Can anyone help me with the correct name for the "right people" fallacy in gov't?

[shooter_tx]

You know, the fallacy that a particular National Greatness Program would work, if only "the right people" were in charge?

(e.g. we wouldn't have to worry about extraordinary rendition or civil rights abuses, if only "The Democrats" or "liberals" were in power, or we wouldn't have to worry about gun control or profligate spending, if only "The Republicans" or "conservatives" were in power)

I am discussing this civilly with a friend of the opposite persuasion and I know that I've read this a thousand times, but am having a brain fart at the moment as to what it's actually called.

Thanks in advance.

[angelatc]

Nobody is that perfect and nobody lives forever.

[Anti Federalist]

False left/right paradigm?

[Pennsylvania]

I don't know that it has a name already, but I might call it the Lenin fallacy for the reason that so many communists believe the Soviet Union would have "worked" if only Lenin had survived and Stalin hadn't replaced him.

[Andrew-Austin]

You know, the fallacy that a particular National Greatness Program would work, if only "the right people" were in charge?

(e.g. we wouldn't have to worry about extraordinary rendition or civil rights abuses, if only "The Democrats" or "liberals" were in power, or we wouldn't have to worry about gun control or profligate spending, if only "The Republicans" or "conservatives" were in power)

I am discussing this civilly with a friend of the opposite persuasion and I know that I've read this a thousand times, but am having a brain fart at the moment as to what it's actually called.

Thanks in advance.

Its the never ending search for a philosopher king, a very naive poison. People have always said this, and there is a huge demand for "the right people" to reveal themselves. Even if there were some magic-genius incorruptible-technocrat-politician who could make statist programs work well (there isn't and there never will be), the voters would never be capable of discovering him, the media would block his rise to power, or he or she just wouldn't want the political power to begin with. Really I think what they are subconsciously thinking/saying is that someone like them needs to gain power. If only they were ruler then government would start working. People who carry this false hope for the right guys typically end up projecting their values on to slime ball politicians, they see themselves in these savior politicians, thus you see stuff like all the hope and change euphoria that surrounded the election of Obama.

You might be interested in checking out Hans Herman Hoppe's lectures on mises.org about democracy, and perhaps his book The God that Failed. He has some pretty strong arguments against democracy/the political process, that speak against this fallacy. In addition you can bring up the calculation and incentives problems the government has. (edit: which Hugo talked a bit about below)

[Ninja Homer]

utopian, idealist, wishful thinking, transcendentalism... getting close?

[hugolp]

Expand this:

- A bad person has more incentives to lie and get to goverment that a good person. It is highly unlikely that a good person would get anywhere high in goverment.

- In the strange event that happens: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". So there is a high probability that person got corrupted.

- In the even more strange case the person did not get corrupted, nobody has the capacity to micro-manage a country, as Hayek and Mises demosntrated with their books about the imposibility of socialism. There is the problem that nobody can handle all the necesary information to run all the bussiness. That is why even a good person with good intention can do bad things for the people, just because he is unable to handle all the information that its required, and that is why they say: "The path to the hell is paved with good intentions".

And when you are done tell whoever you are debating to stop having slave mentality, that they are adults and they have to understand that nobody is going to look for them but themselves.

[Ninja Homer]

ideological, speculative, theoretical?

[peacepotpaul]

no, I don't want to correct it, because it's the same argument against freedom, if the wrong people have freedom, we'll have chaos. If you believe that having the right people isn't good enough, why shouldn't you be for tyranny? Why do "the people" get the benefit of doubt by being given freedom if they could possibly be the "wrong people"?

[shooter_tx]

Its the never ending search for a philosopher king...
If this ain't it, it's damned close.

BTW, you sound exactly like a friend of mine named Andrew, except he's not living in Austin at the moment. And we're actually supposed to be working on a book together right now.

[shooter_tx]

no, I don't want to correct it, because it's the same argument against freedom, if the wrong people have freedom, we'll have chaos. If you believe that having the right people isn't good enough, why shouldn't you be for tyranny? Why do "the people" get the benefit of doubt by being given freedom if they could possibly be the "wrong people"?
They very well could be.

"The people" get the benefit of the doubt due to decentralization.

With centralization, every bad decision by "the wrong people" is amplified a thousand-fold.

With decentralization, every person's bad decision is localized.

In the false left-right paradigm, it's easiest to explain this concept to people in the context of being out of power.

For example, for Republicans, ask them how well they'd like for Obama-the-Tyrant to suspend trial by jury and habeus corpus, suspend elections, and declare himself dictator-for-life.

For Democrats, ask them the same question(s) about BushJr-the-Tyrant.

I think we can pretty much get everyone to agree that some degree of decentralization is better than one or the other of those possibilities.


ETA: Despite its many/several warts (depending on your beliefs), the system the Founders put in place at least made allowances for the potentiality of having "the wrong people" in office, making it much better than any kind of absolute tyranny/dictatorship.

[Linus]

I would say you're referring to the appeal to authority fallacy, which is well-known within the study of philosophy.

Basically any piece of legislation is an idea, an argument, a theory (i.e. "if we pass this law, then this will happen"). So if a person supports a piece of legislation based solely on who is promoting it, rather than its reasonable merits, then they are appealing to the authority of the legislators for the veracity of their ideas.

[MelissaWV]

no, I don't want to correct it, because it's the same argument against freedom, if the wrong people have freedom, we'll have chaos. If you believe that having the right people isn't good enough, why shouldn't you be for tyranny? Why do "the people" get the benefit of doubt by being given freedom if they could possibly be the "wrong people"?

If I am your Queen, and I mandate that everyone shoot themselves (or I'll have them shot), then everyone's going to die.

If I am myself, and I mandate that I shoot myself, I'm the only one that dies.

It's generally not wise to put all one's eggs into someone else's basket. The more power is relinquished, the more likely it is those eggs will be stolen, crushed, or that there were never any eggs at all (let alone a basket).

[peacepotpaul]

If I am your Queen, and I mandate that everyone shoot themselves (or I'll have them shot), then everyone's going to die.

If I am myself, and I mandate that I shoot myself, I'm the only one that dies.

It's generally not wise to put all one's eggs into someone else's basket. The more power is relinquished, the more likely it is those eggs will be stolen, crushed, or that there were never any eggs at all (let alone a basket).

wouldn't that be a good argument for democracy? the more people in control, the less mistakes we'll make, the less centralized power is, the less "wrong people" can do when their efforts are diluted by "the wrong wrong people (the right people)"

[Andrew-Austin]

If this ain't it, it's damned close.

BTW, you sound exactly like a friend of mine named Andrew, except he's not living in Austin at the moment. And we're actually supposed to be working on a book together right now.

Thats cool. Maybe he looks like me too and I have a long lost twin.

You are writing a book?

[MelissaWV]

wouldn't that be a good argument for democracy? the more people in control, the less mistakes we'll make, the less centralized power is, the less "wrong people" can do when their efforts are diluted by "the wrong wrong people (the right people)"

You're assuming the majority would be the "right" people, and you are making an error in stating that democracy puts more people in control. It puts one *group* of people in control of the fate of the entire other group of people. To take the hyperbole I introduced earlier and apply it to this scenario, a democracy can still vote (51%) that everyone should off themselves. The 49% is out of luck. The way to put the most people in control, and be entirely fair and logical about it, is to give each person a vote (you have that part right) over themselves only.

Of course, all of this is admittedly navel-gazing. Life is not fair, nor is it likely to suddenly turn fair anytime soon, but the OP was about theory.