4 ms·

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 defini

by 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.

by mcherm 10y ago

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.