At 17, while studying the US equivalent of first year of high school, Bryan Caplan (Northridge, California, 1971) had a revelation. A classmate handed him an open copy of The Atlas Rebellion and said, "Read this part, you'll love it." It was the apology that Francisco d'Anconia , one of the characters in Ayn Rand's novel, makes of money. "So you think it is the root of all evils?" He begins. "And have you stopped to think about what is the root of money? It is an exchange instrument that would not exist if there were no goods and men capable of producing them. It is the material incarnation of the principle that, if you want something, you must obtain it by trading and delivering something valuable in return. Money was not an idea of ​​the gorrones, who deprive you of your whining heritage, or the looters, who do it by force. Money could only be invented by hardworking people. Is that what what do you think is so bad? "

Rand's work is a stark defense of capitalism that "had nothing to do with what they had taught me in class," Caplan explains to me at the Rafael del Pino Foundation , where he has come to give a lecture. "Let's see, understand me, it's not that my teachers were communists: we are talking about California in the 90s, we still had a Republican governor. But they did stress that everything would be a disaster if it wasn't guarded by the Administration." Rand argued otherwise. "The State," he said, "is the greatest threat to human rights." And also: "The only way a government can help [companies] is by taking their hands off them."

"Who was right?" Continues Caplan. "Rand or my teachers?" He began to devour economy books and stumbled upon unusual arguments. What was it that the minimum wage increased unemployment among less skilled workers? Or that the limitation of rentals reduced the offer and made the housing problem worse? "I read an author who made the following calculation: if it takes you 10 years to approve a medication that cures 10,000 patients a year, you will end up killing 100,000 people. It is somewhat difficult to refute, but my antagonists didn't even bother to consider deferring the authorization of a beneficial drug could cost more lives than to consent to the sale of useless or even harmful treatments. They started shouting at me if I had not heard of the children of thalidomide. "

It was not the first time Caplan had encountered this visceral reaction . "I had already experienced it a year ago, when I tried to convert my family to atheism," he recalls in his intellectual Autobiography , compiled alongside those of other anarchocapitalists at I Chose Liberty (Mises Institute, 2010).

The finding that political and economic convictions were not inspired by cold reason, but by dogmas and prejudices, initially frustrated him, but at the same time spurred his curiosity. How could a democracy work if voters refused to appreciate the merits of rival opinions? A few years had to pass before, as a professor at George Mason University , he articulated an answer in The Rational Voter Myth (Innisfree, 2016).

Journal

Voter misinformation is not a theoretical postulate. It is a stubborn fact that they have been corroborating the surveys that have been carried out in the United States since 1945. The majority are unable to mention the name of one of the three powers of the State or to explain what the Bill of Rights consists of . More than two thirds have no idea what the Medicines Agency does and three quarters ignore how long a Senate legislature lasts.

"Apart from ignoring basic facts," writes Louis Menand in The New Yorker , "they also do not try very hard to be consistent. They do not understand, for example, that the defense of low taxes is incompatible with the desire for the Government to develop more programs. social. When you ask respondents if they are in favor of enhancing the welfare state, most say no, but when asked if they are in favor of increasing aid to the poor, most say yes " .

In The Myth of Democratic Failure (University of Chicago Press, 1997), economist Donald Wittman argues that this disinterest is perfectly rational and does not constitute an obstacle to the good progress of democracy. In the same way that the agents of a normal market just have to look at prices to elaborate those items that society needs at all times, citizens use the signals generated by the political market to lean towards one alternative or another. It is not necessary to study cardiovascular medicine to successfully undergo coronary angioplasty, Wittman says. We put ourselves in the hands of active surgeons because we assume that the Administration and the competition have been responsible for purifying the incompetent. In politics the same thing happens . It is not necessary to read all the proposals on arms control to make an informed decision. A legion of experts has done it for us. Simply follow the one that inspires us the most confidence.

It is the old logic of the journal. Thoroughly documenting the issues that affect us takes time and life is full of tempting activities, such as watching the Champions League or playing Fortnite . Instead of reading boring electoral programs, we do as in the faculty. There was always one who went to class and passed the notes clean. Why duplicate efforts? The others waited in the cafeteria playing mus and then photocopied them.

Some academics do not share Wittman's faith in the signals of the political market, but agree with him that disinformation is not serious, because the magic of large numbers comes to the rescue of the system. It's like in TV contests. Why is the public joker more successful? Most viewers are as fishy as the contestant and decide at random. Therefore, their responses are divided between the different options evenly and, as there are always a few who know the solution, the tie is broken in the proper sense.

Caplan read Wittman when he was a student at Princeton and did not convince him. Nor does he believe that people decide badly because of ignorance. He deliberately decides badly, "because it is free," he says. "If you make a mistake as a consumer, you pay for it. But in politics the one who pays is another. That is why we can afford to be not very rigorous. For example, in the United States it has become fashionable lately to affirm that there is a high risk of devastating attack. What exactly does that mean? What does high risk mean? What does devastating mean? In politics, being ambiguous costs nothing. "

The double standards that we apply to public and private affairs are shamefully exposed when you propose to your interlocutor to bet on his ideas. "I do it continuously. I tell him: how much would he be willing to play? I offer to even give him $ 100 if he wins and pay a dollar if he loses, but few accept ... When you force someone to pay for their mistakes, you don't return it more honest, but more cautious. "

And why would anyone want to defend wrong opinions? "Because it looks good," says Caplan. The neighbor who refuses to raise the salary to the doorman of his community because he leaves his checking account, will defend the most generous social measures because they barely impact his pocket ... or so he believes. Caplan warns that the aggregation of small errors ultimately translates into harmful and counterproductive laws. It is very commendable to claim that the rich be gravely distributed to the poor or that tariffs are applied to foreign items to protect the national industry, but the former will reduce investment and the latter will raise prices. The result, in the long run, will be a decline in welfare levels.

The root

It is not clear how individuals come to believe what they believe. Some form their criteria carefully, making sure at every step of the consistency of the facts on which they support the foot, but they are the least. The majority depends a lot on what he hears others, on what is fashionable. Ideas are not only things we say, but also things they say about us. They build our image, they serve as external signs of luxury. Some boast of ecologist or of progre as others boast of car or yacht.

"Centuries ago," says Caplan, " the great source of identity was religion. Now it is politics . We approach it in an uncritical way and it has come down to a list of dogmas, of saints who are saved and sinners who are they condemn, of arguments of authority ... It's all very emotional. If someone who defends one of the dominant paradigms asks why he thinks as he thinks, he doesn't answer: I'm glad he asks me that question. defensively, he shrieks: How can he even question that, it's obvious! "

In his book, Caplan makes suggestions (some frankly not very correct) to prevent the intellectual insolvency of voters from sinking democracy: passing an economic culture test to participate in the elections; grant more ballots to the best prepared; stop fighting abstention; improve financial training in school, even at the expense of music or Latin ... He is convinced that if countries were managed according to the criteria of professional economists, we would have more neat rulers and things would go Better to all.

However, as Menand points out in The New Yorker , "the root of evil may be deeper . " Many political problems "lack an optimal solution. They refer to issues difficult to objectify: when life begins; what matters most, freedom or equality; what is the best way to carry out racial integration ...".

And then there is our own nature. Those who drive drunk or practice unprotected sex do not do so due to lack of information. There is a visceral component in our behavior that we will never eradicate, and Caplan is the first to recognize it. "From the media they often urge us to be cold and thoughtful, like vulcanians or robots, and I think to myself: I really try, I really try to keep calm, to consult the evidence ... But no I can avoid it, I'm human. "

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

  • U.S
  • Senate
  • Fortnite

THE OTHER CISInés Arrimadas and Pedro Sánchez, the most handsome politicians in Congress, according to a LOC survey

Update the current one EEA formalizes a treaty with Spain that will reduce taxes between both countries

Politics Former German Chancellor Schröder, accused of adultery in South Korea