If anything is obvious, it is that we are split among many ideological divisions. Yet no matter what political persuasion you are, you likely have some gripe with the legal status quo and have some ideas on how to change it. Of course you do, as any thinking person would have views on complicated policy topics. No one would claim that they submit to the existing regime as is, and willingly defer to the rules of government agents. Rather, one of our markers of intelligence and morality is being able to point out where our laws could change. Accepting rules are for normies.
So any suggestion that we should obey authority and become less critical can expect some hostility. Especially with institutions like the courts, police, and legislatures falling out of favor, people have become less trusting of government decisions, preferring to analyze and weigh the evidence for themselves. The internet has made it much easier to become at least somewhat informed and express our criticisms of these failing institutions.
So why exactly should we give these idiots more deference? Because they know way more than you on ruling cases, arresting criminals, and creating laws.
As issues become more complicated, we should embrace a bit of blind obedience. It should be ok to the decisions of government agents on issues we can’t be informed enough about. And no, it's not the road to 1984. But hopefully, it would stop my aunt’s deep insights on trade policy from affecting the real world.
Fascism and communism are dead. There was once a time in history when these ideologies had a chance of controlling the western world, but that time is long gone and there is no sign of their reappearance. The Right Wing Authoritarian mindset is a dying breed, relegated to the very outskirts of political thought.
And yes, this is despite the present-day hysteria caused by Donald Trump or the right’s former hysteria of the specter of communism haunting our institutions. Had Trump not been elected president, it would be a mainstream talking point to state that we had just missed a 1984-esque fascist state. We all learned that the dystopian nightmare regime that was supposed to be the Trump administration was just business as usual. Totalitarianism, once the norm of large-scale societies, is extinct in the Western World. We’re much more skeptical and in control of the government than journalists and conspiracy theorists would have us think.
But isn’t our skepticism of government the very thing that is keeping the totalitarians away? Laws and institutions, our thinking goes, are like science. We have to persistently view the status quo with a critical eye for it to improve. Once we start putting trust in the so-called experts and insiders, we’ll be helpless to the whims of their decision.
Yet we don’t actually view science with this sage-like mindset. Sure, on paper, science requires relentless skepticism and Popperian falsification. However, non-scientists are not the ones to do that, scientists are. When we allow every lay person to apply their amatuer physics and biology, we get flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers. This is not to deny their freedom of expression, but only to state that there isn’t wisdom in all crowds. And there are social costs to cleaning up bullshit (see the bullshit asymmetry principle)
And it's not like you can have a discussion with them and completely change your mind on a few good points that you don’t have an answer to. Eventually, you’ll have to fall back on authority. If a climate change skeptic mentions that “we’re actually in an ice age” or a 9/11 truther starts going on about the architecture of Building 7, will you really change your mind on the spot in response to new information? Or would you think that their arguments are rebuttable by other facts you don’t care to look up? The amateurs know their stuff and it usually takes an actual expert to debunk them. Good for them for trying to learn about a complicated issue outside of their expertise. But bad for them for using their limited knowledge to exploit the ignorance of others to forward their own delusions.
It's not their fault for being misinformed. Information has become so developed and specialized in our age that you simply can’t be an expert in trusts & estates from Twitter threads. You can’t truly confirm the vast information of things that you think you know. You’ll have to defer to authority at some point.
Specialization is one of the fundamental aspects of modernity. Long gone are the days that world-changing technological advancements would be discovered in someone's basement. There are no more renaissance men. Before the 19th century, the greatest minds dabbled in philosophy, physics, mathematics, theology, cognitive science, physiology, astronomy, and ancient languages. Everyone worth knowing was practically a polymath. Yet all the low-hanging fruit has been picked. Advancements now require large groups of anonymous researchers. And experts who dare step outside their field find themselves completely oblivious of their own ignorance.
How we actually view scientific knowledge should inform us on how we should view the State. Face it, you (like me) know so little about monetary policy that our opinions on it can be discounted entirely. And even if you have a very good opinion that you picked up from a savvy econ blogger, what about all the other opinions about monetary policy? With your view being mixed in with everyone else’s, can you expect this quality of this knowledge to be better than the Fed’s Board of Governors? Keep in mind that the dumbest person you know may also have a take on monetary policy that is worth as much as yours. This is why we don’t vote for the Fed’s Board of Governors.
I know, having opinions on complicated policy issues looks cool! It shows you care about our shared issues, took the time to kinda get informed, and are smart enough to understand some of it and articulate your thoughts. Sometimes, not having an opinion on the current hot-button issue can be pretty shameful. But please, don’t let your ego think you know a field better than the people whose job it is to know that field. Tax law is hard. Immigration law is hard. Constitutional law is hard. Enjoy life, the experts are trying.
I’ll be writing some more posts on the case for state obedience.