NationStates Jolt Archive

We were discussing this in my inquiry into physics class, in which we discussed an article we read and critiqued about the decline in american scientific education.

We kinda stumbled upon the point that, if the majority of the population is made up of people who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground (essentially) should these people be permitted to make decisions for themselves and for the rest of the population of a country? Or should the intellectuals of the country rule in the best interests of the entire populace (like in Plato's Republic)

Should people get to be in charge simply because they know better than the rest of the population?

We were discussing this in my inquiry into physics class, in which we discussed an article we read and critiqued about the decline in american scientific education.

We kinda stumbled upon the point that, if the majority of the population is made up of people who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground (essentially) should these people be permitted to make decisions for themselves and for the rest of the population of a country? Or should the intellectuals of the country rule in the best interests of the entire populace (like in Plato's Republic)

Should people get to be in charge simply because they know better than the rest of the population?

People shouldn't be ruled, period. Look into Anarcho-Communism.

The questions are as follows (I'm not trying to antagonise, these just are the problems)

1. What method do we use to see who is the most intellegent?
2. How do we know that these people will not run the country for their benefit above that of the people?
3. How do we prevent "absolute power corrupts absolutely"?
4. How can we ensure that the intelectualls are accountable if they are not elected?

There are others too, but these four just came to me now

I am not at all convinced that intellectuals are any more in touch with reality than ordinary citizens. As far as making wise political decisions goes, intelligence is not always much of an asset. Look at the intellectuals who supported the Nazis, for instance, and other brutal regimes throughout history.

Intellectuals are people who can defend the indefensible, and convince themselves and others that they have a point.

Putting them in power would be incredibly dangerous.

People shouldn't be ruled, period. Look into Anarcho-Communism.
'Should' being the key word. We can talk about 'ought' all we want, but in the end we have to be realistic.

I trust the average person and intellectucal to rule themselves, I do not, however, trust them to rule me.

Dumbasses don't vote because they don't see the value of voting because the're dumbasses. Apathy is a good thing.

Well, principally I want everyone to have a voice.
But the practical experience I gained during the recent Howard "OMG Teh Interest Ratez!!1!" campaign leads me to think that maybe there should be a qualifiying system of sorts.

Everyone should have 100 votes. They can spread those as they wish. That way you can indicate how strongly you agree with someone, rather than simply yes or no.

And now you introduce a simple current affairs, politics and maybe basic economics test, and whatever percentage you score is the number of votes you get out of your hundred.
Do well and get 98% - You get to vote with 98 votes.
Suck and only get 12% - You only have 12 votes to spread around.

Not nice perhaps, but it might well deliver better outcomes.

The main problem with democracies is that the leaders always use short-term thinking (i.e. only care what happens during their time in government) and are often more interested in re-election than running the country well.

The problem with dictatorship is that the leaders typically use their power to enforce their religious and/or political ideology, rather than making the country a nice place to live.

Overall, I'd say democracy is best, although if I were dictator, I'd do a lot better job than democracies are currently doing.

What about a constitutional monarchy?

Meritocracy + Armed citizenry = Effective government with a SHTF precaution.

Im for it.

What about a constitutional monarchy?

That way you get the dumbasses at the top of the system.

Government should be the system that allows self-interest to be pursued in the most efficent way possible while also controlling the excesses of self-interest at the same time. And. as I see it democracy has been the most successful, relative to other governments.

The main problem with democracies is that the leaders always use short-term thinking (i.e. only care what happens during their time in government) and are often more interested in re-election than running the country well.

If the citizenry are incapable of long-term thinking, why do you think politiicans would be capable of it if they weren't accountable on the short term?

Meritocracy + Armed citizenry = Effective government with a SHTF precaution.
There's plenty of countries where there's strict gun controls and in which democracy is alive and well.
And besides: Armed Meritocracy? Isn't that a fancy name for civil war?

You've got a gun, and depending on how good you are at using it, you become leader! Yay!

I think that Democracy isn't so much a method of ensuring the best government as it is a way to help safeguard against getting the worst government. The people's will, checks, balances and seperations of power limit the damage government can do. In an anarchy, eventually someone will reach for power and achieve it, and there will be no limits to their power.

The best government is an absolute monarchy governed by a truly brilliant and benevolent monarch. The only problem is there is no way to ensure that happening. One mistake and you've got a bloody tyrant.

Edit: Oh, and with a meritocracy, you run into the problem of who decides what has merit and how to measure it. Effectively, those who decide on the peramiters of merit become a de facto oligarchy.

If the citizenry are incapable of long-term thinking, why do you think politiicans would be capable of it if they weren't accountable on the short term?

I didnt mention the citizenry. I said the leaders of democracy tend to (well I said "always", but that was a mistake) use short term thinking, because they wont be in control long enough for long-term plans to be feasible.

I didnt mention the citizenry. I said the leaders of democracy tend to (well I said "always", but that was a mistake) use short term thinking, because they wont be in control long enough for long-term plans to be feasible.
That has been a problem in many developing countries when they first introduced democracy.
They always feel like they're not quite done yet, and so it returns to dictatorship.

Anyways, here's an article about political parties in the US artificially causing economic fluctuations to look good come election time:
http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/restud/v42y1975i2p169-90.html

That has been a problem in many developing countries when they first introduced democracy.
They always feel like they're not quite done yet, and so it returns to dictatorship.

Anyways, here's an article about political parties in the US artificially causing economic fluctuations to look good come election time:
http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/restud/v42y1975i2p169-90.html
Good to see you back.

I we talking a pure democracy? It seems that we're delving into a republic here.

We were discussing this in my inquiry into physics class, in which we discussed an article we read and critiqued about the decline in american scientific education.

We kinda stumbled upon the point that, if the majority of the population is made up of people who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground (essentially) should these people be permitted to make decisions for themselves and for the rest of the population of a country? Or should the intellectuals of the country rule in the best interests of the entire populace (like in Plato's Republic)

Should people get to be in charge simply because they know better than the rest of the population?
The question is moot, since those with the money make the rules for everyone else, even in a democracy, including the "intellectuals."

Everything should be for the people. Minimize big government as much as possible use it to control currency, foriegn affairs, military. Then the regions are controlled by a group of people elected by popular vote. Free healthcare for everyone. Education is the same reguardless of birth. And people are treated fairly and equally.

3. How do we prevent "absolute power corrupts absolutely"?

The main problem with democracies is that the leaders always use short-term thinking (i.e. only care what happens during their time in government) and are often more interested in re-election than running the country well.

Both potentialities would be remedied with execution's institution as a terminal condition for assumption of office.

The best government is an absolute monarchy governed by a truly brilliant and benevolent monarch.

No human is brilliant or benevolent enough for unaccountability.

Good to see you back.
Thanks...I guess I was never going to just let myself get kicked out anyways.
There was a bit of confusion, but at any rate, they killed my nation (:eek:) and now I'm left with a new (so very tiny) one.

I we talking a pure democracy? It seems that we're delving into a republic here.
Well, "pure" democracy is probably not really feasible I think. There couldn't really be political parties, or a parliament or any of that stuff in a complete mob rule.
But even then, I still think it makes some sense to qualify how important everyone's opinion really is in the end.

We were discussing this in my inquiry into physics class, in which we discussed an article we read and critiqued about the decline in american scientific education.

We kinda stumbled upon the point that, if the majority of the population is made up of people who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground (essentially) should these people be permitted to make decisions for themselves and for the rest of the population of a country? Or should the intellectuals of the country rule in the best interests of the entire populace (like in Plato's Republic)

Should people get to be in charge simply because they know better than the rest of the population?
no

the best systems is a freely elected government with a high voter turnout (which is where we fall short) moderated by a strong contitution with guaranteed liberties.

why?

conflict of interest

no matter who is at the top, they naturally think that their issues and their point of view is most correct. (i know i do.) by limiting governance to a certain class -- educated smart people -- the wants and needs of educated smart people will get met first and foremost. not because they are evil but because of the natural human tendency to think of our own needs first.

when you get massive numbers of people vying for their own best interests, the interest of the majority tends to be met most efficiently. the constitution helps keep the interests of the minority from being trampled on.

Democracy is one of the worst forms of government. It's tyranny by majority, rule by men rather than rule by law. A constitutional republic, preferrably a confederacy, is best. The smaller and more de-centralized a government is, the better.

Well, "pure" democracy is probably not really feasible I think. There couldn't really be political parties, or a parliament or any of that stuff in a complete mob rule.

Well, I have no problem with greatly reducing the role of parliaments and political parties.

Direct, grass-roots democracy would probably respond to human needs better.

Democracy is one of the worst forms of government. It's tyranny by majority, rule by men rather than rule by law. A constitutional republic, preferrably a confederacy, is best. The smaller and more de-centralized a government is, the better.

It depends, though. Decentralization leads to regionalization which can be a prime spark for a civil war or destabilization. A federalist system, with the national government supreme, seems to control the risks of both central and decentralization.

Democracy is one of the worst forms of government. It's tyranny by majority, rule by men rather than rule by law. A constitutional republic, preferrably a confederacy, is best. The smaller and more de-centralized a government is, the better.

Who makes the law by which society is ruled?

no

the best systems is a freely elected government with a high voter turnout (which is where we fall short) moderated by a strong contitution with guaranteed liberties.

why?

conflict of interest

no matter who is at the top, they naturally think that their issues and their point of view is most correct. (i know i do.) by limiting governance to a certain class -- educated smart people -- the wants and needs of educated smart people will get met first and foremost. not because they are evil but because of the natural human tendency to think of our own needs first.

when you get massive numbers of people vying for their own best interests, the interest of the majority tends to be met most efficiently. the constitution helps keep the interests of the minority from being trampled on.
What if it was the intellectuals working to benefit the majority?

I'm sure if there was a council of intellectuals in power, they would try to ensure that education (at the very least) was excellent throughout the country, which would result in the betterment of all.

What if it was the intellectuals working to benefit the majority?

I'm sure if there was a council of intellectuals in power, they would try to ensure that education (at the very least) was excellent throughout the country, which would result in the betterment of all.
they would THINK they are working to benefit the majority

thats why conflict of interest is such a powerful concept. you dont realize that your decision is being colored by your circumstances.

it would occur to the educated smart people that educated smart people need to be paid more, that universities need way more funding, that high iq should get you better seats in restaurants.

without the moderating influence of democracy we would soon have the tyranny of the smart people.

they would THINK they are working to benefit the majority

thats why conflict of interest is such a powerful concept. you dont realize that your decision is being colored by your circumstances.

it would occur to the educated smart people that educated smart people need to be paid more, that universities need way more funding, that high iq should get you better seats in restaurants.

without the moderating influence of democracy we would soon have the tyranny of the smart people.
Look at some countries as they are now. Is tyrrany of the intellectuals really a lot worse than having the government in the hands of imbeciles?

i dont see the problem as "stupid people control the government" so much as not enough people bother to vote.

even a guy with a 4th grade education knows his own best interest. the trouble is that he doesnt vote his own best interest. he either doesnt vote at all (most people) or he is manipulated into thinking that his interest lies elsewhere or that a particular party represents him when it doesnt.

we have an educated elite running the country right now. some of them are the smartest (or close to it) in their fields. even our "moron" president graduated from one of the finest universities in the country. the previous president was a freaking rhodes scholar. didnt stop either of them from doing the wrong thing.

"... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

-James Madison

I'm going to go with Archimedes on this one.

We were discussing this in my inquiry into physics class, in which we discussed an article we read and critiqued about the decline in american scientific education.

We kinda stumbled upon the point that, if the majority of the population is made up of people who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground (essentially) should these people be permitted to make decisions for themselves and for the rest of the population of a country? Or should the intellectuals of the country rule in the best interests of the entire populace (like in Plato's Republic)

Should people get to be in charge simply because they know better than the rest of the population?
The Founders of America did everything in their power to PREVENT America from ever becoming a pure democracy. Pure democracy is one of the must unjust, inequal, and revolting systems of government, so I'm damn glad the Founders had better sense.

I'm going to go with Archimedes on this one.
Why, what did he have to say about it?

The fundamental problem with a meritocracy can be illustrated by the fact that the gang of moronic bastards currently in charge of the US actually think they *are* a meritocracy. Merit is always, eventually, defined by ego, therefore it's not a good social measure.

Besides, smart and stupid are not mutually exclusive conditions. Smart people do lots of incredibly stupid things.

Dumbasses don't vote because they don't see the value of voting because the're dumbasses. Apathy is a good thing.

The problem with voting, in any form of government, is that it legitimizes the government. People often say "if you don't vote, then you have no right to complain.." whereas I would think the opposite would be true. If one votes, i.e. buys into the system, then one should have no room to complain when the same system goes against their wishes. If they held an election and nobody voted, how could anyone say that they had a right to consider themselves the leader of a people?

We were discussing this in my inquiry into physics class, in which we discussed an article we read and critiqued about the decline in american scientific education.

We kinda stumbled upon the point that, if the majority of the population is made up of people who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground (essentially) should these people be permitted to make decisions for themselves and for the rest of the population of a country? Or should the intellectuals of the country rule in the best interests of the entire populace (like in Plato's Republic)

Should people get to be in charge simply because they know better than the rest of the population?

This is why the American founders created a Constituional REPUBLIC.