내용 발췌 및 요약 (번역 없음). Valerie Soon이 작성한 Jason Brennan의 Against Democracy (민주주의에 반대한다) review와 본인 견해 (이탤릭체 작성)
Jason Brennan's claim. We should stop saving democracy from ourselves.
Alternative. Epistocracy where political power is distributed according to skill and knowledge
But he fails to show that epistocracy would work better.
Brennan’s argument.
- voters need to be well-informed about social, scientific, and historical facts to make good decisions; they should be "Vulcans". But the typical voter is far from this ideal.
- the structure of voting deepens voters’ epistemic irrationality.
- democratic decision-making allows us to harm others because of our incompetence.
Democratic decision-making thus “requires a higher justificatory burden than decisions we make for ourselves” (9).
Analogy. e. g. Fraternities. The same goes for deliberative democracy.
Assumption he is relying on: Democracy’s value is purely instrumental (Ch 5).
Restricted suffrage suggestion. Under a system of restricted suffrage, political power is restricted to citizens who demonstrate basic knowledge of historical and uncontested social scientific facts on a voter qualification exam (212).
- As for Soon, such an exam would likely exclude disadvantaged groups, which I could not understand; it would exclude those without proper intelligence, but is it... I mean, bad?
He concerns two things:
[D]o we have good reason to think that an epistocracy would be good at fixing social injustice, or at least that it would be better than democracy at doing so? (4)
Recent social scientific evidence on the role of identity in belief formation suggests that a more knowledgeable society will likely not be more just. (Ibid.)
Another assumption of Brennan. Higher knowledge straightforwardly correlates with reduced cognitive bias and more competence in decision-making, but
Recent psychological evidence does not bear out this assumption. (4-5)
and,
[T]here is also historical evidence suggesting that the rule of the knowledgeable does not lead to more just policies. (5)
e. g. Pre-Jacksonian US before universal manhood suffrage was instituted.
Soon worries:
If anything, the “rule of the knowers” (Chapter 8) may end up being the rule of the hooligans - not the Vulcans. (6)
Soon's argument. Brennan leads us to unwanted conclusion:
- Given his theory, we do not need to restrict political power to citizen/residents of a country; i. e. non-citizens able to hold political power.
- The harm principle in 159 does not distinguish political decision-making from other basic liberties; and maybe Brennan should concede that civil liberties are also restricted.
Soon's conclusion.
- Brennan's argument is elegant with provoking questions, particularly to egalitarian readers;
- If his explanation on the failure of democracy is acceptable, Brennan's claim that epistocracy is promising alternative may not be accepted.
- Epistocracy is likely to perpetuate injustice.