|
Democracy must give way to rule by experts (Liberal Fascism in action)
 "Prometheus" @ Center for Science & Technology Policy ResearchHave you ever heard anyone make the argument that we must take a certain course of action because the experts tell us we must? The issue might be the threat of another country or an environmental risk, but increasingly we see appeals to authority used as the basis for arguing for this or that action. In a new book, David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith take the appeal to experts somewhat further and argue that in order to deal with climate change we need to replace liberal democracy with an authoritarianism of scientific expertise. They write in a recent op-ed: Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. . . On their book page they write: [T]he authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power. Of course it will. After all, we all know that really smart people like PhDs never, ever seek political power, and we also know that no power-hungry politician would ever set himself up as an expert just to get his foot in the door. Power, or the quest for power, never corrupts anyone. Human nature is too sweet, too pure, too noble for that. [/sarcasam] Someone just wrote a book about this phenomenon, if memory serves correctly. So whenever you hear (or invoke) an argument from expertise (i.e., "the experts tell us that we must ...") ask if we should listen to the experts in just this one case, or if we should turn over all decisions to experts. If just this one case, why this one and not others? If a general prescription, should we do away with democracy in favor of an authoritarianism of expertise? Posted by: Mike 2008-02-08 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=224650 |