Page 5. “As citizens of the world’s richest country, we expend little energy worrying about the millions of vital yet mundane functions our government undertakes. Roads are built, sewer systems maintained, mail delivered. We aren’t preoccupied by the thought that skyscrapers will come crashing down because of unenforced building codes; we don’t fret that our nuclear arsenal will fall into the wrong hands, or dread that the tax collector will hit us up for a bribe.” 1. Surely some people consider roads, sewers and mail to be vital. Is it possible to conceive of a reasonable person who might disagree? Is it possible to conceive of leaving such people alone by not requiring them to pay for these things? 2. Does Mr. Hayes really think that it is building codes that keep skyscrapers from falling down, rather than the goodwill and/or naked self-interest of those who front the money for skyscrapers, and the people who construct them, of their respective insurers? 3. A not insignificant number of humans on the face of the planet consider the nuclear arsenal to in fact be in precisely the wrong hands. 4. What useful distinction exists between a tax collector’s extractions and a bribe?
Page 13. Hayes needlessly amalgamates two different definitions of authority, dumping the wind from the sails of his argument. On one hand, there is authority based on expertise (consensual authority), in which one person voluntarily chooses to defer to another because of the latter’s perceived ability to make wiser choices that the former. This is a car mechanic in Hayes’ example. On the other hand, there is authority based on political sovereignty (imposed authority), in which one person involuntarily submits to another because of the latter’s use of force (or threat thereof). Hayes’ conflation of the two makes it seem like he really doesn’t understand the phenomena about which he is writing.
Page 16. “We have accepted that there will be some class of people that will make the decisions for us, and if we just manage to find the right ones, then all will go smoothly.” I’m not sure how broadly Mr. Hayes intends to extend the “we” who have accepted a class of people to make decisions for them, but it certainly doesn’t extend to me. This phrasing makes it seem like Mr. Hayes cannot even fathom the notion that such an abdication of responsibility might be anathema to a reasonable person. By the way, you will never “find the right ones”.
Page 22. Another way to look at the rise of Hayes’ Meritocracy is simply the expansion of the pool of people from which those with a certain authoritarian, institutional mindset are drawn. Where it used to be that only those who were white males could be Organization Men, now blacks, females, and homosexuals can join the party, so long as their mindset is suitably authoritarian and institutional. Diversity is increasing in terms of superficialities that don’t threaten those who benefit from institutional violence; diversity is decreasing in terms of fundamental values and acceptable choices about how to treat others and the environment in which we live.
Page 104. “The Crisis of [Imposed] Authority has produced a particularly virulent strain of this kind of rejectionism, as millions of parents refuse to have their children vaccinated because they believe – against the evidence and a broad and durable medical consensus – that vaccines cause autism and other conditions.” Page 106. “History has shown time and time again that the medical consensus at any given moment is far from infallible”.
First, who would Hayes have making vaccination decisions? Individual parents? Approved authorities who accept “far from infallible” medical consensus? Hayes himself?
Second, there are certainly reasons why a parent might choose to refuse to have their children vaccinated for reasons other than simple contrarianism (which I assume is what Hayes means by rejectionism), or that they believe vaccines cause autism (notwithstanding the fact that either of these rationales would be reason enough for anyone who accepts others’ right of self-ownership). First, a parent might perceive that the risk of a vaccine injury outweighs the expected benefit of potential immunity. Yes, vaccines demonstrably can and have caused injury. Who is Christopher Hayes to tell anyone that he or she must incur a risk of same? Second, a parent might decide that the level of herd immunity is sufficient to protect his or her child. Third, a parent might believe that a child has a right to control what happens to his or her body, and the child chooses not to get an injection. These are just three examples. Mr. Hayes would do well to consider opposing arguments before publishing his next book. It would make his argument much more persuasive.