Against Epistocracy

The paper discusses Jason Brennan’s arguments in support of epistocracy, the idea that political decisions should be made by experts rather than by non-expert voters. Brennan’s central argument is epistemological. He argues that voters are hopelessly ignorant when it comes to political issues and that this is a good reason not to let them exercise political power over others—the consequences of them doing so are quite simply too negative. I argue that while it is correct that good decisions need be made on the ba- sis of knowledge, we should not underestimate the epistemic strengths of representative democracies. Moreover, I argue, political decisions depend not only on factual beliefs but on values, on what our goals are, and there are very strong reasons not to hand over the goals of society to unelected experts who cannot be held democratically accountable. The idea of epistocracy is an interesting philosophical thought experiment, illuminating the importance of knowledge in a well-functioning political system, but we are well advised not to experiment with it in the real world.