Democracy and Free Markets--Posner's Comment

I agree with Becker that a high standard of living is likely to lead toward democracy. The intermediate stage is political liberty. As John F. O. Bilson explains in his article “Civil Liberty—An Econometric Investigation,” 35 Kyklos 94, 103 (1982), “Almost any reasonable theory of freedom would predict a positive correlation between freedom and real income. On the demand side, freedom must be considered a lux¬ury good so that the re¬sources devoted to the attainment of in¬di¬vidual freedom are likely to be greater when per capita in¬come is high. On the supply side, it is undoubt¬edly more costly to repress a wealthy person than a poor person and the need to do so is probably less acute.” Although we tend to associate political liberty with rights against government coercion, for example the rights conferred by the U.S. Constitution, rather than with democracy as such, it would be difficult to be secure in those rights without electoral competition; rulers who are not required to stand for election at frequent intervals are too powerful to be constrained by courts. Becker gives good examples of how authoritarian governments evolve toward democracy as the standard of living rises. I agree that under modern economic conditions rapid economic growth requires a commitment to free markets. The puzzle is why, knowing that such growth will undermine authoritarian government, a dictator or ruling clique would want to allow economic liberty. To safeguard his power, one might think, a dictator would keep his country poor. That has been, in fact, an effective strategy for many, probably most, dictators. It may be that dictators adopt a policy of economic liberalization only when their political power is already in decline, so that the optimal strategy is to slow the rate of decline by buying off the population (temporarily) with greater economic opportunities, siphoning the people’s energy from political to economic activity. I also agree with Becker that there is no necessary tendency for democracy to promote economic liberty. This is implicit in the fact that every modern democracy grants rights against the democratic majority, notably property rights, as in the requirement in the Fifth Amendment that the government pay just compensation for property that it takes for a public use. This is recognition that democracy can endanger economic liberty. When we speak of the desirability of “democratic” government, what we should mean by democracy is not popular rule in some literal sense (the sense the word “democracy” bore in ancient Greece), but a system in which the principal officials are subject to electoral checks and in which the entire government has only limited powers over the citizenry. In a wealthy society, the democratic structure as I have sketched it will usually suffice to preserve considerable economic freedom; but in a poor society, the preconditions for such a structure may not exist and as a result democracy may undermine economic liberty seriously. There may be elections, even honest elections, but there may not be judges competent and independent enough to protect property rights securely and enforce contracts reliably. A democratic government may be populist in the sense of adopting policies that produce equality at the expense of growth (“killing the goose that lays the golden egg”). That is why there is no necessary correlation between democracy and prosperity. But I think President Bush had something else in mind when he called for greater democracy in the Middle East and other areas of the world where authoritarian government predominates. I don't think his principal objective was to promote economic liberty in those countries. I think the point rather is that democratic societies tend to be less aggressive militarily than authoritarian societies. The reason is that most people in any society have no taste for the risks and violence of war. Democracies may find themselves involved in defensive wars, of course, but there are very few examples of democratic societies warring with each other; that is, democracies are rarely aggressors (rarely, not never). It is therefore in the U.S. national interest to promote democracy throughout the world, because if all nations were democratic the military threat to the United States would be greatly reduced. It is true that democracy in the Middle East might bring to power in some nations radical Islamist movements. Nevertheless if they were genuinely democrat they would probably find it difficult to rally their people to support a militaristic foreign policy, or to support terrorist movements that might provoke a violent response from the United States.

Comments

[David]

I agree 100% with Judge Posner regarding Bush's comments about the middle east. He did not have economic liberty in mind. In fact, many repressive middle east nations, for instance Saudia Arabia and Iran, are rich because of their oil. While it would be nice if these countries had well-functioning economies, they simply do not need them, as long as the world values "black gold" so much.

Bush's point was that politics in the middle east is broken and needs to be fixed. Many middle eastern countries are run by corrupt regimes that preach hatred (particularly of America and Israel) to distract their populations from the corruption at home. This hatred breeds terrorists -- the type who wrought 9/11 and the Madrid train bombings. So the safety of the western world, to some extent, depends upon fixing middle east politics. Democracy would, theoretically, force politicians in those countries to debate the real issues rather than using radical Islam and hatred as a 21st century version of "bread and circuses." At least that's the theory, and it seems like a decent one.

History also supports Judge Posner's view that democracy is aided by the emergence of a middle class, which is likely to clamor for broad political rights. The interesting question is how democracy can (and should) interact with economic "liberty" in third-world countries where a small elite own the vast majority of the resources. Democracy in such countries will inevitably lead to calls for land reform and massive redistribution. That might not be a bad thing, if it remedies historic injustices and helps create a middle class. However, it should not be taken too far: nationalizing industries and creating a centrally-planned socialist state have not worked in the countries that have tried it. Perhaps modern-day Brazil displays a better compromise of egalitarian and market principles. It is interesting that Latin American democracies today are largely controlled by left-leaning parties that have embraced the market but remain wary of too much inequality, in light of their countries' history.

[Corey]

"When we speak of the desirability of “democratic” government, what we should mean by democracy is not popular rule in some literal sense"

I assume you are using the royal "we"?

When I speak of democracy, I mean populist rule,
with fragmentation into small communities as a check on majoritarian tyranny. As demonstrated by the anarcho-syndicalists in Barcelona in 1936. (Or in Russia briefly in 1917.)

Sin partido revolucionario de la clase trabajadora, no es posible la victoria de la revolucin socialista.

You give no justification for your preferencing of "growth" over "equality". I shouldn't have to point out that it is possible for economic growth to be located entirely within the pocketbook of one or more tyrants. Those few raise the "average" wealth while everyone else perceives price inflation.

Hayek in his rule of law analysis concluded that all regulation should aspire to be prospective and general/equal in application. However, no law will ever be equal in effect so long as large disparities in market power exist. From this we could conclude that wealth equality increases administrability of the rule of law. Leading to a presumption in favor of laws which affect a redistribution of wealth towards equality. (i.e. down the class ladder) Or, alternatively, a presumption in favor of occasional popular revolution to overcome the property rights against equality which tend to concentrate economic growth in the hands of people with property.

[Larry]

Corey's communism demonstrates quite well the tension between democracy (people voting on policies and leaders) and economic freedom (where there is tremendous growth because inequality is allowed).

This has always been the trouble of an otherwise free people who don't believe in property rights. Once the majority recognizes it can vote other people's money for itself, growth will slow down or even reverse. If they go far enough, and extinguish capitalism entirely, there will be serious widespread poverty.

But the right to make as much money as your talents allow will then still be in tension with the greed of the masses who wish to share in wealth they didn't create. It is up to politicians to make the uneasy balance of keeping growth my encouraging private property rights, and appeasing the people who, though they partake in societies wealth by necessity, would still like greater amounts.

[Vinay]

Posted at http://www.lostliberties.blogspot.com.

I think there are two reasons democratic countries are less likely to engage in violence and less likely to support those who do.

Posner writes:

The reason is that most people in any society have no taste for the risks and violence of war. Democracies may find themselves involved in defensive wars, of course, but there are very few examples of democratic societies warring with each other; that is, democracies are rarely aggressors (rarely, not never).

It is debatable how agressive our foreign policy is on an absolute scale. But I strongly agree with the idea that societies (judging from aggregate individual preferences, not leader preferences) have significant distaste for war. It's important to realize that this is best expressed under liberal democracies, where information flows freely and individuals choose among competing leaders. Current situations in Iraq and Palestine seem to point in this direction. When fear of reprisal for expressing opposition to violence subsides, the anti-violence movement grows. This is compounded when leaders who take aggressive stances are subject to regular popular control.

It is important to recognize how the current administration, during the prelude to troop movements to Iraq, did its best to attack those who spoke against the war. But those attacks were verbal, political, and non-violent. Furthermore, Bush had to face re-election in 2004. With free flowing information, it becomes harder to force an undesirable war onto a population.

This is not an endorsement of the war. In fact, I strongly opposed military action in Iraq. But it is important to understand the mechanisms that promote and oppose communal violence.

These two factors, free information and representative government, also have the effect of making foreign policy more public; for long term French support, President Bush has to not only convince the French government, but also the French people. I'm guessing that international support weakens domestic opposition, but I'm not quite sure where exactly that fits in here, although I have a hunch it deserves more thought.

[theWinfieldEffect]

I think Posner is somewhat misrepresenting how Bush used "freedom" and "liberty" in his inaugural address.

Bush used the words "freedom" and "liberty" in a spiritual, idealistic, transcendant inaugural address. Thus it is more likely Bush was referring to political freedom and political liberties when he spoke of democracy, not economic liberties and economic freedom. While Bush is a ardent supporter of free trade, open markets, individual economic choice, and radical economic reform of federal entitlements, Bush did not use such rhetoric or nomenclature in his discussion of freedom and liberty spreading throughout the world. If implicit in Bush's remarks is the notion that America is safer with democratic countries populating the world, then Bush should have called for more economic freedom and economic liberty to spread throughout the world, not more political liberty and political freedom. It is economic freedom and economic liberty which leads to the formation of democracies, not rigged elections or ghost-written constitutions.

However, I would note that Bush chastised Putin for Russia's disdain of competition in the oil industry, proposed global economic sanctions on Iran, and has chided China for its closed markets. Bush has called on these nations to expand their economic freedoms and liberties rather than challenging the human rights records, or political freedoms and liberties, of these countries. He has also done the same in his position against Venezuela's Chavez and his position in favor of Colombia's Uribe.

While Posner is correct that Bush generally calls for the global expansion of economic liberties, Bush did not seem to be doing so in his inaugural address, where he was advocating the spread of political liberties, which does not reliably result in democracies, but sounds more grandiloquent.

Bush tackled economic freedoms in his State of the Union address, which came soon after, and was billed as being less idealistic and more grounded in numbers and facts.

[Paul Deignan]

Let's look at this a little differently. What is the fundamental dynamic at work here?

The nation is a collection of individuals. If each individual seeks to maximize his/her well-being starting from a basic level of little economic and political wealth, what will be their srtategy? We can use a model such a Maslow's hierarchy: safety and security up to self-actualization.

If the country is stable (not for example France going through its revolution), then the priority of effort should be directed towards maximizing economic goods. If all individuals pursue the same strategy with some success, a point will come when the individuals are competing against each other over resources in interactions sufficiently complex as to require rules. At that point, consensus based rulemaking is necessary.

This is why a large middle class is a force for political liberty in normal circumstances. We don't need to rely on anecdotes or the existence of richer more successful countries as the motivating example. The dynamic is inherent to the growing system. The rules produced must be useful and optimal over a broad basis of the population. The production of the optimal rules requires an information rich exchange (centralized systems fail) with adaptation/feedback. This is democracy in a nutshell.

This model is consistent with Becker's observations.

[Corey]

"Corey's communism"

It is NOT communism. I am endorsing populism, direct-democracy, anarcho-syndicalism... call it what you want but the label communist is wildly inaccurate. Leninist/Stalinist party nonsense is actually what killed democracy in Barcelona and in St. Petersburg. Check out Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" sometime. Good book.

When real democracy has broken out over the last 100 years, it has been as a result of a populist revolution. Both the communists and the capitalists hate populism, because those systems depend on the existence of a ruling class/party.

Posner admits in his post that property rights are anti-democratic. People want to assert that we need a little tyranny in order to stimulate economic growth, and the alternative is presented as "widespread poverty". Well I have news, there is widespread poverty in the CURRENT system. The only people that are guaranteed to be poorer in a populist system are the ruling elites that are overthrown to get there.

Protecting property rights as if they are the most high aspect of human liberty (a fundamental tenent of economic libertarianism since the days of Locke) leads to concentration of property rights in the hands of the few, allowing them to assert a counter-majoritarian self-interest. When wealth disparity gets over some threshold, our "representatives" in congress feel secure in attacking those mechanisms the people use to check tyrannical exercise of economic power.

This session of congress is proving my point. Observe the destruction of the consumer aspect of the tort system and the wholesale attack on consumer bankruptcy protection. MBNA has infinitely more property and hence more votes in effect than you.

[Paul Deignan]

Continuing ...

So the optimal strategy for the dictator is not necessarily to keep the population poor. He simply has to devise a system that allows for an acceptable degree of perceived increase in wealth that does not require distributed rule-making.

The Chinese attempt to accommodate economic growth using the simple rule, "Don't criticize the government". Now they are also attempting to maintain centralized control of the political structures through a combination of xenophobia and nationalistic pride. Thus the Taiwan Straights escalation and a civilian space program. Meanwhile, they are diligent to keep the less privileged segments of the population isolated in the hinterlands. This situation is transitional.

Meanwhile, North Korea is able to keep its population isolated from outside information.

Both systems will eventually evolve into democracies as neither is stable. However, the evolution of North Korea is more likely to involve abrupt regime change. Any military innitiative of the DPRK will only increase the rate at which the change is accomplished. Since the DPRK has made the mistake of pursuing technology that will force the involvement of 3rd parties, expect this change to occur within a very short time span (five years or less). The country is technologically vulnerable due to its backwardsness (Kim is said to be afraid of Predator drones -- there is no significant air defense). The existence of nuclear weapons in this case invites intervention.

The fundamental dynamic is due to technology in all cases. Technology increases per capita wealth and forces more complex interactions to sustain perceieved growth.

[RWS]

Corey, how much formal economics have you taken in your day? I am sure there are many people who read these comments that are tempted to start at the beginning and haul out marginal analysis and supply and demand graphs to answer these fundamental assertions of yours. These issues are way too basic; otherwise, economics fans that seem to be smitten with this blog like myself cannot really engage on the same playing field that you are discussing from right now.

[David]

"The Chinese attempt to accommodate economic growth using the simple rule, 'Don't criticize the government'. Now they are also attempting to maintain centralized control of the political structures through a combination of xenophobia and nationalistic pride. Thus the Taiwan Straights escalation and a civilian space program. Meanwhile, they are diligent to keep the less privileged segments of the population isolated in the hinterlands."

Hmm. Shall we turn the microscope on ourselves for a moment? The Patriot Act. The fear-mongering about WMDs. The manufacturing of a furor in the less affluent areas of the "heartland" over "values," gay marriage, Hollywood, and immigration. Do we share anything with the Chiinese?

Of course, the analogy is unfair. There has been no Tiananmen Square here, and there are elections and free speech. But the point is that all kinds of governments, autocratic and democratic, use fear and demagoguery to stay in power. Generally it is less effective in a democratic nation, but there is no guarantee. Hitler was an elected leader, at least at first.

It will be interesting to see whether capitalism brings political freedom in China. The west really had no choice but engagement; sanctions would have been useless and would have made an enemy of the largest nation on earth. Politically, engagement has yielded stability, and it has also enriched the urban-dwelling Chinese. Whether it will bring democracy is a difficult question. I guess it depends how willing Beijing is to have a massacre here and there to repress democratic uprisings. That is an open question.

[Vinay]

Corey.

You write: "When real democracy has broken out over the last 100 years..." Can you be more specific in terms of places, dates, people, and governments so those who aren't quite sure what anarcho-syndicalism is?

You also write: "The only people that are guaranteed to be poorer in a populist system are the ruling elites that are overthrown to get there." I am hesitant to challenge this only because I fear a ten page manifesto response regarding your personal economic beliefs, which I'm guessing have not been exposed to Economics 101. But if you think you can justify that statement, please go for it.

[Paul Deignan]

"But the point is that all kinds of governments, autocratic and democratic, use fear and demagoguery to stay in power."

In a democracy the government does not have a monopoly on fear nor does fear necessarily help the governement e.g. Spain.

For example, the writer is apparently afraid of the Patriot Act but not WMDs. That reaction does not favor the government.

As we see here again, the same can be said for demagouguery as the writer aptly illustrates.

[wml]

Posner's says:
>>>>>>>>>>>
I think the point rather is that democratic societies tend to be less aggressive militarily than authoritarian societies. The reason is that most people in any society have no taste for the risks and violence of war. Democracies may find themselves involved in defensive wars, of course, but there are very few examples of democratic societies warring with each other; that is, democracies are rarely aggressors (rarely, not never).

[RWS]

wml, the point is not that democracies have no taste for war or that democracies rarely go to war against non-democracies. The latter is obviously not true, as witnessed by our actions against out-of-control totalitarian states such as Hirohito's Japan, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq twice, Afghanistan, and Panama.

The point is that democracies are less likely to war with each other, because the costs of war to the people are more likely to be internalized by political pressures by the citizenry to make a deal rather than war. In addition, democracies are more likely to temper extreme viewpoints by the power of free speech and the necessity to negotiate in the legislative process, thus lowering the likelihood of absurd political theologies running the airwaves and driving national goals.

I believe that is a justifiable assertion, and one well supported by history and the relative absence of aggression between democratic states.

[Michael Martin]

Who knows what Bush really had in mind? Although he's certainly in favor of both economic and political freedoms on the basis of economic and political principles, my guess is that he had something more moralistic in mind with his call for democracy. The Bush Administration now represents the only (and maybe the last) branch of gov't to put any faith in natural law. They're self-consistent in that sense at least.

Regarding the puzzle as to why dictators would allow greater economic liberalization, another answer is that most dictatorships maintain control more with threats (or propaganda) than with actual power. Economic liberalization starts in those places just beyond the reach of actual control -- it doesn't require gov't at all. Social norms often work as good substitutes for legal norms in such circumstances. So dictators aren't allowing economic liberalization to generate more money for them to buy off powerful groups; they're inadvertently allowing the powerful groups to become too powerful for the dictators to buy them off. I think the alternative explanation might better account for the acceleration toward economic liberalization that you see in these cases.

[Tito]

Corey's post brings up something I've had trouble formulating until, and though I don't take it as far as he does, I understand where he is coming from. (Thanks Corey, I think this is what I've been trying to put into words.)

The core split, I think, between the modern liberals and modern conservatives is on who they view as encroaching upon their freedom to be as they choose to. Conservatives have, for the most part, are entirely focused on the government as limiter of freedom. Liberals, like myself, are also concerned with the government encroachment witness the left's reaction to the Patriot Act.

However, we are also concerned about other individual encroaching on our freedom, specifically large, wealthy corporations and individuals. And, to limit the threat from powerful corporations, we are willing to somewhat increase the power of government. (Break up monopolies, prevent worker, customer or environmental exploitation, ensure basic rights, etc. Some do take this too far, and become downright anti-corporate.)

It doesn't matter if the government is totally open and free if my employer is able to control my life. I still have lost my freedom.

[Corey]

So there is one economics and I can only learn it from formal indoctrination in the great books eh? Well, I did read Das Kapital. (As well as Nicomachean Ethics, Locke, some Hayek, and much of The Economic Analysis of Law.) I nearly had a math minor in undergrad, and I know how to say Bayesian. Can I please be in your little econ. discussion group? I promise not to critique any of your bare assertions of political truth, even if they are based on faulty numerical eugenics.

Yes I am aware that econ. 101 says that property rights lead to economic growth. Posner states above that property rights are anti-majoritarian (which translates to anti-democratic.) Economic growth is not dependent on liberty, in fact the most dramatic instances of economic growth worldwide in the last century occured under fascist regimes. By preferencing anti-democratic property rights over democratic process, you establish a preference for facism. This can only be countered to the extent that the rich are willing to give back some property to social insurance in the interests of keeping the rabble in line. Otherwise, you get oppression and a popular revolution. What about this historical thesis is contrary to the things you learned in econ. 101?

When I start seeing something beyond high-school economics on this board from anyone, I promise to at least research my responses.

"Can you be more specific in terms of places, dates, people, and governments so those who aren't quite sure what anarcho-syndicalism is?"

I gave some, Barcelona in 1936, a good primer is Orwell's first person account in "Homage to Catalonia". Another example is Russia after the Tzar was overthrown but before the Lenin vanguard party took control. There have been many popular revolutions in central and south America that led to direct control by the workers over decisions of production (before the US labeled the movement communist as a pretext to overthrowing it.) I would suggest reading Chomsky for perspective but then people will just trot out the anti-Chomsky propaganda, which is sort of boring.

[DSC]

Wars are primarily a product of interests and opportunities. Whenever a country can achieve objectives of great value through the employment of military force at little risk and little cost, it will almost always employ that force, regardless of the nature of the government. That's why we went to war against Mexico in 1846, that's why Iraq went to war against Kuwait in the late 20th century. Kuwait had resources that would have been of great to Iraq, just like Mexico had resources that would be of great value to us
(as did the American Indian, and it had no means with which defend them). Thus, Kuwait, like Mexico, like the Indian territory, was like an unguarded bank, and nobody, neither democrat nor dictator, can resist an unguarded bank. Although the democrat will feel more compelled to justify his aggression by claiming he is just fulfilling his nation's "manifest destiny.

Let me put it this way: Two nations, both democratic, are just as apt to go to war as two non-democratic countries, if one of those democratic countries possesses something, let's call it California, that would be of enormous value to the other, and the country that possess California is utterly incapable of defending it, so that the more powerful nation through military force can easily seize it without much risk or cost. It's a simple concept and an old one: Wars are products of imbalances of power. That's why Mexico's weakness — and the Indians — encouraged our aggression; that's why Kuwait's weakness encouraged Iraq's; that why the demise of the Soviet Union has encouraged us to behave so recklessly. There's no longer any power capable of balancing our's.

Rather than rendering wars less likely, democracies often make them more so. This is because the party in power is more afraid of losing the next election than it is fighting a war, even a needless one. Vietnam is a case in point.

President Johnson knew that if the non-communist government in South Vietnam collapsed, the Republicans would crucify him as they did Truman for failing to prevent the communization of China. After all, as members of the party of Alger Hiss, Truman and Johnson, like all Democrats, were vulnerable to charge of being soft on communism.

And so despite the fact that none of the conditions were in place that Kennedy considered essential for us to prevail in Vietnam—a viable government to defend, congressional support, international backing—Johnson committed American military power to an area of the world that was irrelevant to our economic and strategic interests. A decision that produced 60,000 American corpses and perhaps 3 or 4 million Asian deaths, as well as hundreds of thousands of maimed Americans, both psychologically and physically. And when it was all over, Saigon was called Ho Chi Minh City.

America, then, lost, but it was not weakened, which it should have been if the war was worth fighting in the first place. But it wasn’t, as our vital interests were never at stake. And so, we fought a war not in defense of our interests, but rather, to prevent the party in opposition from crucifying the party in power.

More generally, John Lewis Gaddis holds the Soviet Union was more responsible than the United States for the Cold War because Moscow, without any political opposition about which to worry, could easily make rationale compromises while Washington, because of its domestic political system, could not, as American presidents always had to avoid any type of compromise, no matter how rational, that the party in opposition could characterize as weak. And with the avoidance of rational compromise, the need always to look tough to avoid partisan assault, can easily lead to unnecessary or extended wars.

Today, the conflict between India and Pakistan, despite all the press focus on Iraq, Iran, and North Korean, is the most serious in the world, as it could easily lead to nuclear war. And yet, neither side is willing to accept a rational compromise. And for good reason! If they did, their political enemies would bury them in the next election—if not before.

Democracies are, as both Madison and Hamilton knew, inflexible beasts, and as such, not to be greatly trusted. And so, if you want peace, forget democracies.

[Palooka]

I am a little confused by Corey's tirade against "anti-majoritarian" and "anti-democratic" government. Isn't that the foundation of a liberal democracy--to provide for majority rule which respects individual liberty.

I am sure Corey, for the sake of consistency, would like to return power to the majority to regulate abortion, sodomy, and criminal procedure. I am sure he can agree that we don't need any Constitution--nor any judges interpreting the Constitution--interferring with our wonderful "anarcho-syndicalism."

[R]

Palooka --

chiding Corey for inconsistency is not going to work. He is if anything consistent. This attack is like the other (very poor) strawman attacks. Also I think you are going to have a hard time finding a national majority (if that is what you imply) in favor of regulating sodomy at all, especially in a way that doesn't discriminate against homosexuals. Sodomy was defined at common law as all sex that takes place outside of marriage. It is not at all inconsistent for a majoritarian to favor national over local majorities. Not that any of this is topic relevant.

DSC --

Must agree with you on supposed democracy-peace correlation. Although it really ought not need to be said. Surely Posner (or is this Becker?) has read his Thucydides. Democratic Heritage didn't prevent Athens from slaughtering the Megarians (also a Democratic People) for violations of various trade embargos. The Megarian debate, in which the Athenian citizens voted to engage in that slaughter, is an interesting read.

Democracies making war on other Democracies is almost as old as Democracy itself. Which is why I support the divine right of kings.

[Palooka]

"chiding Corey for inconsistency is not going to work. He is if anything consistent. This attack is like the other (very poor) strawman attacks. Also I think you are going to have a hard time finding a national majority (if that is what you imply) in favor of regulating sodomy at all, especially in a way that doesn't discriminate against homosexuals. Sodomy was defined at common law as all sex that takes place outside of marriage. It is not at all inconsistent for a majoritarian to favor national over local majorities. Not that any of this is topic relevant."

It is not a strawman argument. Corey claims to support absolute, totally unfettered democracy. Pointing out he (probably) doesn't is completely relevant. I didn't imply the majority would support or prohibit abortion, sodomy, or changes in criminal procedure. I only suggested (correctly) that Corey's philosophy prohibits anything but a majority from acting on those issues. Not only that but it would seem his extremism prevents even the presence of an American style constitution. Simply shouting "strawman" and "very poor argument" doesn't impress (as you have done before). Explain how anything I have outlined above is a misrepresentation of Corey's beliefs. I know you consider him a fellow traveller, but don't defend him unless you're willing to put in the effort.

[anonymous]

"if [nations] were genuinely democrat they would probably find it difficult to rally their people to support a militaristic foreign policy..."

...I agree, the United States is not a genuinely democratic country. Not only that, but U.S. foreign policy does make it more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, following your sentence to its conclusion.

So why are we forcing this ideology everywhere else in the world?

[John Smith]

"Who knows what Bush really had in mind?"

Anyone who read or heard his inaugural address!

Must I link the barrage of articles and editorials that flooded the blogosphere calling the inaugural Wilsonian, idealistic, moralistic, and so on? Must I link the White House denials that the inaugural represented a drastic moralistic shift in foreign policy (away from realism)? Bush was OBVIOUSLY making a moral statement; his inauguration even had a light show that projected a giant white cross onto the Presidential seal!

So: Posner DID misinterpret Bush's statements: Bush was talking about political liberty, not economic liberty.

If you took the time to read Becker's post, you'd know that he makes clear the following:

Bush should have focused on economic liberty in his inaugural instead of wasting time discussing political liberty, because economic liberty will lead to actual democracy, while political liberty most likely won't.

Pretending that Bush was talking about economic liberty when he wasn't is just a way of mooting your opponent's arguments without actually addressing them. It's the apex of intellectual laziness.

[R]

Palooka --

You are right -- I didn't make much effort. Sorry about that. Here goes: I don't think I've ever read Corey argue that a country must sport a U.S. style Constitution in order to satisfy whatever it is he wants in a government. He seems to take the position that Madisonian democracy serves to concentrate wealth into the hands of a few elite individuals. He supports majoritarian rule, but would probably argue that we don't really have that in any regard.

This argument may be open to attack, sure, but not for any lack of consistency. It is a coherent position; it is not self-contradictory. I called your attack a "straw-man" attack, because you created a set of values opposed to those which he has argued for, and then stated that he probably holds both of sets. There isn't any special reason to think that. It's a little bit lazy to argue about what you think his positions might be, as opposed to those positions which he has espoused quite clearly.

[Anonymous]

R, let's examine what Corey has actually said (as opposed to what you hope he's trying to say):

I am endorsing populism, direct-democracy, anarcho-syndicalism..

When real democracy has broken out over the last 100 years, it has been as a result of a populist revolution. Both the communists and the capitalists hate populism, because those systems depend on the existence of a ruling class/party.

When I speak of democracy, I mean populist rule,
with fragmentation into small communities as a check on majoritarian tyranny.

----

The only limitation on democracy Corey has proposed in his comments in this thread are, interestingly enough, a sort of federalism (which seems to nullify your unrelated point made earlier that Corey wouldn't have a problem with a national majority overruling a local majority, as it now appears he would).

My question is--does he really believe in absolute democracy? The probable answer is no. His problem with "anti-majoritarian" protections for economic liberty isn't because he's an absolute populist or democrat, which is precisley my point in bringing up anti-majoritarian protections he probably supports. I agree his position is coherent, but only if he repudiates "anti-majoritarian" realities of the current system which he almost certainly supports. That is my point in placing these questions to him. Let us see if he is consistent! Is he willing to place abortion, regulation of sexual relations, free speech, establishment of religion all on the altar of democracy! I think we know the answer to that question. I think we all know Corey isn't the radical democrat he's pretending to be.