Volume 21, Number 3
March 2022
ARTICLE

Why Paternalists Must Endorse Epistocracy

and
Volume 21, Number 3, March 2022, Pages 329–353
https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v21i3.926
PDFPDF

Abstract

Recent findings from psychology and behavioral economics suggest that we are “predictably irrational” in the pursuit of our interests. Paternalists from both the social sciences and philosophy use these findings to defend interfering with people’s consumption choices for their own good. We should tax soda, ban cigarettes, and mandate retirement savings to make people healthier and wealthier than they’d be on their own. Our thesis is that the standard arguments offered in support of restricting people’s consumption choices for their own good also imply support for “epistocratic” restrictions on people’s voting choices for their own good. Indeed, the philosophical case for paternalistic restrictions on voting choices may be stronger than the case for restricting personal consumption choices. So, paternalists face a dilemma: either endorse less interference with consumption choices or more interference with voting choices.
Copyright © 2022 Jason Brennan and Christopher Freiman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
|

Is Epistocracy Irrational?

Adam F. Gibbons

Political Disagreement and Minimal Epistocracy

Adam F. Gibbons

News Journalism and the Principles of Objectivity

Dhananjay Jagannathan and Clara Ence Morse

Politics and Foreign Donations

Andreas Bengtson and Dick Timmer

Political Forgetting

Alexander Bryan

Making Sense of Political Normativity

Mike Gadomski

War, Legitimacy, and Democracy: Comments on Renzo

Thomas Christiano

Clarifying Parens Patriae

James G. Dwyer

Rational Incompetence of Voters

Susumu Cato

Democracy, Disobedience, and Accountability

Henry Krahn

There Is No Institutional Duty to Vote

Jason Brennan and Christopher Freiman

Refining the Argument from Democracy

Gabe Broughton

Portico