It might surprise the reader that I concur with the general sentiment that elites should be in charge. However, compared to many politicians, Leftists, and, in particular, Leftist politicians, I differ in two very important regards:
Firstly, I do not agree about the “who”: Who is a member of a meaningful elite? Who is worthy of making decisions for others? Who can be trusted with what responsibility? (Etc.) Notably, I do not see e.g. elected officials, professors of social sciences, and the “rich and famous” as automatic members of an elite that I would consider meaningful (in the context at hand). What counts is having sufficient brainpower, knowledge, understanding, etc., which, say, elected officials only very rarely do. (When we move from “is elite” to “should make decisions for others”, we also have to consider factors like objectivity, impartiality, and moral integrity—other areas where politicians could have a stronger track record...)
In contrast, the likes of Joe Biden, Keir Starmer, and Olaf Scholz appear to believe that they are up to the job, while I see them as falling well short—something backed up by their respective days as national leaders. Ditto most of the key figures in their respective cabinets and whatnots. Particular problems include (genuine or willful) ignorance of basic Economics, a failure to understand incentives, and a mentality similar to a beginning chess player, who sees how he can take a pawn with his queen and proceeds to do so, without bothering to check for hostile pieces now in place to take his queen. The COVID-countermeasure era, in particular, gave many demonstrations of a disqualifying tunnel vision, both among politicians and among alleged experts—a failure to consider issues from more than a single perspective.
Starmer and Labour are so inept that I base this on his first hundred-and-change days in office and have no qualms of conscience—even now, he would be extremely hard pressed to turn my impression around in the almost five years that he might still be in office.
Generally, note that I do not, or only incidentally, speak of priorities, values, and similar here. My priorities (etc.) usually differ strongly from those of various Leftists, which could, in it self, make me reject someone like Starmer. Here, however, we have greater issues like politicians (almost invariably, on the Left; often, outside the Left) being ignorant of basic Economics and the lessons of history, being poor at thinking and planning, failing to consider side-effects and long-term consequences, etc.
(Alternatively, in some cases, we might see an ideological fanaticism that overrides knowledge and reason. For instance, many Swedish Leftists have given me the impression that they only value the relative size of pie slices—not the absolute size: if everyone gets a slice of the same size, it would be worth the price of everyone also having a smaller slice in absolute terms.)
More generally, society seems to be filled with a flawed elitism, perception of superiority, whatnot that might be even worse than the attitude of “I have a noble title; ergo, I am superior to those without one” that is common in historical fiction and is so frowned upon by many of the self-perceived superiors of today. (While an extension from historical fiction to history seems plausible, the frequency is much harder for me to judge.)
There are, for instance, many in today’s world who consider themselves superior merely for having a college degree (never mind the high frequency of college degrees, the dropping educational standards, and how degrees in many softer sciences are next to worthless as proof of intelligence and learning.) For instance, there are very many who seem to view themselves as superior for holding the “right” opinions of wokeness, pseudo-enlightenment, whatnot—the more disturbing and annoying as these opinions are often objectively wrong, signs of ignorance and prejudice, or otherwise worthy of condemnation. Worse, these opinions are usually held for very poor reasons, including uncritical adoption of opinions suggested by propagandists. If in doubt, the true enlightenment ideal of “Sapere aude!” is all too often replaced with the religious “Crede ut intellegas!”.
Secondly, while a typical Leftist and common politician’s take is that as much as possible should be decided by (run by, whatnot) the government, I strongly favour minimalism: What decisions must be left to the government should be in the hands of those highly competent, but these decision should be as few as possible in favor of individuals running their own lives as they see fit. This, in part, for ethical reasons; in part, for pragmatic reasons. In effect: Yes, elites should be in charge of centralized decisions—but decisions should only be centralized when there is an actual need to do so.
Among such pragmatic reasons (with not the slightest claim of completeness):
Prescribed from above decisions will almost invariably be in the one-size-for-all family—which never turn out as the intended one-size-fits-all. Those allowed to make decisions for themselves can pick a better size, make custom adjustments, or, even, go fully bespoke.
Note e.g. the enormous differences in brain power, education, circumstances of and in life, and personal preferences/priorities that are present in society.
A too uniform approach reduces the chance that better means can replace worse means, e.g. because the latter have proved worse than originally believed or the former have been developed after a certain law/regulation/dictate/whatnot was made.
Likewise, it prevents several options from being explored in parallel, so that the best can be determined empirically.
Dictated choices concerning e.g. technology can cause severe market distortions, reduce further research, and lock the people in with an inferior level of technology.
In the case of an even partial plan economy (a condition present throughout the Western world, which is usually very far from a true free-market system), misallocation of resources, flawed incentives, and similar problems seem virtually unavoidable, based on both theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. The greater the “plan” aspect is, the greater the problems.
Governments have a massive history of getting things wrong and the more pervasive government control is, the more opportunities for getting things wrong are present and the worse the potential consequences.
This type of top-down control and control by those with a too small personal stake drastically increases the risk that those in charge will follow different priorities and whatnots than is in the people’s best interest and/or than what the people wants, e.g. through strong ideological convictions or corruptness. (And this even discounting that different individuals within the people can have very different priorities.)
(Note that “governments put all eggs in one basket” is a recurring theme—and, especially, in a variation using someone else’s eggs.)
The following is an automatically generated list of other pages linking to this one. These may or may not contain further content relevant to this topic.