Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Alternative to capitalism

  1. Aug 26, 2004 #1
    What's your opinion?

    Scrap democracy and instead allow people with higher IQ/education run and organize a state. Would this not result in a great alternative to capitalism. It is like a super-efficient socialism.

    Would this lead on to totalaterianism???????????

  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 26, 2004 #2
    I know a lot of people with high IQ's that shouldn't be running anything.

    Democracy stinks. It just stinks less than the alternatives.
  4. Aug 26, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Democracy and capitalism are not the same thing. One refers to a political system, the other to an economic system. What you describe is pretty much how the US is run, with most of the control of government in the hands of the rich and educated "elite" rather than the common people. It's called a republic. Depending on your view of US politics, you can decide for yourself if it's really a good thing. Unless you are referring to an aristocracy or dictatorship. Both of those have a ruling class or leader who is born or appointed into their position, with the belief that they have some superior ability that makes them suited for this role. True democracies are incredibly rare, and usually only work for small, local governments, not for running entire countries. Afterall, we may vote for our leaders, but even by doing that, we pass along the authority to them to make decisions on our behalf, we don't vote by referendum on every decision made. A true democracy would give every citizen a vote on every decision made by government. You can probably imagine how cumbersome and slow this would become, and you'd have a lot of non-experts making decisions that require expertise.

    However, IQ is not sufficient for a good leader. Indeed, no single person can be an expert on every topic that comes before them for a decision (even geniuses aren't likely to have spent sufficient time studying both economics and science to be able to make good policy decisions on both). So, what's more important is expertise and experience in the areas of decision making. To accomplish this, politicians have expert advisors to guide them on these decisions. The places I see problems arising are 1) poor choice of advisors based on reasons other than field of expertise, 2) not listening to the advisors to try to appeal to popular opinion, 3) insufficient or inappropriate distribution of funding to implement policy.
  5. Aug 26, 2004 #4
    We in Switzerland have a democracy (perhaps the only one which has really has earned this name) in the world. It works better then any other system I know.

    That our system was less effective then other systems is only a unproven lay mostly mention by people witch are involved in the establishment.

    If you have got a direct democracy it is impossible to make to bad decisions because your power depends on your arguments.
  6. Aug 26, 2004 #5
    Democracy does have severe and persistent problems, especially with the government collecting money then handing it out to special interest groups. Eventually, it dies as it slips into inefficiencies. It is the Problem of the Commons as defined by Garrett Hardin(sp). Some good books on democracy include "Democracy: The God that Failed," "Darwinian Politics," and especially "Darwinism, Dominance, and Democracy: The Biological Bases of Authoritarianism."

    There is hope however, in my opinion, for true democracy. Intelligent, randomly selected representatives to write new laws for a set length of time, a professional bureaucracy which consists of bureaus that can be dissolved by the public with a no confidence vote if they do not produce, and voting on the laws proposed by the representatives via Internet.

    This would require a highly intelligent populace, one which we will need to have in the future anyway as technology advances. People, slowly must realize that humans are highly irrational in their belief systems, but understanding human nature can overcome many of these shortcomings. The heuristics and biases research is doing a lot to unravel human irrationality, and determining why we behave as we do from out evolutionary past. With understanding may come solutions. However, it may require a speciation event to a higher form of primate.
  7. Aug 26, 2004 #6
    Well at the very least people should be required to pass a reasonable, national examination to show that they have at least a basic grasp of how the government works and what the issues of the election are.
  8. Aug 26, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Do you mean the voters or the candidates? Or both?
  9. Aug 27, 2004 #8
    Especially you in the USA have the problem of lobbyism in your country. We haven’t go such problems here.
    Especially you in the USA have problems with the ignorance of the people. Our people are much better educated as yours because it is in the interest of the rich in Switzerland that the normal people understand what they arguments are. In the USA the exact opposite is in the Interest of the mighty class.

    And by the way. Socrates was impressed by the Fact that you will be understand even by the uneducated if your arguments are logical.
  10. Sep 7, 2004 #9
    I agree, just look at the emphasis on 'Flip-Flops'
    but everyone knows that the only people in america who get to run are corporate puppets.
  11. Sep 7, 2004 #10
    I have previously argued from time to time that there should be some sort of aptitude test for the right to vote. About 25% of people that voted in the last election did not even know the running mates of Bush or Gore. Frankly, I do not trust the average mind for their knowledge of politics. (or anything else) Voting outcomes determines the foundation in which a country or state will be based and should not be taken lightly.

    We do all remember that the Nazi party gained the majority seats in the parliament by votes of the people right?

    Plus, I would have a hard time believing that if only people with IQs above 120 were allowed to vote, that Bush would have any chance of winning. The great fault of modern democracy is that an absolute idiot that has no clue what he's talking about will have equal say to a person with unparalleled genius.
  12. Sep 7, 2004 #11
    I agree.
    Some people are just not suitable to vote.
    Voting should be a privilage.

    For instance, should a criminal be alowed to vote?
    Guess not, yet do you call someone who unintentionally killed a person in an car accident and is sent to jail a criminal. Dilemma.

    But a voting examination is a really nice idea.
    Democraty is in general about the worst ideology in the world (IMHO)
    It alows populists to take control.
    People are stupid, not all, but the majority is.
    If you alow a persone to "work" the public emotions (for instance the foreigner/ immigrant problem) you end up with a pretty nasty scenario.

    I'm not saying a dictator would be a good solution, just that democratie ain't the way i'd like it to see.

    Democratie is freedom you say?
    Hardly, your freedom is limited by the wishes of the crowd.

    So in a last funny note, i think i should rule my country on my own. :surprised :tongue2: :biggrin: :devil:
  13. Sep 7, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Then what would you like to see?
  14. Sep 7, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You're right, a person with a high IQ needn't be knowledgable.
  15. Sep 7, 2004 #14
    Very true. I scored ridiculously high in tests administered by shrinks at Deakin University, and I can't write or do maths, and I have zero social skills.
  16. Sep 7, 2004 #15
    Writing is correlated with verbal IQ. Math is correlated with spatial IQ. If you did score high on an IQ test, you should be able to do both. Otherwise, something is wrong in this picture.
  17. Sep 7, 2004 #16
    No. I scored far above average in every aspect of all the tests. However, I also blew the chart in one area. This one area, they said, caused a problem simply because everything else was far lower.
  18. Sep 7, 2004 #17
    The one thing that America does far better than any country is "freedom of speech" Many people might not be aware of this but "freedom of speech" is far more limited in Europe and in Canada. For example, the French woman who was being charged for "spreading hate" for publishing a book stating that France should control Muslim immigration. Or how the Sex Pistols, a punk band from the UK was banned from singing in the UK because they were considered a threat. Or how Professor J Rushton was being investigated for "hate crime" in Canada simply for his work in the field that he does. Or in Germany, where you can get arrested simply for doing the Nazi salute. In a democracy, views should not be silenced. Even if it is a controversial view or an unpopular view. Trying to limit views, even an unpopular one would be fascism.

    Whether a hippie, a PETA extremist, a KKK clansman, views cannot get you arrested in America. Something that is not true in Canada and throughout Europe.

    America might not be perfect, but the rest of the world should live up to the bar America set as far as freedom of speech.
  19. Sep 7, 2004 #18
    Then your reading skills and math skills should be at the least above average. Also this section that you "blew the chart" on. Would it be verbal or spatial related?
  20. Sep 7, 2004 #19
    My reading skills are fine; in fact exceptional. I just can't write. I print in block letters.

    My problem with maths I personally attribute to never having really studied it, although it is supposedly also associated with something they were testing me for.

    The very high scores were related to Verbal.
  21. Sep 7, 2004 #20
    Scientific instrument ceiling and floor effects

    Applying the testing instrument to you produced a ceiling effect:

    • A test in which the easiest items are failed by some persons is said to produce a "floor" effect; a test in which the hardest items are passed by some persons is said to produce a "ceiling" effect. Floor and ceiling effects truncate the range in test scores, which then underestimate the full range of individual differences in the population. Floor and ceiling effects are eliminated by including easier items or more difficult items, respectively.

      Various tests, each having a quite different range of item difficulty, could yield equally valid measures of g provided each test's difficulty level were appropriate (i.e., without floor or ceiling effects) for the range of ability in the group to which it is administered. It sacrifices accuracy and wastes testing time to use a test containing item difficulty levels appropriate for the entire range of ability in the general population when only a select segment of the ability distribution in the total population is to be tested. Hence there are different tests, each measuring mostly g, that are best suited for use with groups that have a restricted range of ability.... An analogy is the different types of thermometers we use for measuring temperatures in different ranges, as in a refrigerator, a room, the human body, a kitchen oven, or a blast furnace. They all measure temperature, but you wouldn't want to use a clinical thermometer in a blast furnace.
    (Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p310.)

    Or perhaps you meant something else, such as that your score in one area caused a problem by being out of proportion (and not necessarily so high as to be subject to a ceiling effect) with your scores in other areas.
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook