NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking, and I came to the conclusion that perhaps, the general public is not intelligent enough to konw what's best for them and their fellow countrymen. Would it not be better to have some group of intellectiuals running our country while we still have something to check up on them, like maybe a judicitary system or a small elected branch, specificaly designed to police the intilectiual council, in a way.

Any thoughts?

Here's a major initial issue: Define intelligent.

What's good for the goose, isn't always what's good for the gander.

no, most people aren't educated enough to know what policies serve their best interest.

also, a lot of people have predjudices or ideologies which they vote on while not even thinking about what serves their best interest.

I’ve argued for this on this forum a few times before. It’s more trouble than its worth. People revere democracy like its some sort of deity.

You’re definitely right about most people not being intelligent enough to know what’s best for the country, but as far as people’s own lives go, I try not to judge.

Churchill said it right, "five minutes with teh average voter is an argument against democracy." *

* might not be verbatum, but close enough.

Here's a major initial issue: Define intelligent.


The most reknown scientists, philosphers and highest IQ scores in our society.

I dunno.

If you've seen any American politcial ads, you'll know exactly why the average voter doesn't know what's good for them.

Fortunately, my friend introduced me to NS and I'm a real sucker for general discussion forums, and I'm too young to vote so I'm not the average voter. And if I did vote, I'd go with what's best for teh people and myself, not just myself.

Because the people who vote for what's good for themselves tend to vote against things that would actually help the country.

Intelligent people can spend their time better being doctors, scientists, teachers, ect then they can playing a silly game like politics, leave that to the silly people.

One problem you get particularly with American politics though is people don't vote for the person they want, a lot of people vote for who they think will win. It's a weird psychological thing, it makes them feel like part of a winning team and that they're vote counts....even if it dooms them to all sorts of stupid policies. It's the same reason that American politics is a 2-horse race where 3rd parties are seen as a wasted vote.

It isnt necessary a lack of intelligence so much as it is short-sightedness combined with easily manipulated perception.

The problem is short-sightedness isnt something that we can be sure 'elite intellectuals' will be free from.

More to the point how will these elites be chosen? If it's self appointed, sweet f-all people are going to say 'dont pick me because I'm thick', if we have a test, then those who set the test might also be thick. We could choose elite intellectuals to create the test, but how do we choose them?

I suppose we could all vote, which puts us back where we started.

Take New Alchemy's suggestion - scientists are not necessarily adept at working with issues and matters involving humans and their inherent traits, philosophers are not necessarily all that great at working with real world scenarios, intelligence tests are probably a load of crap. According to intelligence tests, I'm in the top 3% nation-wide, I've seen little to no evidence to back up this bizaare finding.

What if the intelligent people decide to enact policies which are not in the best interest of the stupid people, yet they are too moronic to realize this?

depends where you are.

Intelligent people can spend their time better being doctors, scientists, teachers, ect then they can playing a silly game like politics, leave that to the silly people.

One problem you get particularly with American politics though is people don't vote for the person they want, a lot of people vote for who they think will win. It's a weird psychological thing, it makes them feel like part of a winning team and that they're vote counts....even if it dooms them to all sorts of stupid policies. It's the same reason that American politics is a 2-horse race where 3rd parties are seen as a wasted vote.

I agree.

But also, it seems like the parties tell you what you believe. That's why I brought up the political ads. The American voters have to rely on whoever seems to share their (however short-sighted) views. And while most of America identifies as Christian, they all voted Democrat merely because the Republicans suck (as do the Democrats).

Republicans: We'll do whatever we can in Iraq!
Democrats: Don't listen to them, they'll keep us in there and then your sons and daughters will get drafted to Iraq and die!
Republicans: The Democrats are for raising taxes!
Democrats: The Republicans are t3h ebul capitalists!

Do you see why half of all registered voters DON'T VOTE?!

I hate the all-pervasive intellectual élitism present in this forum. It seems that every other topic some poster will raise the idea that they themselves are somehow more deserving of suffrage than anyone they view lower than themselves. It's sickening.

Talk to anyone in any democracy, regardless of how 'fick' you think they are, and I'm sure they'll give you a damn good reason why they should be allowed to vote. The running of the country affects everyone, and so everyone should be able to be involved in it, so excuse me Isaacs and Alberts if you have a problem with that.

I was thinking, and I came to the conclusion that perhaps, the general public is not intelligent enough to konw what's best for them and their fellow countrymen. Would it not be better to have some group of intellectiuals running our country while we still have something to check up on them, like maybe a judicitary system or a small elected branch, specificaly designed to police the intilectiual council, in a way.

Any thoughts?

This represents a grave threat to the integrity of our union. Clearly, the intellectuals are plotting to overthrow the government, and introduce a 'Tyranny by Common Sense'. If we are to avoid this, we must immediately deal with these smarterrorists by the most cruel and bloody means possible.

So called "intelligent" people are often the ones who come up with the craziest policies. I wouldn't want to take the chance of being ruled by some eccentric philosopher-king.

So called "intelligent" people are often the ones who come up with the craziest policies. I wouldn't want to take the chance of being ruled by some eccentric philosopher-king.

So you'd rather be the slave of a total jackass like Bush?

That's what I got out of it, but feel free to explain yourself.

So you'd rather be the ho of a total jackass like Bush?

Reminds me of a song I heard the other night. Clinton got a $*#)(#@

George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction!
Clinton got a $*#)(#@!

I hate the all-pervasive intellectual élitism present in this forum. It seems that every other topic some poster will raise the idea that they themselves are somehow more deserving of suffrage than anyone they view lower than themselves. It's sickening.

Talk to anyone in any democracy, regardless of how 'fick' you think they are, and I'm sure they'll give you a damn good reason why they should be allowed to vote. The running of the country affects everyone, and so everyone should be able to be involved in it, so excuse me Isaacs and Alberts if you have a problem with that.

quoted for troof

Talk to anyone in any democracy, regardless of how 'fick' you think they are, and I'm sure they'll give you a damn good reason why they should be allowed to vote.
Ha. More than likely you’ll start a conversation about “American Idol.”

I’ll never understand the worship of Democracy. It’s merely a means to an end, freedom, and lately, it has failed utterly at achieving that end.

So you'd rather be the slave of a total jackass like Bush?

That's what I got out of it, but feel free to explain yourself.

Considering on what intellectual would be appointed to lead in America, I think that he/she would not be much of an improvement on Bush. If anything the individual would be even more conservative. Probably would think the Constitution is simply "guidelines" or something. Not really an improvement.

What's good for the goose, isn't always what's good for the gander.

And sometimes it's what's worse for the worcestershire.

Considering on what intellectual would be appointed to lead in America, I think that he/she would not be much of an improvement on Bush. If anything the individual would be even more conservative. Probably would think the Constitution is simply "guidelines" or something. Not really an improvement.
Intellectuals are overwhelmingly liberal.

I know what's best for everyone. Oxygen.

They're all to stupid to not realize that what's best for them doesn't have to be bad for someone else. Too many people think they can't be fulfilled unless they can prevent someone else from fulfillment.

People don't know what's best for them and government officials don't either. Frankly, it is better if the people act than the government officials because at least individuals have a clue about the workings of their lives. Democracy is good simply because people will have greater control instead of philosopher kings and other elites who wish to impose their views of how society should work on the masses. Certainly you might get tyranny by majority but that is better than tyranny by minority.

Peepl just don no whats good 4 tem. That's why I should be Super Dick-Tater Of Teh Wurled!

People revere democracy like its some sort of deity.For me it's more like, I don't like the spectre of a dictator I didn't agree with getting power over me or my quality of life. Not so much a reverence of democracy, per se: I'd have no qualms in being a dictator and probably no real problems supporting one (other than myself) that I did happen to agree with.

But, lacking an army, and not seeing any other sensible dictators around, I'll take the democracy/republic.


You’re definitely right about most people not being intelligent enough to know what’s best for the country, but as far as people’s own lives go, I try not to judge.Agreed. There is an ocean of idiots out there. I agree with the general premise of the OP that it'd be good if the crowd of numbskulls was out of the equation.

But as for an Intellectual Council, I have the same thoughts that I do about individual dictators (that I already mentioned). Plus, there is the fact that even high-IQ people often vehemently disagree with each other about what's "best" for the country!

I think a great many people ARE too stupid to know what's best for them. But the average "leader" isn't interested in what's good for the people, only what's good for himself. A representitive republic, for all its shortcomings, is still better than the alternatives.

Intellectuals are overwhelmingly liberal.

I have seen all sorts. Crazy ones who think that segregation is still a great idea, crazy ones who are enthusiastic supporters of eugenics, crazy ones who think Orwell's 1984 was a great idea...

It really never ends. Too many people sit up in their ivory towers and come up will all sorts of crazy philosophies, often ones that are not at all friendly to civil rights. Never mind the real crazies like this one professor I had who believed that humans were created by aliens. You really can't trust them.

I have seen all sorts. Crazy ones who think that segregation is still a great idea, crazy ones who are enthusiastic supporters of eugenics, crazy ones who think Orwell's 1984 was a great idea...

It really never ends. Too many people sit up in their ivory towers and come up will all sorts of crazy philosophies, often ones that are not at all friendly to civil rights. Never mind the real crazies like this one professor I had who believed that humans were created by aliens. You really can't trust them.
I trust them more than I trust a population that finds entertainment in Prime Time Television.

I trust them more than I trust a population that finds entertainment in Prime Time Television.

Not all TV is crap. It just seems that way, what with all the reality programs. Besides, some braindead TV zombie would be prefrable to me then someone willing to "improve" society by killing all the physically/mentally handicapped.

The most reknown scientists, philosphers and highest IQ scores in our society.

You're going to ask scientists to define morality?

Not all TV is crap. It just seems that way, what with all the reality programs. Besides, some braindead TV zombie would be prefrable to me then someone willing to "improve" society by killing all the physically/mentally handicapped.

Have you ever noticed that on primetime, ALL THE SHOWS ARE THE SAME?!

Have you ever noticed that on primetime, ALL THE SHOWS ARE THE SAME?!

Come on, we have more then the standard lawyer or cop shows. Lost for example, I see as origional. And the new show Heros? Can't get enough of it! And I really want to know how Jack Bauer is going to escape from the Chinese when the next season of 24 starts. :)

The most reknown scientists, philosphers and highest IQ scores in our society.

But here's a problem: scientists, philosophers, and the highest IQ scorers most likely know nothing about how to run an economy or conduct foreign affairs.

Well if you are a liberal thats what you base your whole belief system on is it not ? Someone must protect all the dumb people from them selves ?

Come on, we have more then the standard lawyer or cop shows. Lost for example, I see as origional. And the new show Heros? Can't get enough of it! And I really want to know how Jack Bauer is going to escape from the Chinese when the next season of 24 starts. :)


Okay, fine, Lost. The others are the exact same.

Okay, fine, Lost. The others are the exact same.

Pure origionality is difficult. I don't see how you can compare Heroes and 24 anyway. Hardly the same. There have been new lawyer shows that are the same and the two shows The Nine and Six Degrees are quite similar as well. And I'm sure as a result they will not be back for a new season.

The two I mentioned though.... excellent stuff. :)

Come on, we have more then the standard lawyer or cop shows. Lost for example, I see as origional. And the new show Heros? Can't get enough of it! And I really want to know how Jack Bauer is going to escape from the Chinese when the next season of 24 starts. :)
The fact that a large number of human beings find entertainment in either of those shows makes me weep.

You're going to ask scientists to define morality?

Yeah, that's another problem, especially if you get weirdos like William Provine on the council.

The fact that a large number of human beings find entertainment in either of those shows makes me weep.

Is there any show that you feel is worth watching?

I like donuts.

And in answer to the topic title - yes. Most people are idiots. So are most, if not all, governments.

Hell no.

Hell no.

You are just mean spirited.

*sniffs*

Come on, we have more then the standard lawyer or cop shows. Lost for example, I see as origional. And the new show Heros? Can't get enough of it! And I really want to know how Jack Bauer is going to escape from the Chinese when the next season of 24 starts. :)
The Chinese have Bauer?!:eek:

I dont want to know how he escapes....truth to tell, I'm hoping he doesnt. :p

Is there any show that you feel is worth watching?
House, South Park, The Dailey Show and the Colbert Report are the only watchable programs on television.

Remember that knowing what's best, and acting on it are 2 very different thingamabobbers ;)

House, South Park, The Dailey Show and the Colbert Report are the only watchable programs on television.

Those do own.

House, South Park, The Dailey Show and the Colbert Report are the only watchable programs on television.

You forgot Mind of Mencia.

House, South Park, The Dailey Show and the Colbert Report are the only watchable programs on television.

House! I forgot about that show! :)

You're going to ask scientists to define morality?

Is there someone you would trust with the job?

The religious have shown they cannot be trusted to, so have the scientists.
Who do we turn to? The people?
I rather think we'd be the worst of the lot.

And the trouble with the high-IQ ruling body is, just because they're smart, doesn't mean they're nice. What it means is they're less likely to get caught.

You are just mean spirited.

*sniffs*

The question is simply saying that the people who can't fend for themselves should hand over their rights and freedom of expression to someone who claims to be smarter than them. It would lead to him imposing his ideologies and beliefs on the lower class (mind wise) rather than help them be heard. I refuse to let some one tell me how to live my life, and I will not let that happen to my fellow man.

The thought that some people think they are better at making political desicions really makes me sick. I hate that people agree to take away the rights of their fellow man just to walk all over them. We are not living in some totalitarian universe where others decide what we do, and how we live. Therefore, I say hell no.

The question is simply saying that the people who can't fend for themselves should hand over their rights and freedom of expression to someone who claims to be smarter than them. It would lead to him imposing his ideologies and beliefs on the lower class (mind wise) rather than help them be heard. I refuse to let some one tell me how to live my life, and I will not let that happen to my fellow man.

The thought that some people think they are better at making political desicions really makes me sick. I hate that people agree to take away the rights of their fellow man just to walk all over them. We are not living in some totalitarian universe where others decide what we do, and how we live. Therefore, I say hell no.

Well, I wouldn't trust leadership to anyone nevermind an intellectual. I've said previously that so called "intellectuals" are less trustworthy then idiots.

I actually thought you were responding to something else when you gave your "hell no!" post. :p

I actually thought you were responding to something else when you gave your "hell no!" post. :p

Check my pulse, I just posted on-topic.

*passes out*

Check my pulse, I just posted on-topic.

*passes out*

Have you teh found me yet?

Is there someone you would trust with the job?

I'd trust a combination of religious inputs, scientific and rational examination of the logic behind ethics, and the will of the people in regard to morality. It's too powerful and too difficult a subject to define by one person or one group, especially one that might have ideological motivations in regard to the issue.

Check my pulse, I just posted on-topic.

*passes out*

Yes, well we can always surprise ourselves. And I can certainly support the fight against anything resembling a college professor ever gaining power.

*nods*

Have you teh found me yet?

I'm sure I could.. :cool:

Yes, well we can always surprise ourselves. And I can certainly support the fight against anything resembling a college professor ever gaining power.

*nods*

I think I'd kill myself. *nods*

Is there someone you would trust with the job?


Joe Public. Western democracy, for all its myriad failings, doesn't seem to be making a complete and utter hash of things.

And the trouble with the high-IQ ruling body is, just because they're smart, doesn't mean they're nice. What it means is they're less likely to get caught.

...of course the disturbing thing would be if evil was the more intelligent course. (Not that I'm equating IQ with intelligence here).

Are most people too stupid to know what's best for them?

Yes, but that in and of itself isn't reason to abridge our right to do retarded things.

Are most people too stupid to know what's best for them?

Hidden assumption? - there exist those who are smart enough to know what is good for themselves.

Hidden assumption? - there exist those who are smart enough to know what is good for themselves.

oooh, good call. plus-eleventy-five... qft

This post brought to you by the number Q. :)

You forgot Mind of Mencia.

No. I didn't.

In Britain and America, whenever we have elections, round about half the people vote for the wrong party. the bad one that wants to screw them over and ruin the country. Thats why democracy doesnt work.

House, South Park, The Dailey Show and the Colbert Report are the only watchable programs on television.

I'll take Battlestar Galactica over all of those, although I do have a fondness for Jon Stewart.

There are other watchable programs, but they're on channels like Discovery. I'm fond of a program called "How Things Work" - and I know "Mythbusters" is very popular around NS. Even if it is only for the quotes. ("I reject your reality and substitute my own." It's hard not to enjoy a show with lines like that, although I admit it gets repetitive.)

As long as you stay away from the main American networks, with their reality tv and cops and lawyer knock-offs, there's quite a bit to watch.

I'll take Battlestar Galactica over all of those, although I do have a fondness for Jon Stewart.

There are other watchable programs, but they're on channels like Discovery. I'm fond of a program called "How Things Work" - and I know "Mythbusters" is very popular around NS. Even if it is only for the quotes. ("I reject your reality and substitute my own." It's hard not to enjoy a show with lines like that, although I admit it gets repetitive.)

As long as you stay away from the main American networks, with their reality tv and cops and lawyer knock-offs, there's quite a bit to watch.

Just stay the hell away from MTV.

Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that I know what's best for them anymore than they do.

I used to think that overall people did have at least a decent idea of what is best for them.

However, after getting a job working wth the general public, I cannot be so sure.

It is a moot subject. It should not be the governments' right or responsibility to to coerce people into doing what is best for them, only ensure an environment in which people have the possibility to purse what is best for them.

Sit through a college-level (voting age) government class, and you should realize that people haven't the slightest ability to understand the world they live in.

"Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for supper."
-Jon Erikson

Hanging chads....that still kills me ...

No. I didn't.

Speaking of the magnificence of television:

I just turned on our TV's recording program to find a scheduled DVR event for a PPV show titled: Lord of the G-Strings .

Yes most people are to stupid to know what is best for them and the experts and a meritocracy should rule society.
But there are still many that are intelligent enought to manage themeselves theoretically without any laws what so ever.
For a truly intelligent person the laws that are left over after the common sense are just impractical idealogical inhibitions that have nothing to do with
reality.
Dumb people are those who have idealogical and emotional claims about sponsoring or economocal reforms just becouse of the person using the idea.
The best society would be a meritocracy that still allows anought freedrom for the dumb to suffer a little due if they refuse optional guidance of society and allow enought freedrom to those who deserve to be free of social restrains du to their intelligense.
This will be achieved if anti-democratic factors such as religion, extreme right or extreme left idealogies should be banned in public and banned in the parlament.
Just don't think I'm stupid becouse I can't spell english.

It doesn't matter who is nice. Society is beyond good or evil.
There are no morality, morality are for the dumb masses and dictated by society anyway so there shouldn't be any difference.
The one and only things that matters is intelligence.
Morality is subjective so the dumb will always feel the intelligent are evil.
Humanitarian values are irrational and pointless but some form of democracy is a must, however there are many forms of democracy.
The most intelligent must be the only ones that truly can grasp the entire society in the mind and therefor are the most representative of the people.
An intelligent person could only manipulate people to do what they wanted to do anyway.
The social forces of society are both good and bad but they all automatically benefit society and not wothless little shits like you.
Say hello to the machine, little piss ant.

"Most people" or, the 'common man' (If you all are rich and vain enough to see it that way) will do what, and elect whom suits their interests, "If" they are in an honest society. Another If or Caveat is 'if' they have a nation; If they are unified, and If their interests are tied to the interest of political powers.

However If.....they are fooled at every public display of politics, and If the intent of those powers is made secret, OF course they won't know enough to vote in the government's favor!! That's what you meant, right?

The most intelligent must be the only ones that truly can grasp the entire society in the mind and therefor are the most representative of the people.

Well, sai, I disagree. Intelligence on the order that you proclaim belongs only to those past the grave, or perhaps a see'er with the proper chemical escort. Because you can happen to milk the green teat does not make one christ.

An intelligent person could only manipulate people to do what they wanted to do anyway. Are you Jewish?

The social forces of society are both good and bad but they all automatically benefit society and not wothless little shits like you.
Say hello to the machine, little piss ant.
That's a nasty thing to say.....shame on you, lol. you appear to be flaming in your 'liberalcy'. Bad is good, good is evil...nothing is anyone's fault and I am better that you....the tell-tale signs of a known method of turning society on it's head, so that YOU(non-specific) can insert your own values.

I call 'Commie' on this one.

Authority is supposed the be grounded in wisdom but as you will find out it is just a system of control. nuff said.

That's why I appeal for aptitude tests.

I find it amusing that some are assuming that dictatorial types are all (American-style) liberals or commies.

If I was on the Council my socially moderate, economically mostly Capitalistic, rulings would quickly put such notions to rest.

I'm sure there are plenty of smart people who aren't ivory-towered types who have lost all clue as to how the "real" world is.

But I also think there'd be all kinds of debate within the government as to just which course of action qualified as a smart move. The proposed Council may bog down as much as any other government type where more than one person is making the decisions.

The bottom line is: Would this Council really be able to accomplish more and/or smarter results than democracy currently can? I have my doubts...I've seen people with equal smarts have diametrically opposing views on things.

I was thinking, and I came to the conclusion that perhaps, the general public is not intelligent enough to konw what's best for them and their fellow countrymen. Would it not be better to have some group of intellectiuals running our country while we still have something to check up on them, like maybe a judicitary system or a small elected branch, specificaly designed to police the intilectiual council, in a way.

Any thoughts?
Yeah! Did you just call me stupid?

I was thinking, and I came to the conclusion that perhaps, the general public is not intelligent enough to konw what's best for them and their fellow countrymen. Would it not be better to have some group of intellectiuals running our country while we still have something to check up on them, like maybe a judicitary system or a small elected branch, specificaly designed to police the intilectiual council, in a way.

Any thoughts?

Umm you kind of just explained the US Government. Its a representative government not a full democracy, we have an "intellectual group"(the executive branch) The judicial system(Supreme Court) and a small elected branch (the legislature) specifically designed to balance the other branches. Its not a 100% complete comparison, as we do vote for members in the intellectual council, but its pretty close.

I was thinking, and I came to the conclusion that perhaps, the general public is not intelligent enough to konw what's best for them and their fellow countrymen. Would it not be better to have some group of intellectiuals running our country while we still have something to check up on them, like maybe a judicitary system or a small elected branch, specificaly designed to police the intilectiual council, in a way.

Any thoughts?

Damn me, do you really mean that? Do you not realise how dangerous that kind of thinking is?

Put it this way, substitute the words, general public with the words black people, or Muslims, or gays, or people that suffer with downs symdrome, and then perhaps you will have an idea. Then substitue the word intelectuals with the words, pure breed Aryan, or white, or peers of the realm, or only those people with 5 or more A levels.

That some people sometimes seem stupid is a given, but there are all types of people in the world each with the same right to life as you and I.

I was thinking, and I came to the conclusion that perhaps, the general public is not intelligent enough to konw what's best for them and their fellow countrymen. Would it not be better to have some group of intellectiuals running our country while we still have something to check up on them, like maybe a judicitary system or a small elected branch, specificaly designed to police the intilectiual council, in a way.

Any thoughts?

merit and demerit goods are a fact of economic life.
government intervention is always required to ensure people consume more of the former and less of the latter than they would if it were totally up to the individual

individuals can be smart but people or masses are stupid. generally individuals are stupid too. :headbang:

I was thinking, and I came to the conclusion that perhaps, the general public is not intelligent enough to konw what's best for them and their fellow countrymen. Would it not be better to have some group of intellectiuals running our country while we still have something to check up on them, like maybe a judicitary system or a small elected branch, specificaly designed to police the intilectiual council, in a way.

Any thoughts?

The general public may not be intelligent enough to always know what is best for them but they generally have a darn sight better idea than intellectuals/ellites/bureaucrats telling them what is best as no one persons situation is the same.

Yes most people are to stupid to know what is best for them and the experts and a meritocracy should rule society.
Unfortunately for that plan, most experts are people.

But there are still many that are intelligent enought to manage themeselves theoretically without any laws what so ever.
For a truly intelligent person the laws that are left over after the common sense are just impractical idealogical inhibitions that have nothing to do with
reality.
I do not agree. I do not care how smart or intelligent you are, keeping your hands out of my son's pants is more than an ideological inhibition or impracticality, refraining from assaulting my mother and stealing her car is more than an ideological inhibition or impracticality, as are plenty of other things.

Dumb people are those who have idealogical and emotional claims about sponsoring or economocal reforms just becouse of the person using the idea.
You what? If you mean that dumb people follow along based soley on the person rather than the person's message, again I disagree. Plenty of dumb former fans of the Dixie Chicks bagged them plenty. The message mattered in that case. There are many instances of beloved and respected persons falling from grace as a result of their message being judged as more important than their identity. This is not necessarily consistently the case, but neither is the contrary (as you seem to be suggesting). The fact that most people who went to see that Seinfeld actor loved Kramer and therefore were well-disposed towards the actor who played him, didnt make his racism anymore palatable.

The best society would be a meritocracy that still allows anought freedrom for the dumb to suffer a little due if they refuse optional guidance of society and allow enought freedrom to those who deserve to be free of social restrains du to their intelligense.
I doubt that would be the best society. People ought to retain any and every freedom that does not interfer unduly in the freedom of others. No matter how intelligent a person is they ought not get some right to rape, murder and pillage as they please.

This will be achieved if anti-democratic factors such as religion, extreme right or extreme left idealogies should be banned in public and banned in the parlament.
Which eats into the previously mentioned freedom rather substantially. Plenty of intelligent folk wish to advocate their religion (for instance) publically. That being the case, the freedom you say banning these would achieve, would in fact not be achieved.

Just don't think I'm stupid becouse I can't spell english.
Aside from capitalising the 'E', you seem to have spelled 'English' correctly so far as I can see.

It doesn't matter who is nice. Society is beyond good or evil.
I think that is untrue. Do you have any evidence to substantiate such a view?

There are no morality, morality are for the dumb masses and dictated by society anyway so there shouldn't be any difference.
Not sure what you mean, there is no morality but there is morality?:confused:

The one and only things that matters is intelligence.
Morality is subjective so the dumb will always feel the intelligent are evil.
That the dumb will always feel the intelligent are evil does not necessarily follow from morality being subjective - your argument in this regard is non-sequitor.

Humanitarian values are irrational and pointless but some form of democracy is a must, however there are many forms of democracy.
I'm not convinced that if something is a human value it is necessarily irrational or pointless (much less both these things). Do you have evidence to substantiate this view?

The most intelligent must be the only ones that truly can grasp the entire society in the mind and therefor are the most representative of the people.
I do not believe any person can truely grasp an entire society in their mind.

An intelligent person could only manipulate people to do what they wanted to do anyway.
Er, an intelligent person is only capable of one thing - the manipulation of others? I dont agree.

The social forces of society are both good and bad but they all automatically benefit society and not wothless little shits like you.
Say hello to the machine, little piss ant.
I dont agree that all social forces automatically benefit society.

People go on about intelligence in meritocracy but they seem to be missing the point. Meritocracy is people doing the job that they are best at (or better than everyone else at), sometimes intelligence is importent but not always.

If i had to have anyone leading me it would be people who are pratical, realists and who have a lot of common sense. Most intellectuals I find lack practical common sense, too caught up in their theories rather than taking the world as it is.

What if the intelligent people decide to enact policies which are not in the best interest of the stupid people, yet they are too moronic to realize this?

Then they won't care, I guess.

Most people I meet are so stupid it makes me angry just to belong to the same species as they do.

The fact that the people are too stupid to know what's good for them is half the fun!

Don't take away my entertainment! :(

The most reknown scientists, philosphers and highest IQ scores in our society.

Intelligence does not give you all the skills you need to ru a country.....you need leadership skills and the ability to argue your point to allow you to rule. Many of the cleverest people in society would be unfit for rule due to the arrogance that becoming an elite person may cause.

We all know a BigMac would be better for us now, but generally fail to acknowledge the future consequence. We tend to be too impulsive in our decision. And it become even worst when it's someone else who's gonna face the consequence.

its a big mistake to think that an intellectual oligarchy could cover everyones best interests better than they can.

being smart and educated does not exempt anyone from greed, from dishonesty, from self-delusion.

bill clinton was a rhodes scholar. the big time neocons are all highly educated and extremely smart. even george bush has an MBA from harvard.

I was thinking, and I came to the conclusion that perhaps, the general public is not intelligent enough to konw what's best for them and their fellow countrymen.

By "general public" you mean me, you, everyone on this board, everyone.

Wrong conclusion there buddy.

Yes, but it's difficult to prove.

Any thoughts?

IMHO, individuals are smart, people are panicky idiots.


...I know I got that wording from somewhere... and I can't remember what...

Then they won't care, I guess.

Most people I meet are so stupid it makes me angry just to belong to the same species as they do.


How do you measure intelegence though?

IMHO, individuals are smart, people are panicky idiots.


...I know I got that wording from somewhere... and I can't remember what...

"A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky, dangerious animals, and you know it." - K.

Here's a major initial issue: Define intelligent.

Ironically enough, the most "intelligent" people out there, the foremost neurologists, psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, etc, still can not agree on an actual definition of intelligence. Let alone an adequate means of measuring it. Or properly distinguish between different "types" of intellect in a manner that actually works for everyone.

You see, someone intelligent enough to actually dictate what is best for society, would not be willing to perform the role.

What really bothers me about assholes like the OP is that they always conclude that they are somehow different or better then the masses, and not just another perfect example of what is wrong with people. Frankly, I'm not impressed.