Can a Free Society Work for the Less Clever?
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
From the Article: "Honestly now: Do you have what it takes? We all like to think we’re smarter than average, but the math is cruel. Half of us are below median intelligence, and some of us are considerably lower. So why should we think that freedom is a good policy for everyone?
I believe freedom is the best policy, but sometimes that is a hard argument to make. A free society presupposes that people are capable of living self-responsibly. That in turn presupposes that they have enough intelligence to do so. And a free democracy presupposes that the majority will consistently make good political decisions. That also presupposes they have enough intelligence to do so.
But a strong claim can be made that it’s naive to think that most people are smart enough. So let’s take up that hard challenge, since only by facing the best arguments on all sides can we be most certain of our own conclusions."
-----------------------------------------------------------
The author goes on through various example and 'what ifs' to describe why a paternalistic approach to government might be justified in some thinking on how to deal with this situation, but that ethical concerns tell us that a 'free democratic' government is still better. But he doesn't really address what would happen to the less intelligent endowed, in a true 'free' government without the burden of a democracy that gives equal voting rights, regardless of intellectual ability.
Another way to describe such a government is the long sought one, strictly limited to only providing retaliatory force to initiators of force on others, defensive reaction to foreign aggression, and contract dispute resolution--with no opportunity to enact laws of taxation, mandatory fees, or any other forced collection/reimbursement device, and only free market capitalism to influence human interaction.
As an aside, one such way to ensure such a system is to require a super-majority vote for any legislative action and any and all financial related laws to be submitted to citizens, with again a super-majority vote required. But back to the point.
What happens to the less intellectual endowed with such a government that can no longer assert through a vote, any special considerations and more to the point, should we care. It's my contention that in such a system, those without such abilities, education, or drive would fail, and probably do so fatally. Over a very few generations, their numbers would drastically reduce to a point that they would be a true minority.
What would such a place look like? Would it look like a Gulch Nation? Would we all be comfortable there, and if we're not, should we leave or be forced to?
For those that don't like the sound of such a system, we've actually done this twice in our history. Once was the original settlement of the Eastern US, and the second was the settlement of the West during the 1800's. Individual and even group failure was rampant during those periods of this country and the man that pulled through such failures and went on to make it in other ventures was celebrated.
I believe freedom is the best policy, but sometimes that is a hard argument to make. A free society presupposes that people are capable of living self-responsibly. That in turn presupposes that they have enough intelligence to do so. And a free democracy presupposes that the majority will consistently make good political decisions. That also presupposes they have enough intelligence to do so.
But a strong claim can be made that it’s naive to think that most people are smart enough. So let’s take up that hard challenge, since only by facing the best arguments on all sides can we be most certain of our own conclusions."
-----------------------------------------------------------
The author goes on through various example and 'what ifs' to describe why a paternalistic approach to government might be justified in some thinking on how to deal with this situation, but that ethical concerns tell us that a 'free democratic' government is still better. But he doesn't really address what would happen to the less intelligent endowed, in a true 'free' government without the burden of a democracy that gives equal voting rights, regardless of intellectual ability.
Another way to describe such a government is the long sought one, strictly limited to only providing retaliatory force to initiators of force on others, defensive reaction to foreign aggression, and contract dispute resolution--with no opportunity to enact laws of taxation, mandatory fees, or any other forced collection/reimbursement device, and only free market capitalism to influence human interaction.
As an aside, one such way to ensure such a system is to require a super-majority vote for any legislative action and any and all financial related laws to be submitted to citizens, with again a super-majority vote required. But back to the point.
What happens to the less intellectual endowed with such a government that can no longer assert through a vote, any special considerations and more to the point, should we care. It's my contention that in such a system, those without such abilities, education, or drive would fail, and probably do so fatally. Over a very few generations, their numbers would drastically reduce to a point that they would be a true minority.
What would such a place look like? Would it look like a Gulch Nation? Would we all be comfortable there, and if we're not, should we leave or be forced to?
For those that don't like the sound of such a system, we've actually done this twice in our history. Once was the original settlement of the Eastern US, and the second was the settlement of the West during the 1800's. Individual and even group failure was rampant during those periods of this country and the man that pulled through such failures and went on to make it in other ventures was celebrated.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
and expect about 30 percent effectiveness in government
extortion money. . could be worse. . it's getting worse. -- j
.
You bring up some additional topics, though: I do not think that self-selecting communes are universally failures. Religious communes have been profit centers over the years. I think that the communes in the 60's and 70's failed because they were incompetently managed.
I think that educational environment can shift some of the population into a mode that emphasizes the worth of the individual (and that these people will be reasonably happy in that mode) but I do think that most of humanity would joyfully exchange freedom for security.
Jan
Jan
My honorable ancestors have fought for freedom in this country since before it was a country. I would like to save my personal values from oblivion - and take the rest of the US with me. But, with the great infrastructure advantages this would bring, it would also bring a lot of luggage.
I seriously suggest that if something like Objectivism ever gains the upper hand in governance of the US, one of the things we will have to deal with is the fact that a lot of intelligent people genuinely prefer socialism. My answer is the same as that of jdg: Let them form communes within the matrix of a free society. Society can treat with the 'commune' as an 'entity' (it must support itself and pay whatever taxes are appropriate, etc). The crucial proviso would be that no one could be prevented from leaving the commune whenever they wanted to.
I have no personal love for socialism (!), but forcing everyone to live by my preferences would be like making everyone eat steak because I like it (yum!). Some people want to be vegetarians. And, yes, I do think that >50% of human beings in general would prefer to live in a socialism, even if they were raised in a free environment (and yes, these socialists would include some of the most intelligent people in the country).
The topic of this post is "Can a free society work for the less clever"? I think that, for a free society to work at all (even were we to start over on another planet) we will have to take the basic nature of humanity into account - including the likelihood that some of our children and grandchildren will be socialists.
Jan
(edit grammar)
But to each his own.
allowing voluntary assistance by the better-equipped people
for those less-well-equipped, and never by state or State compulsion.
currently, I devote thousands of dollars voluntarily, and further
thousands involuntarily, for the less-well-equipped. . if we were
operating in a freer society, many of my involuntary dollars would
actually go to my intended receivers. . instead of graft-receivers. -- j
.
Great big difference.
But Spencer's main point of laissez faire was against the welfare programs and the paternalistic/elitist governance advocated by others in the latter 19th century which he saw as leading directly to socialism that he considered the ultimate evil. Whether Spencer was right or wrong, or partially fitting in either direction, I'll agree that a 'free society' does not destroy the weak and disabled and certainly not in a zero-sum form, however I do think that a 'free society' does reward the productive, strong, individualistic egoist and permits the weak and disabled, socialist minded to fall under the constructive destruction of a productive society made up of productive men, and again, not in a zero-sum.
Since we've never see a truly 'free society', we'll have to wait and can only speculate the fate of those not capable or willing of performing successfully in such a society.
Sanger and selective culling of people seem rational? -- j
.
Should my children or grandchildren want to be socialists, they're welcome to leave and do so elsewhere, not with me. How can a social microcosm exist within a laissez faire capitalist framework with the requirement of private owned property. A lot of communes were tried in the 60's and 70's and didn't work then and won't work now.
I think what we've learned about our species is that if humans are not taught or raised within a rational, selfish, environment that recognizes and celebrates the productive and emphasizes individual freedom, that insanity, idiocy, and ignorance will soon rise to be the norm and the brute will gain and exercise power over all and that system will fail as will those individuals within it.
Socialism/collectivism/statism/progressivism has been shown again and again to not work for the betterment of mankind or individuals throughout man's history and no amount of understanding, inclusiveness, acceptance, or improvement will make it work.
We'll probably never find out with no choice but the government controlling citizens mind set of the current one party system.
That leaves using ability to 'work' the system faster than it works you. But that's how to get ahead in any socialist society. Gather ye bread crumbs whilst they fail and rosebuds in the Spring. Pretty soon you'll have a whole loaf and be ahead of whomsoever believeth in les crapaud du Potomac.
There have been some movements, which I don't agree at all with, who wanted government to take over this power of selecting who reproduces and who doesn't. But even if human organizations don't seek to arrogate that power to themselves, to some degree they do still control it. The idea that as intelligent beings we're now above evolution is a megalomaniac's fantasy.
Given all things equal and as intended, having a proper education that teaches 'Integrated' thinking and helps everyone find their own essence, (what one has a propensity and a passion for) this would likely not be a problem and yes there will always be 'some' for a myriad of reasons that might be problematic. At that point it should be up to the community, not government, that helps that individual to find his or her place in the community.
I think of the Andy Griffin show where Gomer was not the brightest bulb but was a useful and happy member of that community as a mechanic.
Just like in nature, everyone and everything has it's place in this world.
"Society" did not become "serious" about anything. Societies are not entities that think. Individuals influenced by the destructive doctrine of welfare state collectivism, including conservative statists, have been more than serious about coercively imposing it as a false alternative to their malignant notion of freedom. A free society is not "Darwinism" and "natural selection" destroying the "weak and disabled" in a zero-sum political game.
Load more comments...