We, the learned
It is a very good thing my friends, that I am not running for office.
The following statement would kill any hopes I ever had of that:
I am not sure that democracy is the best system of government. We might be better under the rule of experts.
Allow me to explain myself. I have been alive for less than three decades, but in my time I have learned many things. I learned to walk and talk and run and bike and think and play chess and countless other activities were learned too. One of them has been learning to talk and think about politics. It may be sad to say, but for years I have been active in politics and certainly not just here on this forum. In the real world I have been engaged in the practice of fighting for change in the government.
Many of you have probably done the same, in your own ways. We are all here because we have an interest in political theory, in political discussions. We self-select in that sense. (minus the trolls)
One of the lessons anyone versed in real world politics has learned is that lots and lots of people don't give a fuck about politics. We've all met em. We know these people exist.
Now, I am not here to condemn the apolitical--although others may say I am. I am here to suggest that learned people and unlearned people are unequal. Nobody is born learned--but that does not mean we remain that way. We all learn *certain specific* things.
While it may be old hat to say so, it may be in the best interests of the whole world if the people who are most learned in a field are in control of that field. It would be chaos if the legal system was not based on learned judges--we see that lay-folk and field-specific-folk are unequal in their knowledge and therefor abilities in regards to that field. (and of course, learned judges do not always agree with one another but they disagree in learned ways)
Anyone may become an expert, or a learn a specific thing, but until they do, perhaps they ought not direct the discussion. Bill O'Reilly and his "tides come in, tides go out, you can't explain that" understanding undermine what we *do* know about science. Bill could have chosen a dozen things science cannot explain, but, as a lay-person, he unknowingly and foolishly chose a bad example. Bill shouldn't do physics and the apolitical shouldn't control politics.
It is clearly the case that lots and lots of people don't know the first thing about politics in the US. I am a US citizen, so it's where I'm centered. The level of understanding people have is rather small. And I believe I know why: they're busy people and they assume it will be taken care of. "eh, i might not vote, what difference would it make anyway? someone's gonna win, my vote won't change that" and it's hard to argue with that. I certainly haven't gained much ground in those conversations. Have you? How?
Since lots of people don't know the first thing about politics, it seems like we shouldn't have all these people who know so little, in charge of so much. I am hereby arguing for a rigorous examination for anyone to be allowed to vote.
And yes, the test will be rigorous (and free! no poll-tax here). It is meant to be a high-mark to be reached; it is not granted--it is earned. You must demonstrate an understanding of the govt you wish to elect. You must also show some understanding of global issues. Perhaps you should not be electing the next president if don't know if we are at war (de facto or de jure) in any countries around the world. Perhaps you shouldn't be electing a county legislator if you think he can outlaw abortion.
I hear the objections coming! From the left: "You will disenfranchise poor people! This will be used to suppress the minority vote! You know how education is distributed unequally and unfairly and racially in this country, don't let the right-wing win like that! It will become a playground for rich white boys, don't you see?"
From the right: "CONSTITUTION!!!!!"
And both sides have their point. I am obviously posing a hypothetical that we, the learned, can be certain will never come to pass in our lifetime. We, the learned, can understand how such a thing is impossible--but we can also speculate. Ignoring the question of how such a system would come into being, what do you think of this idea?
I suppose it's an old and crude assault upon democracy; the mob is rabble and the rabble is mindless. Mindful people do better than mindless people; let the mindful rule. So Saith Socrates.
TL;DR:
Bottom line: the world should be run by political junkies. Discuss.
The following statement would kill any hopes I ever had of that:
I am not sure that democracy is the best system of government. We might be better under the rule of experts.
Allow me to explain myself. I have been alive for less than three decades, but in my time I have learned many things. I learned to walk and talk and run and bike and think and play chess and countless other activities were learned too. One of them has been learning to talk and think about politics. It may be sad to say, but for years I have been active in politics and certainly not just here on this forum. In the real world I have been engaged in the practice of fighting for change in the government.
Many of you have probably done the same, in your own ways. We are all here because we have an interest in political theory, in political discussions. We self-select in that sense. (minus the trolls)
One of the lessons anyone versed in real world politics has learned is that lots and lots of people don't give a fuck about politics. We've all met em. We know these people exist.
Now, I am not here to condemn the apolitical--although others may say I am. I am here to suggest that learned people and unlearned people are unequal. Nobody is born learned--but that does not mean we remain that way. We all learn *certain specific* things.
While it may be old hat to say so, it may be in the best interests of the whole world if the people who are most learned in a field are in control of that field. It would be chaos if the legal system was not based on learned judges--we see that lay-folk and field-specific-folk are unequal in their knowledge and therefor abilities in regards to that field. (and of course, learned judges do not always agree with one another but they disagree in learned ways)
Anyone may become an expert, or a learn a specific thing, but until they do, perhaps they ought not direct the discussion. Bill O'Reilly and his "tides come in, tides go out, you can't explain that" understanding undermine what we *do* know about science. Bill could have chosen a dozen things science cannot explain, but, as a lay-person, he unknowingly and foolishly chose a bad example. Bill shouldn't do physics and the apolitical shouldn't control politics.
It is clearly the case that lots and lots of people don't know the first thing about politics in the US. I am a US citizen, so it's where I'm centered. The level of understanding people have is rather small. And I believe I know why: they're busy people and they assume it will be taken care of. "eh, i might not vote, what difference would it make anyway? someone's gonna win, my vote won't change that" and it's hard to argue with that. I certainly haven't gained much ground in those conversations. Have you? How?
Since lots of people don't know the first thing about politics, it seems like we shouldn't have all these people who know so little, in charge of so much. I am hereby arguing for a rigorous examination for anyone to be allowed to vote.
And yes, the test will be rigorous (and free! no poll-tax here). It is meant to be a high-mark to be reached; it is not granted--it is earned. You must demonstrate an understanding of the govt you wish to elect. You must also show some understanding of global issues. Perhaps you should not be electing the next president if don't know if we are at war (de facto or de jure) in any countries around the world. Perhaps you shouldn't be electing a county legislator if you think he can outlaw abortion.
I hear the objections coming! From the left: "You will disenfranchise poor people! This will be used to suppress the minority vote! You know how education is distributed unequally and unfairly and racially in this country, don't let the right-wing win like that! It will become a playground for rich white boys, don't you see?"
From the right: "CONSTITUTION!!!!!"
And both sides have their point. I am obviously posing a hypothetical that we, the learned, can be certain will never come to pass in our lifetime. We, the learned, can understand how such a thing is impossible--but we can also speculate. Ignoring the question of how such a system would come into being, what do you think of this idea?
I suppose it's an old and crude assault upon democracy; the mob is rabble and the rabble is mindless. Mindful people do better than mindless people; let the mindful rule. So Saith Socrates.
TL;DR:
Bottom line: the world should be run by political junkies. Discuss.