6 ms·

I came here to say almost precisely this. However, I do think it's true that people aren't smart enough for democracy, and that's a part of why we need a const

by javert 15y ago

I came here to say almost precisely this. However, I do think it's true that people aren't smart enough for democracy, and that's a part of why we need a constitutional republic instead. Is there something wrong with that line of argumentation?

Shivetya 15y ago
Its not that they are too smart or not, it is that far too many are too greedy or too lazy.
- javert 15y ago
  In a system where people are protected from one other by individual rights, someone being too lazy or too greedy (if that is even possible) can only hurt themself. How can your laziness or greed affect me?
shingen 15y ago
Here's what's logically wrong with that line of argument: Smart / dumb are relative scales, so there will always be smarter, and dumber, no matter what you do. If you filled a society with what we currently define as genius level intellects, there would be the equivalent to dumb people amongst them - the dumb people would have 145 IQ's and the smart people would have 180 IQ's --- you get the idea. Majority rules will always allow one group to optionally eat the other, and violate the rights of the minority. Whether that minority is the dumber 49% or the smarter 49%, either scenario is equally morally reprehensible. Peikoff would say: think in extrapolated principles. Look up the first serious conversations Peikoff had with Rand (she couldn't get him to think in principles). Whether you're dealing with smart people with 250 IQ's, and 'dumb' people with 160 IQ's, the smart people might decide they know what's best for the 'dumb' people (and proceed to violate their liberty). The principle remains whether you're dealing with 70 IQ's and 160 IQ's or much higher scales of intellect.
- javert 15y ago
  Do we know each other? :-) I'm going to just take for granted in this response the common ground we obviously have. FYI, I definitely think "people are not smart enough for democracy" is the wrong way to make the argument, because it misses the point; democracy is not the ideal to be striving for. But I'm not sure that it's wrong per se. I usually take "dumb" and "smart" to really mean "ignorant" and "not ignorant" in a certain context. (Mabye I should not take them to mean that, but anyway.) So, a democracy of people who were truly not ignorant about principles of government--i.e., they fully support individual rights--would work fine. Conversely, the reason democracy does not work is because people in general are ignorant of the proper principles of government and would trample individual rights. I guess there is a key difference between the purpose of the government and the mechanism. Democracy can be thought of as either. In the former case, it's clearly wrong. In the latter case, it's just dangerous and suboptimal.
batista 15y ago
However, I do think it's true that people aren't smart enough for democracy What does that even mean? The majority of the people are not to be trusted with judging how to run their country, so we have to put intermediaries and dilute the majority's will?
- javert 15y ago
  batista, I think you have a penchant for arguing with me :-) I think the right way to go is a constitutional republic, in which the "way the country is run" is strictly defined ahead of time. Then, the elected representatives have to act within those strict parameters. You could call the constitution an "intermediary that dilutes the majority's will" if you want. I certainly belive that individual rights have to be protected from the will of the majority. Or, the minorities have to be protected from the will of the majority. Keep in mind that everyone is part of a minority sometimes, and everyone is part of a majority sometimes. Depends on the issue.
  - saraid216 15y ago
    How is this different from America or most other modern democracies?
    - javert 15y ago
      "Democracy" just means "majority rule." In a democracy, the majority can trample the rights of the minorities. In a constitutional republic, those rights are protected by a constitution that is very difficult to amend. America today is somewhere between a true democracy and a true constitutional republic. Officially, it is a constitutional republic, and most of the key individual rights are protected (free speech, etc.). Unfortunately, there is no separation of state and economy, and your wealth can (and is) seized arbitrarily. There is also a very large spate of regulations that severely curtail your proper right to act as long as you don't violate the rights of others. So basically, the mechanism of a constitutional republic still exists in America, but its actual purpose has been sundered.

by javert 15y ago

Shivetya 15y ago

Its not that they are too smart or not, it is that far too many are too greedy or too lazy.

javert 15y ago
In a system where people are protected from one other by individual rights, someone being too lazy or too greedy (if that is even possible) can only hurt themself. How can your laziness or greed affect me?

shingen 15y ago

Here's what's logically wrong with that line of argument: Smart / dumb are relative scales, so there will always be smarter, and dumber, no matter what you do. If you filled a society with what we currently define as genius level intellects, there would be the equivalent to dumb people amongst them - the dumb people would have 145 IQ's and the smart people would have 180 IQ's --- you get the idea. Majority rules will always allow one group to optionally eat the other, and violate the rights of the minority. Whether that minority is the dumber 49% or the smarter 49%, either scenario is equally morally reprehensible. Peikoff would say: think in extrapolated principles. Look up the first serious conversations Peikoff had with Rand (she couldn't get him to think in principles). Whether you're dealing with smart people with 250 IQ's, and 'dumb' people with 160 IQ's, the smart people might decide they know what's best for the 'dumb' people (and proceed to violate their liberty). The principle remains whether you're dealing with 70 IQ's and 160 IQ's or much higher scales of intellect.

javert 15y ago
Do we know each other? :-) I'm going to just take for granted in this response the common ground we obviously have. FYI, I definitely think "people are not smart enough for democracy" is the wrong way to make the argument, because it misses the point; democracy is not the ideal to be striving for. But I'm not sure that it's wrong per se. I usually take "dumb" and "smart" to really mean "ignorant" and "not ignorant" in a certain context. (Mabye I should not take them to mean that, but anyway.) So, a democracy of people who were truly not ignorant about principles of government--i.e., they fully support individual rights--would work fine. Conversely, the reason democracy does not work is because people in general are ignorant of the proper principles of government and would trample individual rights. I guess there is a key difference between the purpose of the government and the mechanism. Democracy can be thought of as either. In the former case, it's clearly wrong. In the latter case, it's just dangerous and suboptimal.

batista 15y ago

However, I do think it's true that people aren't smart enough for democracy What does that even mean? The majority of the people are not to be trusted with judging how to run their country, so we have to put intermediaries and dilute the majority's will?

javert 15y ago
batista, I think you have a penchant for arguing with me :-) I think the right way to go is a constitutional republic, in which the "way the country is run" is strictly defined ahead of time. Then, the elected representatives have to act within those strict parameters. You could call the constitution an "intermediary that dilutes the majority's will" if you want. I certainly belive that individual rights have to be protected from the will of the majority. Or, the minorities have to be protected from the will of the majority. Keep in mind that everyone is part of a minority sometimes, and everyone is part of a majority sometimes. Depends on the issue.
- saraid216 15y ago
  How is this different from America or most other modern democracies?
  - javert 15y ago
    "Democracy" just means "majority rule." In a democracy, the majority can trample the rights of the minorities. In a constitutional republic, those rights are protected by a constitution that is very difficult to amend. America today is somewhere between a true democracy and a true constitutional republic. Officially, it is a constitutional republic, and most of the key individual rights are protected (free speech, etc.). Unfortunately, there is no separation of state and economy, and your wealth can (and is) seized arbitrarily. There is also a very large spate of regulations that severely curtail your proper right to act as long as you don't violate the rights of others. So basically, the mechanism of a constitutional republic still exists in America, but its actual purpose has been sundered.