Do dumb people hold dumb ideas? I’d say not necessarily. There are a host of issues where my views are probably closer to the view of the typical dumb person than to the views of a sophisticated reader of the New Yorker magazine. And even where I disagree with the views of dumb people, it’s quite possible that they are correct and I am wrong.
So dumb ideas =/= the ideas held by dumb people.
Nonetheless, there is one area where I believe that dumb people do tend to hold dumb ideas. I believe that are too quick to equate bad things with things that should be banned, and good things with things that should be mandatory.
Obviously, there are lots of bad things that should be banned. Robbing a bank should be banned. My view as to the appropriate punishment of bank robbers is probably closer to that of the typical dumb person that to the view of the typical New Yorker reader. (At least five years in prison, not one year because criminals are “oppressed by society.”)
I can think of all sorts of things that are bad or at least seem bad to many people:
Flag burning. Pornography. Drugs. Prostitution. Really high interest rates on credit cards. Paying workers very low wages. Very high rents on low quality apartments. Imported goods that result in American workers losing their job. A $5 fee to use an ATM.
My hunch is that dumb people are more likely to support banning those things, because they seem bad. This is not because I think that dumb people are left wing or right wing; the “ban bad things” view is held by people on both sides of the political spectrum. So is making certain “good things” mandatory, whether it be the Pledge of Allegiance or school mask wearing.
Tyler Cowen linked to a recent article that made the following claim:
Meanwhile, people with high measured cognitive ability are also more likely to support economic conservatism (and cultural liberalism).
Note that that people with economically conservative and culturally liberal views would tend to oppose the bans discussed above. The same cannot be said about right wingers or left wingers.
I suspect that dumb people are too quick to favor banning things that are seen as bad. That is, they are less likely to understand that these are two very different questions:
1. Is X a bad thing?
2. Should X be allowed?
They are less likely to be aware of the unintended consequences of government bans and mandates. Those consequences don’t always make bans and mandates a bad idea, but if you tend to overlook those consequences when forming your views, then your political opinions will be biased in a very specific direction—too much statism.
READER COMMENTS
Alex S.
Jun 16 2023 at 3:53pm
I tend to think of there being three levels of economic intelligence:
3) Command and control (bans/mandates)
2) Pigouvian (taxes/subsidies)
1) Coasian (delineation of property rights/freedom of exchange)
(3) and (2) are just so much simpler to come up with if one doesn’t have the time to think hard.
steve
Jun 16 2023 at 4:12pm
“First Degree Robbery is a robbery where the defendant is armed with a deadly weapon, or with what appears to be a deadly weapon, or the defendant inflicts bodily injury, or the defendant robs a financial institution or bank. The offense is a class A felony with a possible sentence of up life in prison and a $50,000 fine. However, the standard range sentence for this offense is 31 to 41 months prison time for an individual with no criminal history. ”
Steve
john hare
Jun 16 2023 at 6:21pm
One member of my peeve menagerie is that many do not realize that the costs of a ban are often higher than the costs of the original problem. Legalizing drugs for instance would defund many criminal organizations. Very possibly a net win even on substances that are undeniably** bad for you. Markets can handle most of the list items without my attention, or yours.
**Can’t prove that to everybody as there will always be that few in favor of whatever.
Mactoul
Jun 17 2023 at 2:37am
Maybe the economically conservative and socially liberal do not consider pornography, burning flags or drugs to be bad in the first place.
I would imagine they would be as quick to ban something they deem bad as any dumb one.
Scott Sumner
Jun 17 2023 at 4:12pm
“I would imagine they would be as quick to ban something they deem bad as any dumb one.”
No, that’s not accurate.
Mactoul
Jun 17 2023 at 9:04pm
Is the economically conservative socially liberal category defined by the non-banning attitude?
Scott Sumner
Jun 18 2023 at 12:41am
That’s certainly the attitude of the vast majority of people I know in that group.
Jon Murphy
Jun 17 2023 at 4:21pm
As one who falls into that category, I can tell you that is not the case. I hate drugs, even mild ones like pot. I’ve lost family members to drug OD. I’ve seen pot ruin good lives. I cannot overstate how much I hate drugs.
Yet I am in favor of legalization.
Mactoul
Jun 17 2023 at 9:09pm
The argument for non-banning of a harmful thing– is it prudential (I.e. weighing of expected harm of the harmful thing vs expected harm of the ban) or dogmatic (government has no business to ban such a thing).
Peter
Jun 17 2023 at 11:01pm
Harm is subjective. Soda has caused a large loss of life years than methamphetamine. How many people died last year from LSD overdoses or viewing child pornography v. COVID vaccinations over that sane time period.
Jon Murphy
Jun 18 2023 at 6:14am
Both
spencer
Jun 18 2023 at 9:12am
Yeah, my roommate’s father made him drop every month for weed, otherwise his father would cut him off of college expenses. He finally graduated from law school.
spencer
Jun 17 2023 at 8:24am
The mind has an enormous capacity for error, self-deception, illogic, sloppiness, silliness, and confusion, all of which tends to be diminished by training. And that, of course, is the function of education. — John W. Gardner “No Easy Victories”.
Comments are closed.