His talk is here.
He says that voice tends to be less democratic than exit. Even though everyone has a right to vote, political influence tends to be highly concentrated.
I tried to make the same point, probably less well, in the widely-unread Unchecked and Unbalanced. For a more concise version of the arguments there, see my essay on competitive government. That essay and Martin’s talk go well together.
Why do we keep talking about “exit”? Why don’t I hear people talking about “entry”?
If exit influences politicians, so does entry. If exit is an option which increases freedom, so does entry.
And if “voice” is part of democracy, is “silence” part of democracy also?
> If exit is an option which increases freedom, so does entry.
I would have to disagree. Let me give you an example: For several years I lived on privately owned road. Each of us neighbors owned a segment of the road, and we granted easements to each other so that we could use it in common.
While our immediate neighborhood was nice, there were some nearby areas that were… less savory. Occasionally there would be some petty theft. As a result there was always a discussion about whether we should gate our road. We never did, but would it have been a great blow to liberty had we chosen to done so?
I think not. The loss of “freedom” for those living outside the community would be negligible, but the freedom (not to mention the property rights) of those living within the community would be protected, even enhanced. What is a nation if not a gated community writ large?
“Entryism” is a problem for anyone who wishes to preserve freedom in the parts of the world that have it. Europe, I think, is facing this problem. Here is an excellent essay on how virtual communities also have to deal with this problem: https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c#.4ehwr8nhr
I live in California. I don’t like its government, but there are enough reasons to keep me here that I find it tolerable. However, it is nice to know that places like Idaho, Utah, and Texas exist, in case the California government decides to become intolerable. I just hope at that point California (and Massachusetts, etc.) won’t have conquered those other states yet (by means of the federal government).
Hirschman famously wrote this in 1970, which both Kling and Martin cite.
Voice tends to be less democratic than exit. That’s easy to agree with.
Are you going to advance any policies or more actionable tasks based on this? Otherwise, it’s just a nice abstract idea.
Take the example of the bird with the fancy plumage. Let us say Robert Frank discovers some God like properties and saves them from all their pointless positioning and allows them all to remove the fanciness of their plumage without putting off the females. According to Frank, real resources have been saved. However, isnt it likely that other qualities would have to have emerged to make the species stronger for the males to carry around their original ‘excessive’ plumage? Take this to the human world, let us say the McMansion aspiring part of society is truly persuaded by some Robert Frank talk and decides to quit their striving for a bigger house, retire earlier and enjoy non productive activities. There will be less positional goods in society but isnt it likely that all those former McMansion wannabees will now lower the value they place on money and work less, ‘strive’ less in the market economy and hence system wide we would likely see lower capital per person, lower aggregate levels of wealth etc?