The Tyranny of Experts raises credible concerns of how supporting autocratic regimes undermines individual rights. Easterly bring up four different argument of why individual rights are being diminished in autocracies. The question I will attempt to answer is whether it is correct to support autocrats who will supposedly implement technology into their countries, or if countries like the United States should abstain from such support to protect human rights. I will first comment on each of the four sections of the book, and I will conclude that human rights are paramount, but countries like the U.S. cannot cut ties off with autocracies completely.
In the section the Blank Slate versus learning from history, Easterly takes the reader through …show more content…
His solution is spontaneous development that happens in correlation with human rights. He is discouraged that the technocratic have such a popular appeal. “It makes our biases even worse when we hear a lot more about successes than failures. Research indicates that the New York Times was four times more likely to mention successful autocratic countries than failed ones over 1960 to 2008” (312). However, throughout the book Easterly rightly exhibits that when autocrats do preside over good economies, it often does not come from their good will. Either there is social unrest or a strong reason for the autocrats to liberalize their policies. “The moral of this section is that autocrats get too much credit for episodes of increased economic freedom. While there surely are cases in which autocrats intentionally liberalize policies to increase economic freedom, there is no reason to assume this is the norm without more detailed examination” (320). However, Easterly can point to all of the spontaneous development that has happened in cities and states where democratic or majorities attempted to make itself better—namely those on Green Street—rather than the numerous failures of planned …show more content…
By this, I mean that the argument of technocrats versus free development proponents comes down to one question: is our goal as first world countries to help the material suffering or the suffering of rights? Easterly is very effective in pointing out why supporting autocratic regimes is harmful in helping the material and liberty deprivation of those in poverty. However, the critique of David Roodman cannot be ignored. Should the U.S. sit back and wait for natural rights to develop in countries? The answer to that is no. We cannot cut ties with autocracies completely. Rather, first world countries must be more purposeful in how we deal with such regimes, always searching for ways to increase rights, rather than alleviate the material
In the section the Blank Slate versus learning from history, Easterly takes the reader through …show more content…
His solution is spontaneous development that happens in correlation with human rights. He is discouraged that the technocratic have such a popular appeal. “It makes our biases even worse when we hear a lot more about successes than failures. Research indicates that the New York Times was four times more likely to mention successful autocratic countries than failed ones over 1960 to 2008” (312). However, throughout the book Easterly rightly exhibits that when autocrats do preside over good economies, it often does not come from their good will. Either there is social unrest or a strong reason for the autocrats to liberalize their policies. “The moral of this section is that autocrats get too much credit for episodes of increased economic freedom. While there surely are cases in which autocrats intentionally liberalize policies to increase economic freedom, there is no reason to assume this is the norm without more detailed examination” (320). However, Easterly can point to all of the spontaneous development that has happened in cities and states where democratic or majorities attempted to make itself better—namely those on Green Street—rather than the numerous failures of planned …show more content…
By this, I mean that the argument of technocrats versus free development proponents comes down to one question: is our goal as first world countries to help the material suffering or the suffering of rights? Easterly is very effective in pointing out why supporting autocratic regimes is harmful in helping the material and liberty deprivation of those in poverty. However, the critique of David Roodman cannot be ignored. Should the U.S. sit back and wait for natural rights to develop in countries? The answer to that is no. We cannot cut ties with autocracies completely. Rather, first world countries must be more purposeful in how we deal with such regimes, always searching for ways to increase rights, rather than alleviate the material