban »

Ilya Somin's new book

Posted by David Hardy · 14 August 2013 06:56 PM

On Amazon, here. "Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter " is the title and the theme. It revolves around "rational ignorance." We cannot know everything about every subject, and rationally focus on those where we can make a difference. In a democracy, the odds that your vote in an election will be the deciding vote are virtually zero, therefore it makes sense to spend little thinking over, and learning about, the issues. The result is that most voters have little grasp of major issues, and none at all of minor ones. Even in Congress, we have appeals to pass legislation so they can learn what's in it.....

I thought of a parallel point. The Framers were the most intelligent men of their age, which (outside the sciences) may have been the most intelligent age of US history. They put a LOT of thinking into the Constitutional Convention, and at least a fair amount into the Bill of Rights. Does it not make sense to give a lot of deference to that thinking, as against decisions made by rationally ignorant legislators chosen by a rationally ignorant electorate?

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Critic | August 15, 2013 12:38 AM | Reply

Telling the people that listen to you and respect your opinion, that they are wasting their time voting, may hurt your influence and cause more harm than good.

tkdkerry | August 15, 2013 7:52 AM | Reply

So, it's better to bite our tongues and remain silent on a point that makes a valid argument for smaller government?

Critic | August 15, 2013 1:44 PM | Reply

I don't know if we should bite our tongues about the wasted time of voting. If you think there is a significant chance that mentioning it will result in an important change in policy, then perhaps you should mention it. If the chance it will result in valuable change is negligible, then probably you should bite your tongue. I don't know, it's just something to consider.

Jim D. | August 15, 2013 3:17 PM | Reply

Smaller government might be smarter, but if you wanted bigger government, wouldn't rational ignorance be easy to exploit? I think that was the same basic argument that Alexander Hamilton advocated to limit suffrage to property owners, and male ones at that.

Barbara Grant | August 15, 2013 4:40 PM | Reply

It makes sense to spend time poring over the thinking of the Framers, not only because they were intelligent, but because they wanted to set up a system whose separation of powers, and checks and balances would diffuse the shifting sands of majority whim (democracy) and instead, institute a rational, logical, and reasonable structure for the legislative process. Having recently emerged from a bloody war, I’d bet that they were thinking of us, their remote descendants, and doing everything in their power to ensure that we would never be faced with the same ills.

hga | August 17, 2013 10:09 AM | Reply

I believe one of the most important thing to realize about the Founder's vision for their 1787 Constitution is that it had scaling issues that probably are insurmountable but which were cemented in dysfunction in 1911.

Going by the numbers from the first Census, and assuming the "Free white males of 16 years and upward, including heads of families" which provided the pool of possible voters was reasonably evenly distributed, each House member and Electoral College slot represented less than 7,700 men. (Members of the Senate were elected by their state legislators, which was of course nixed by the goo-goo (good government) Progressives a century ago.)

So we had something of a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon system, where if you didn't know someone running for your House seat, you almost certainly knew someone who knew him or thereabouts. Similar for Presidential candidates, you were less likely to know them, but their local Electoral College representatives knew him or were in their position because they knew someone who knew him, and your knowledge of them was akin to that of House candidates and members.

Even ignoring the theoretically good intentions of the Progressives that ended up destroying a lot of good and important things, I can't think of any way to make this part of the Founders' vision scale up to a nation of 100s of millions of people.

Haven't tried to run the numbers, but I seriously doubt they'd work even if we took back the right to vote from all but those men with land or willingness and ability to pay a poll tax (and boy would that create some seriously rotten boroughs, anathema to Progressives like corrupt state legislatures "electing" Senators were). Reversing radical democracy is not feasible this side of a revolution or another general central government Articles of Confederation type failure that lead to our current Constitution, and we should be so lucky to end up with something that benign on the other side.

Leave a comment