4 ms·

Suppose everything you say is true, and every single supporter of epistocracy is racist. It does not follow that epistocracy is bad. Consider the possibility th

Suppose everything you say is true, and every single supporter of epistocracy is racist. It does not follow that epistocracy is bad. Consider the possibility that epistocracy is racist but it also produces better governance - e.g., perhaps the racial groups being discriminated against vote for bad governance. (Define "bad" however you like, but strictly in terms of actions taken by the government rather than how those actions were decided on.) If that were true then the racist epistocracy you discuss would be a good thing, in the sense that governments would provide better services to citizens. The main argument against this is that voting rights are a way to express respect, membership and status to humans. But the solution to this conundrum is to stop using voting rights as a status symbol. Here's a nice article that discusses this idea in much greater detail: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2016/09/expressive-meaning-democracy-plus-philosophers-enamored-semiotic-arguments/ http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2016/09/expressive-mean...

mcherm 10y ago
I think what you're saying boils down to "even if it's racist, it is preferable if it produces better outcomes". The weakness of that argument is in the definition of "better outcomes". You say "Define 'bad' however you like, but strictly in terms of actions taken by the government...". Do you really mean this? To pick a topic that is far enough back in history that most agree today - would you be willing to agree that "Brown vs. Board of Education" was a failure of the system because it eliminated the policy of "separate but equal"? After all, segregated schools, buses, bathrooms, and other accommodations clearly did reduce the interactions between the races and thus the opportunities for interracial conflict, while (by definition) offering "equal" facilities to each race. I would not accept that argument and I suspect you would not either. So if it all comes down to the value function we use to assess what outcomes are desired, how should we decide on the this value function? Perhaps we could conduct a sort of a poll of the members of society... we could call it "voting". Actually, with the exception of a few cases of direct democracy in the form of ballot initiatives, that is the system we have today: at least in the US, voters rarely decide policy, they decide WHO will decide policy. Perhaps you can make a case that only those who are "smart enough" or meet some other criteria should be allowed to influence the decision of who decides policy. I would disagree. Simplicity is an important virtue in a system intended to be robust, and "everyone gets one vote" is far simpler than some sort of assessment for voters. ("Everyone older than a certain age gets one vote except if they've been convicted of a felony" isn't quite as clean and simple, but it's what we've got at the moment.)
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  So if it all comes down to the value function we use to assess what outcomes are desired, how should we decide on the this value function? As per my hypothetical, you personally (mcherm) get to define it. Suppose you define it as "segregation is bad" - I gather from your post that you believe this. Suppose further that democracy produces segregation, but epistocracy or dictatorship does not. (On all other policies suppose they produce the same result.) Do you still oppose epistocracy/dictatorship? If so, why?
  - mcherm 10y ago
    > you personally (mcherm) get to define it Oh, if I get to be absolute dictator (and yes, getting to define the value function IS equivalent to being an absolute dictator) and all voting is merely advisory, then I'm perfectly happy with epistocracy or whatever else you want that puts that in place. > Suppose further that democracy produces segregation, but epistocracy or dictatorship does not. (On all other policies suppose they produce the same result.) I do agree to assess electoral policies based on their outcomes, not some other approach (like a fundamental "principle" about how elections should be conducted). So if I assume that method "A" produces an outcome that I like better than that produced by method "B" then under that assumption I do prefer method "A", regardless of what "A" and "B" are. But this does not persuade me in favor of epistocracy. There are lots of theoretical arguments why having only knowledgeable people make decisions would result in better outcomes. But it would be foolish to evaluate a policy only on the basis of theoretical arguments without considering the outcomes measured through practical experience. And practical experience has shown that attempts to introduce a filter to allow only "properly educated" people to participate frequently seem to devolve into a mechanism for excluding certain groups from participating. If epistocracy is marginally better than universal suffrage, BUT is fragile, in that it comes with a much greater chance of devolving into excluding of certain outgroups (like racial minorities), then on the whole, universal suffrage would be superior. And my view of history suggests that this is the case.
IanCal 10y ago
> Suppose everything you say is true, and every single supporter of epistocracy is racist. It does not follow that epistocracy is bad. Consider the possibility that epistocracy is racist but it also produces better governance - e.g., perhaps the racial groups being discriminated against vote for bad governance. Fundamentally, this is possible. We are ageist when it comes to voting, for example, because we restrict votes from the very young on the basis that they are much less likely to vote sensibly. A five year old is not expected to be able to weight the complexities of immigration policies or tax issues. But I would argue we start from the idea that anyone is equally capable of voting, then use evidence to restrict people. So, it might be beneficial to stop everyone born on an odd year from voting, or people whose great-grandparents lived in a different country, or who have red hair, or are under 5"4', but without any evidence that this is the case and with history suggesting that restricting voting often results in revolts then why would we start in that situation? > The main argument against this is that voting rights are a way to express respect, membership and status to humans. No, the main argument is that voting rights result in representation. It's not for a feel-good factor, but for the same reason having wolves and sheep vote on dinner when only the wolves can vote might not result in an outcome that really represents the will of the population.
owenversteeg 10y ago
So, in my comment I never once said supporters of epistocracy are racist (or that every supporter of epistocracy is racist.) [0] I said that epistocracy itself was racist in the most literal sense: discriminating by race. I said that it disenfranchised racial minorities for decades, which is something that is factually true; some Southern states did not have laws preventing black people from voting because epistocracy was the system by which black people were stripped of their right to vote, i.e. literally disenfranchising them by the dictionary definition - the first definition, according to both the Merriam-Webster and Oxford English dictionaries. At this point let's ignore the race issues and just assume two things to be true: 1) epistocracy is the most effective form of government and 2) epistocracy deprives every citizen (who is ignorant of X, whatever X may be) of their right to vote. Personally, even given these assumptions I would not be in favor of epistocracy. In my opinion, a dictatorship would be the most effective form of government. But do I want a dictatorship running the country? No. Because I, personally, hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And regardless of the enticing Siren call of an effective system of governance - which sounds all the more sweet with the modern political world of Trump, Clinton, Duterte, Geun-hye to name a few - I would not deprive any citizen of this planet of their rights, however dire the consequences. [0] I do think that many or indeed most modern supporters of epistocracy are racist and ignorant, but that's not relevant; I don't dislike something solely on the basis that its supporters are racist or ignorant. I assume both Donald Trump and I like pictures of cute kittens, for example. As an aside, it's very obvious that almost every supporter of epistocracy was racist when it was in place in America.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Because I, personally, hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a dictator (or epistocracy) protects these unalienable rights better than 50%+1 of the population does, your premises argue in favor of that dictator/epistocracy/non-democratic government. Voting rights are neither life, liberty nor pursuit of happiness. Voting rights are something else: the right to have a nonzero probability of directly influencing the use of (legal) violence against others. It's easily possible for a person to have your three inalienable rights without this.
michaelmrose 10y ago
However bad our system is it is always at least in theory possible to change it to reverse course undo wrongs and start anew with new shmucks and new laws. However good you think such a system might be it would undoubtedly serve to disenfranchise a progressively larger group of people all the while supported by those remaining in the in group. Once you open the door to disenfranchisement being legal and permissible this is inevitable both because there is a giant teaming mass of ignorance to justify kicking some of the idiots out and those in the remaining group would always benefit from removing some of those in various out groups so long as the group and its supporters is a small enough portion not of the population but of the remaining voting group. For example maybe its impossible to disenfranchise the blacks until you have first went after the hispanics, maybe its impossible to go after the hispanics until you first get rid of all the ones that came here within the last few generations. Whatever ideals you start with you end up with a decreasing minority of the population making all the decisions and a growing majority not only dissatisfied but unable by definition to do anything about it short of violence. When tensions increase sufficiently you end up with riots at minimum and civil war at maximum.

mcherm 10y ago

I think what you're saying boils down to "even if it's racist, it is preferable if it produces better outcomes". The weakness of that argument is in the definition of "better outcomes". You say "Define 'bad' however you like, but strictly in terms of actions taken by the government...". Do you really mean this? To pick a topic that is far enough back in history that most agree today - would you be willing to agree that "Brown vs. Board of Education" was a failure of the system because it eliminated the policy of "separate but equal"? After all, segregated schools, buses, bathrooms, and other accommodations clearly did reduce the interactions between the races and thus the opportunities for interracial conflict, while (by definition) offering "equal" facilities to each race. I would not accept that argument and I suspect you would not either. So if it all comes down to the value function we use to assess what outcomes are desired, how should we decide on the this value function? Perhaps we could conduct a sort of a poll of the members of society... we could call it "voting". Actually, with the exception of a few cases of direct democracy in the form of ballot initiatives, that is the system we have today: at least in the US, voters rarely decide policy, they decide WHO will decide policy. Perhaps you can make a case that only those who are "smart enough" or meet some other criteria should be allowed to influence the decision of who decides policy. I would disagree. Simplicity is an important virtue in a system intended to be robust, and "everyone gets one vote" is far simpler than some sort of assessment for voters. ("Everyone older than a certain age gets one vote except if they've been convicted of a felony" isn't quite as clean and simple, but it's what we've got at the moment.)

yummyfajitas 10y ago
So if it all comes down to the value function we use to assess what outcomes are desired, how should we decide on the this value function? As per my hypothetical, you personally (mcherm) get to define it. Suppose you define it as "segregation is bad" - I gather from your post that you believe this. Suppose further that democracy produces segregation, but epistocracy or dictatorship does not. (On all other policies suppose they produce the same result.) Do you still oppose epistocracy/dictatorship? If so, why?
- mcherm 10y ago
  > you personally (mcherm) get to define it Oh, if I get to be absolute dictator (and yes, getting to define the value function IS equivalent to being an absolute dictator) and all voting is merely advisory, then I'm perfectly happy with epistocracy or whatever else you want that puts that in place. > Suppose further that democracy produces segregation, but epistocracy or dictatorship does not. (On all other policies suppose they produce the same result.) I do agree to assess electoral policies based on their outcomes, not some other approach (like a fundamental "principle" about how elections should be conducted). So if I assume that method "A" produces an outcome that I like better than that produced by method "B" then under that assumption I do prefer method "A", regardless of what "A" and "B" are. But this does not persuade me in favor of epistocracy. There are lots of theoretical arguments why having only knowledgeable people make decisions would result in better outcomes. But it would be foolish to evaluate a policy only on the basis of theoretical arguments without considering the outcomes measured through practical experience. And practical experience has shown that attempts to introduce a filter to allow only "properly educated" people to participate frequently seem to devolve into a mechanism for excluding certain groups from participating. If epistocracy is marginally better than universal suffrage, BUT is fragile, in that it comes with a much greater chance of devolving into excluding of certain outgroups (like racial minorities), then on the whole, universal suffrage would be superior. And my view of history suggests that this is the case.

IanCal 10y ago

> Suppose everything you say is true, and every single supporter of epistocracy is racist. It does not follow that epistocracy is bad. Consider the possibility that epistocracy is racist but it also produces better governance - e.g., perhaps the racial groups being discriminated against vote for bad governance. Fundamentally, this is possible. We are ageist when it comes to voting, for example, because we restrict votes from the very young on the basis that they are much less likely to vote sensibly. A five year old is not expected to be able to weight the complexities of immigration policies or tax issues. But I would argue we start from the idea that anyone is equally capable of voting, then use evidence to restrict people. So, it might be beneficial to stop everyone born on an odd year from voting, or people whose great-grandparents lived in a different country, or who have red hair, or are under 5"4', but without any evidence that this is the case and with history suggesting that restricting voting often results in revolts then why would we start in that situation? > The main argument against this is that voting rights are a way to express respect, membership and status to humans. No, the main argument is that voting rights result in representation. It's not for a feel-good factor, but for the same reason having wolves and sheep vote on dinner when only the wolves can vote might not result in an outcome that really represents the will of the population.

owenversteeg 10y ago

So, in my comment I never once said supporters of epistocracy are racist (or that every supporter of epistocracy is racist.) [0] I said that epistocracy itself was racist in the most literal sense: discriminating by race. I said that it disenfranchised racial minorities for decades, which is something that is factually true; some Southern states did not have laws preventing black people from voting because epistocracy was the system by which black people were stripped of their right to vote, i.e. literally disenfranchising them by the dictionary definition - the first definition, according to both the Merriam-Webster and Oxford English dictionaries. At this point let's ignore the race issues and just assume two things to be true: 1) epistocracy is the most effective form of government and 2) epistocracy deprives every citizen (who is ignorant of X, whatever X may be) of their right to vote. Personally, even given these assumptions I would not be in favor of epistocracy. In my opinion, a dictatorship would be the most effective form of government. But do I want a dictatorship running the country? No. Because I, personally, hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And regardless of the enticing Siren call of an effective system of governance - which sounds all the more sweet with the modern political world of Trump, Clinton, Duterte, Geun-hye to name a few - I would not deprive any citizen of this planet of their rights, however dire the consequences. [0] I do think that many or indeed most modern supporters of epistocracy are racist and ignorant, but that's not relevant; I don't dislike something solely on the basis that its supporters are racist or ignorant. I assume both Donald Trump and I like pictures of cute kittens, for example. As an aside, it's very obvious that almost every supporter of epistocracy was racist when it was in place in America.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Because I, personally, hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a dictator (or epistocracy) protects these unalienable rights better than 50%+1 of the population does, your premises argue in favor of that dictator/epistocracy/non-democratic government. Voting rights are neither life, liberty nor pursuit of happiness. Voting rights are something else: the right to have a nonzero probability of directly influencing the use of (legal) violence against others. It's easily possible for a person to have your three inalienable rights without this.

michaelmrose 10y ago

However bad our system is it is always at least in theory possible to change it to reverse course undo wrongs and start anew with new shmucks and new laws. However good you think such a system might be it would undoubtedly serve to disenfranchise a progressively larger group of people all the while supported by those remaining in the in group. Once you open the door to disenfranchisement being legal and permissible this is inevitable both because there is a giant teaming mass of ignorance to justify kicking some of the idiots out and those in the remaining group would always benefit from removing some of those in various out groups so long as the group and its supporters is a small enough portion not of the population but of the remaining voting group. For example maybe its impossible to disenfranchise the blacks until you have first went after the hispanics, maybe its impossible to go after the hispanics until you first get rid of all the ones that came here within the last few generations. Whatever ideals you start with you end up with a decreasing minority of the population making all the decisions and a growing majority not only dissatisfied but unable by definition to do anything about it short of violence. When tensions increase sufficiently you end up with riots at minimum and civil war at maximum.