Is Direct Democracy the Solution to Capitalism?

[datatec]

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??

CHEERS

 

[Locrian]

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.

 

[Moonbear]

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.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

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.

 

[nuenke]

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.

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.

 

[fafalone]

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.

 

[Moonbear]

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.

Do you mean the voters or the candidates? Or both?

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

@nuenke:
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.

 

[Smurf]

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.

 

[BlackVision]

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??

CHEERS

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.

 

[Marijn]

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.

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.

 

[Monique]

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

Then what would you like to see?

 

[Monique]

I know a lot of people with high IQ's that shouldn't be running anything.

You're right, a person with a high IQ needn't be knowledgeable.

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[BlackVision]

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.

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.

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[BlackVision]

@nuenke:
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.

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.

 

[BlackVision]

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.

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?

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[hitssquad]

Scientific instrument ceiling and floor effects

I ... blew the chart in one area. This one area, they said, caused a problem simply because everything else was far lower.

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.

 

[Monique]

The one thing that America does far better than any country is "freedom of speech"

I invite you to come and live in the Netherlands for a few years and then give your opinion.

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.

In the examples you gave, people were considered a threat. If someone in the US is considered a threat they will be handled too. Many people in the US have been investigated, simple because of things they said.

 

[BlackVision]

I invite you to come and live in the Netherlands for a few years and then give your opinion.

I do applaud the Netherlands for their drug laws. That's a bar others should meet. Minor drug offenders filling up US prisons is a complete waste to say the least.

In the examples you gave, people were considered a threat.

I consider belief in creationism a threat. It does not mean simply one acknowledging one's viewpoint should be criminal. Everyone should have the full right to express themselves without fear of persecution.

If someone in the US is considered a threat they will be handled too. Many people in the US have been investigated, simple because of things they said.

Not true at all. In America, you cannot get arrested simply by having a viewpoint and expressing your viewpoint. Something that is not true in Canada and in many European countries. In America, that French woman publishing a book could not be charged with anything. She would be fully protected under the 1st amendment. The "Sex Pistols" that was banned from singing in the UK. I do not know of any punk bands in America ever being banned to perform. A Nazi salute in America could not ever get you arrested although some people might attempt to beat you up.

In America, the KKK can fully gather, have rallies, and show their demonstration and be under full protection under the 1st amendment. Do you think this will also be true in Canada?

 

[Marijn]

Then what would you like to see?

Anything that eliminates people like RIP Pim Fortuyn.
Politicians are starting to spend their time more on "massaging" the people then on their true jobs.

Also people like Pim are giving out an message that, while not always untrue, causes hate.
I do agree with some of his ideas, not in the way that he (and like him many politicians all around the world) brings his ideas.

Giving voting rights to a select group eleiminates (hopefully) this method of gaining votes.

Voting is a bad idea.

 

[Adam]

Wow. I was just looking at Leeuwarden on my maps two days ago. Coincidence! :D

 

[Monique]

Giving voting rights to a select group eleiminates (hopefully) this method of gaining votes.

Voting is a bad idea.

So who gets to have voting rights? The people who have the same world view as you?

 

[Smurf]

People who have a world view

 

[Smurf]

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.

I really (really!) don't want to offend you but I find your views to be very 'American'.

-Eminem has been fined millions of dollars for anti-gay lyrics and calling his mother a ho.

-Britney spears got arrested for being 'too sexy' on a magazine cover back in the late 90s.


-I live in Canada and have indeed seen small KKK-ish rallys without police doing a damn thing.
Now, does this only include modern examples or can I start going on about Martin Luther King times.


Sorry I am going to have to go with netherlands on 'Most Free'. And I do not think Freedom of Speech is necessarily a good thing, I find it to be a poor substitute for freedom of thought.
The police SHOULD have arrested those racist bastards on account of encouraging hate crimes.

 

[Monique]

People who have a world view

world·view n. In both senses also called Weltanschauung (from German).
The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

 

[Smurf]

Meaning, people who don't have their head up their ass and realize that the 'World Championship' of American Football, accually doesn't reach outside the American borders.

 

[Adam]

Freedom: http://www.progressive.org/webex/mcwatch.html

 

[BlackVision]

I really (really!) don't want to offend you but I find your views to be very 'American'.

I am anything but a flag waving pro-american. I have criticized many decisions that America makes. But I will acknowledge what it does right when it does. This is one aspect they do right.

-Eminem has been fined millions of dollars for anti-gay lyrics and calling his mother a ho.

Source? There are slander laws so if Eminem has to cough up for calling his mom a ho that would make sense. But I do not recall Eminem ever being prevented to perform in a concert in America. I do recall that there was an attempt to ban Eminem from entering Canada and perform a concert there.

-Britney spears got arrested for being 'too sexy' on a magazine cover back in the late 90s.

Source? Please tell me the criminal code in which Britney was charged. But my main point was freedom of speech. The ability to express one's viewpoint.

And I don't recall the Dixie Chicks ever being charged with anything.

-I live in Canada and have indeed seen small KKK-ish rallys without police doing a damn thing.

KKK rallies in Canada will likely violate this Canadian law.

Federal Criminal Code of Canada, Chapter 46, Section 319, Paragraph 2

"Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

This code seems to be very broad and can easily be manipulated. All the protesters against Bush in the Republican National Convention could easily fit into this criminal code. This is why we cannot have such laws such as these.

Sorry I am going to have to go with netherlands on 'Most Free'.

I'm not fully aware of the freedom of speech laws of the Netherlands. I do know however that America has more freedom of speech than Canada, Germany, France, the UK, and other European nations.

And I do not think Freedom of Speech is necessarily a good thing, I find it to be a poor substitute for freedom of thought.

Freedom of speech would be the cornerstone of a democracy.

The police SHOULD have arrested those racist bastards on account of encouraging hate crimes.

I don't care how wrong you think a viewpoint is. While I will also condemn the KKK, they, along with everyone else, should have the full right to be able to have their own viewpoints without fear of persecution. Fascism. Know what it is?

When the government starts dictating what speech is good and what speech is bad, freedom is tarnished.

 

[Adam]

Wow. Surprisingly, I agree 100% with Blackvision about something. Personally, I'd quite happily defend the right to freedom of expression of people like the KKK. I'd defend the right of some idiot to say he likes putting kids in a microwave oven. I'd defend the right of any maniac or moron to say the most ridiculous and hateful things. Whether I agree or not is another matter, and whether I would defend people against the hateful physical actions of such people is another matter again.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

@Blankvision

Hitler cams to power not because of democracy but because of rests of Dictatorship (Dekret) in the “ Weimarer Republik”. But actually he was dependent on the rifles of his followers. Like every dictator in history.

Hence you can’t exclude those members of the people with undeveloped brains, you would open the door for individuals witch are feeling them selves wrong treated like Hitler was.

If you like to go so far back. Do you remember the processes around McCarthy the communist hunter?

 

[Smurf]

Well I disagree with you 2 then, Under no circumstances should a person be allowed to advertise any form of violent or to an extent, hatefull acts.

 

[Adam]

Like action movies?

 

[Smurf]

Like KKK rallys

 

[hitssquad]

Cosmopolitanism — a worldly view

People who have a world view

world·view n. In both senses also called Weltanschauung

Maybe he meant, "...a worldwide view" — as in that of cosmopolitanism.

 

[Adam]

So you would allow some things which advocate violence, like Stallone blowing up the evil bad guys, rather than calling the police, in an action movie; but not others like the KKK rallies?

 

[Smurf]

Adam, you know perfectly well the difference between an Action Movie and a KKK rally. And yes I meant a world-wide view.

 

[Adam]

I believe some murderers have claimed they were inspired to kill by movies.

But this is all intended to arrive at a simple point.

• What if you're the one in charge, and you say action movies are ok, but KKK rallies aren't?
• What if I'm the one in charge, and I say KKK rallies are ok, and action movies aren't?

Which one would you prefer? Which would be "right" or "good"? Which would be just, fair? Why would one view, one voice, be any more valid than the other? Why should one view, one choice, be any more valid than the other? Who gets to decide that Bob's opinion is worth less than Fred's? What if both Bob and Fred don't like the decision of the person who decided? Et cetera...

 

[Smurf]

I believe some murderers have claimed they were inspired to kill by movies

And I believe a woman once put her cat in a microwave and then sued the company for not telling her not to put pets in the microwave. The cat died.

I'd prefer the first one. I see it as an assessment of what will cause more damage, if a toddler sees Sylvester Stallone killing a bunch of russians, he'll run around with his toy gun for an hour. Its a form of entertainment and any half wit can see that. Don't bring up examples how kids shoot up schools after seeing violent movies, where i come from kids shoot up space aliens in the arcade after seeing violent movies, if it works in Canada it can work somewhere else too.

 

[Adam]

It's the same here. We tend to be able to discern entertainment from real life here. Some places aren't so lucky.

However...

What about a politcal party rally encouraging war in Afghanistan?
What about army recruiters outside on the footpath, telling people why they should join up?
What about an information booth handing out pamphlets about abortion and pro-choice stuff?

And mostly, what about the most important question, which I asked before: Who gets to decide?

 

[Smurf]

What do you mean 'Who gets to decide'??

..I do!

no seriously elaborate on that.
Who does get to decide?

 

[Adam]

Okay. What if the political party in power for the moment sets in place a Board Of Acceptable Langauge Monitoring, and legislation to back it up. The BOALM consists of some people you've never met. People who have never asked for your opinion, and probably don't give a damn. They decide that the KKK can't have rallies. They also decide that internet message boards promote seditious ideas. In particular, given their love for all people and groups, and their determination that nobody should be marginalised due to belonging to some minority group, they toss you in prison because you wrote on an internet message board that the ideas of one particular group (the KKK) are nasty. You specifically targeted that group. You said their ideas are bad, and you proposed limiting their rights. It is the BOALM's duty to the people to lock you up. It's fair, isn't it?

If not, why not?

 

[Smurf]

The KKK promotes hate in a racist fashion. That wrong. If a party is in control of your country and says that anyone can express themselves anyway they want and then a few rich guys get together and obtain totaly media monopoly and suddenly the only ideas being advertised are their own, is that fair?

 

[Adam]

But you've just been tossed in prison for promoting hate. The BOALM threw you in prison for your nasty dislike of a group of people, for your printed desire to limit the rights of a group of people.

What do you tell the lawyer? Is it fair?

 

[Smurf]

but I am not promoting hate at all. I'm just saying the KKK is (extremely) misguided.

 

[Adam]

but I am not promoting hate at all. I'm just saying the KKK is (extremely) misguided.

... To the extent that they should have fewer rights than you.

 

[Smurf]

Everyone should be prohibited from advertising racism. I'm not saying throw people in jail for talking about it, but the larger scale things should definately be cencored.
They will not have fewer rights than me.

 

[Adam]

But you should be allowed to say "Everyone should be prohibited from advertising racism"?