If Trump were able to substantially erode constitutional checks and balances, it seems pretty clear to me that the consequences have the potential to be bad, the only question is how bad, and how likely is it.
It is unclear to me whether less democracy would increase or decrease economic growth, which has been very connected to human welfare. So I do not know whether less democracy would increase or decrease human welfare.
To illustrate how bad the outcomes might be, here’s a brainstormed list of potential outcomes which may or may not happen
The outcomes you listed are bad for humans, but I am not confident they are bad for animals, and I guess the effects on animals are the driver of the overall effect.
Exacerbation of climate change
I believe there is significant uncertainty about whether increasing global temperature is good or bad to humans (farmed animals, and wild animals).
“It is unclear to me whether less democracy would increase or decrease economic growth, which has been very connected to human welfare. So I do not know whether less democracy would increase or decrease human welfare.”
I usually think your posts are very good because you are prepared to honestly and clearly state unpopular beliefs. But this seems a bit glib: economic growth is not the only thing that effects well-being, by any means, and so simply being unsure about how democracy effects it is not a strong case on its own for being unsure whether democracy increases or decreases human well-being. Growth might be the most important thing of course, but if you really are neutral on the effect of democracy on growth, other factors will still determine whether you should think democracy is net beneficial for humans in expectation.
Also, in the particular case of the US to evaluate whether democracy continuing is a good thing for human well-being, what primarily matters is how democracy shapes up versus the realistic alternatives in the US, not whether democracy is the best possible system in principle, or even the best feasible system in most times and places. It’s not like we are comparing democracy in the US to the Chinese communist system, market anarchism, sortition or the implementation of the knowledge-based restrictions on the franchise suggested by Jason Brennan in his book Against Democracy. We are comparing it to “on the surface democracy, but really Musk and Trump use the justice department to make it impossible for credible opponents to run against the Republican party for many national offices or against their favoured candidates in crucial Republican primaries, and also Musk can in practice stop any government payment to anyone so long as Trump himself doesn’t prevent him doing so.” Maybe you think the risk of that is low, but that’s what people are worried about. Maybe you also think that might be good, because Republican policies might be better for growth and that dominates all other factors, but even then, it’s worth being clear about what you are advocating agnosticism about and its not the merits of democracy in the abstract, but the current situation in the US.
But this seems a bit glib: economic growth is not the only thing that effects well-being, by any means, and so simply being unsure about how democracy effects it is not a strong case on its own for being unsure whether democracy increases or decreases human well-being. Growth might be the most important thing of course, but if you really are neutral on the effect of democracy on growth, other factors will still determine whether you should think democracy is net beneficial for humans in expectation.
Holding real gross domestic product (real GDP) per capita constant, there is significant cross-country variation respecting whether more democracy and human rights are associated with a smaller/larger population size, life expectancy at birth, share of people who are satisfied with their life, and life satisfaction. Moreover, I would still wonder about causality even if there was a robust positive association between more democracy and human rights and positive social outcomes holding real GDP per capita constant.
I am pessimistic about finding robust causal relationships between democracy and social outcomes. My sense is that the relationship between democracy and growth is among the ones which have been studied the most, and it looks like there is still lots of uncertainty. I think focussing on more fine-grained elements of democracy would be good for this reason. One may have little idea about whether democracy increases or decreases growth in general, but still have a good sense of how concrete policies more often proposed by Democrats or Republicans affect growth.
Also, in the particular case of the US to evaluate whether democracy continuing is a good thing for human well-being, what primarily matters is how democracy shapes up versus the realistic alternatives in the US, not whether democracy is the best possible system in principle, or even the best feasible system in most times and places.
Great point. It is not as if there is a lever one can pull to change the overall level of democracy. I think it is more productive to ask about how concrete policies would change human, animal or non-biological welfare relative to the counterfactual policies.
Maybe you also think that might be good, because Republican policies might be better for growth and that dominates all other factors, but even then, it’s worth being clear about what you are advocating agnosticism about and its not the merits of democracy in the abstract, but the current situation in the US.
I am not familiar with the situation in the US, so I am staying close to my libertarian prior. I think my views are close to Bryan Caplan’s with respect to the policies that increase human welfare. However, I am much more uncertain/agnostic overall because I care about animal welfare too.
Fair enough, I actually think it is very hard to discover causal relationship in any social scientific domain. I still strongly suspect that dictatorial governments are bad however. (It’s almost impossible to get data on the effects of highly developed countries by modern standards ceasing to be democracy, because this has almost never happened.)
Unclear what (economic) libertarianism implies about the Trump admin. They will cut taxes, but also they might put up tarifs.
Thanks for the post, Sanjay!
It is unclear to me whether less democracy would increase or decrease economic growth, which has been very connected to human welfare. So I do not know whether less democracy would increase or decrease human welfare.
The outcomes you listed are bad for humans, but I am not confident they are bad for animals, and I guess the effects on animals are the driver of the overall effect.
I believe there is significant uncertainty about whether increasing global temperature is good or bad to humans (farmed animals, and wild animals).
“It is unclear to me whether less democracy would increase or decrease economic growth, which has been very connected to human welfare. So I do not know whether less democracy would increase or decrease human welfare.”
I usually think your posts are very good because you are prepared to honestly and clearly state unpopular beliefs. But this seems a bit glib: economic growth is not the only thing that effects well-being, by any means, and so simply being unsure about how democracy effects it is not a strong case on its own for being unsure whether democracy increases or decreases human well-being. Growth might be the most important thing of course, but if you really are neutral on the effect of democracy on growth, other factors will still determine whether you should think democracy is net beneficial for humans in expectation.
Also, in the particular case of the US to evaluate whether democracy continuing is a good thing for human well-being, what primarily matters is how democracy shapes up versus the realistic alternatives in the US, not whether democracy is the best possible system in principle, or even the best feasible system in most times and places. It’s not like we are comparing democracy in the US to the Chinese communist system, market anarchism, sortition or the implementation of the knowledge-based restrictions on the franchise suggested by Jason Brennan in his book Against Democracy. We are comparing it to “on the surface democracy, but really Musk and Trump use the justice department to make it impossible for credible opponents to run against the Republican party for many national offices or against their favoured candidates in crucial Republican primaries, and also Musk can in practice stop any government payment to anyone so long as Trump himself doesn’t prevent him doing so.” Maybe you think the risk of that is low, but that’s what people are worried about. Maybe you also think that might be good, because Republican policies might be better for growth and that dominates all other factors, but even then, it’s worth being clear about what you are advocating agnosticism about and its not the merits of democracy in the abstract, but the current situation in the US.
Thanks, David!
Holding real gross domestic product (real GDP) per capita constant, there is significant cross-country variation respecting whether more democracy and human rights are associated with a smaller/larger population size, life expectancy at birth, share of people who are satisfied with their life, and life satisfaction. Moreover, I would still wonder about causality even if there was a robust positive association between more democracy and human rights and positive social outcomes holding real GDP per capita constant.
I am pessimistic about finding robust causal relationships between democracy and social outcomes. My sense is that the relationship between democracy and growth is among the ones which have been studied the most, and it looks like there is still lots of uncertainty. I think focussing on more fine-grained elements of democracy would be good for this reason. One may have little idea about whether democracy increases or decreases growth in general, but still have a good sense of how concrete policies more often proposed by Democrats or Republicans affect growth.
Great point. It is not as if there is a lever one can pull to change the overall level of democracy. I think it is more productive to ask about how concrete policies would change human, animal or non-biological welfare relative to the counterfactual policies.
I am not familiar with the situation in the US, so I am staying close to my libertarian prior. I think my views are close to Bryan Caplan’s with respect to the policies that increase human welfare. However, I am much more uncertain/agnostic overall because I care about animal welfare too.
Fair enough, I actually think it is very hard to discover causal relationship in any social scientific domain. I still strongly suspect that dictatorial governments are bad however. (It’s almost impossible to get data on the effects of highly developed countries by modern standards ceasing to be democracy, because this has almost never happened.)
Unclear what (economic) libertarianism implies about the Trump admin. They will cut taxes, but also they might put up tarifs.