Name: Against Democracy
ISBN: 9780691178493

Jason Brennan

Hobbits and hooligans -- Ignorant, irrational, misinformed nationalists -- Political participation corrupts -- Politics doesn't empower you or me -- Politics is not a poem -- The right to competent government -- Is democracy competent? -- The rule of the knowers -- Civic enemies

New Preface

Against Democracy

Most people believe democracy is a uniquely just form of government. They believe people have the right to an equal share of political power. And they believe that political participation is good for us—it empowers us, helps us get what we want, and tends to make us smarter, more virtuous, and more caring for one another. These are some of our most cherished ideas about democracy. But, Jason Brennan says, they are all wrong. In this trenchant book, Brennan argues that democracy should be judged by its results—and the results are not good enough. Just as defendants have a right to a fair trial, citizens have a right to competent government. But democracy is the rule of the ignorant and the irrational, and it all too often falls short. Furthermore, no one has a fundamental right to any share of political power, and exercising political power does most of us little good. On the contrary, a wide range of social science research shows that political participation and democratic deliberation actually tend to make people worse—more irrational, biased, and mean. Given this grim picture, Brennan argues that a new system of government—epistocracy, the rule of the knowledgeable—may be better than democracy, and that it's time to experiment and find out. A challenging critique of democracy and the first sustained defense of the rule of the knowledgeable, Against Democracy is essential reading for scholars and students of politics across the disciplines.

Ron Bronson

read Jason Brennan’s book “Against Democracy” which argues for a epistocracy of informed citizens who have some enhances ability to make     decisions for all of us, because essentially democratic rule as we know it, does not work and we’re ruled by commoners who make bad decisions & are uninformed.
On face, Brennan’s arguments have some good philosophical ground & provide the reader with a solid case for why we’d consider his thesis even if it’s not plausible in today’s political landscape in the west.
Here’s the problem: Brennan assumes good actors & assumes that there bad actors would not use their status to collude and impose worse policy prescriptions on the masses under the guise of being smarter and more learned. 
It would stand to reason that a white libertarian professor would write a book like this, he doesn’t have to confront a history of a government that has subjugated him or people that look like him.
On race, like most libertarians, his views are dimwitted at best. Essentially, we’re just supposed to accept on-face that inherently a society that doesn’t allow blacks (for example) the ballot does not necessarily have to discriminate against them. In fact, they could be afforded even more rights. So he’s right in theory, but in practice, we’ve seen across the board that when deny any semblance of political equality, that blacks specifically in the U.S. have been worse off as a group.
My politics did not make me opposed ultimately to Brennan’s arguments, I empathized generally because I agree that people do not always act rationally. 
Politics today have devolved into sports team-like factions that do not have any connection to policy prescriptions or seem to resemble a rational place where we can debate facts and come up with some kind of process for consensus.
That said, I can’t get behind a system that deliberately glosses over giving people a chance to participate. Too many people in this country have died securing political rights that thinking creating some kind of legalized gilded class based on brains would end well is facile at best.
Would epistocracy work in a more homogenous society without the history of the US? I think so. But here? Not a chance.
I appreciate Brennan bringing up what amounts to an alternate history thought experiment.

Against Democracy New Preface

Reviews

Highlights