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.
Me too. Everyday the news brings me more evidence of decline, of reduced freedom, of more Marxism... I search for an out, but now they even charge you to leave and become an ex-pat, while making it ever more difficult to gather sufficient resources to leave with some form/sense of security.
It is prison of their making imposed upon those of us that remember and desire sweet liberty.
Regards,
O.A.
I restored your point. I have no idea why someone would down-vote your comment. I believe we have a troll.
Respectfully,
O.A.
And of course, how many Objectivist are strong enough in their philosophy to understand why they must allow the weak minded and weak willed to fail in their midst?
As to a minority, yes we are and probably always will be, but I think the last few years has seen a growth. Whether that will sustain or continue to gain traction, I don't know. Most days, I fear the worst, and still consider leaving this country.
Israel is, at it's base, a religious state founded on that religion which is also their culture. Everything is about being a Jew.
Does that mean no cowboy coffee and Drambuie? Maybe I will have hot coco and Drambuie...or just the Dram.
Jan
Wasn't it Jefferson that's quoted as saying that your freedom to choose, or to act, end's at the tip of my nose. As to the brandy, I'll have cowboy coffee and Drambuie.
I would like to think that Objectivism is the ultimate answer for culture and society. For the vast majority of those here in the Gulch, that would indeed be a utopia. However, I think that there are a large number of people in the general population (maybe even most people) who either cannot or will not think for themselves in a rational manner. I strongly suspect if you took an exit poll for any election, and asked people WHY they voted for a specific candidate, very few would give answers that would be considered logical and reasonable here in the Gulch.
The same, unfortunately applies to personal and financial decisions. Credit card debt is a plague, even though the info is readily available that interest rates are ridiculous. People buy houses and cars they can't really afford. They take out student loans to get degrees in basket weaving (or something equally rewarding).
We here in the Gulch sometimes forget that we are the vast minority. I wish the world were full of rational individuals like I find here. Unfortunately, I believe we are increasingly rare.
VG
I am not interested in being 'pure', just in being functional and ethical. So I think we fundamentally disagree with each other here, Zenphamy. Perhaps someday we will sit around a fire, drinking brandy, and arguing this until the stars dim and the sun rises.
Jan
In the agricultural and industrial ages, the location of the jobs was simplier and more stable. (i.e. they weren't as good.) My concern is people will see that simplicity going away and say that a market economy is just too complicated for the modern world. I'm afraid it will allow the best teachers to broadcast lectures and write teaching software to reach millions, making life harder for average teachers who before had a captive audience of people who could commute to school. This same thing is happening to average engineers like me, who must constantly struggle to find ways to solve customers' problems as the world changes rapidly.
All of this leads to some pressure for someone to pass a directive like in AS to stabilize things. I'm not saying they will win. There's a need for this site and articles like this though.
I like the idea of a Gulch Nation, but the effects of automation/IT are working against it. It will be an uphill struggle but one worth pursuing.
Many might say that's cruel. It is not, it is reality
As long as the basic structure of society supports individual freedoms, I am in good shape. If individual freedoms are supported, then someone is free to choose socialism. How do I then keep this choice from poisoning the whole system (as it has done in our current life)? It is not by ignoring what I perceive as a part of human nature, it is by trying to find a way to contain their preferences in a manner that does not endanger me.
Jan
As to religious communes being profit centers, so were cotton plantations in the 18th and early 17th century. When you have slaves either chained literally or figuratively as in religion, somebody may be making a profit, but it's not the slave.
The fact that a large percentage of our present population would exchange freedom for security, joyfully or not, speaks to my contention that the insanity of collectivism/statism needs to be 'rooted out' of the garden of humanity's belief system as an immediate threat to what private property and freedom we have left.
Your comments about communes, socialism, and ideas of the numbers of people willing to give up their freedoms reminds me of the arguments of Robbie against Objectivism, because humanity produced Attila, Hitler, and Stalin.
For myself, I look at socialism in any form as similar to a cancer in political and philosophical thought and a weed that should be 'rooted out' of humanities' garden of belief systems. The same treatment we should be able to apply to the magical belief of religious faith and altruism of any type. Although many in Libertarian and Objectivist circles agree that we all have the right of self defense, most limit that to physical types of immediate attack, I have no problem and even advocate for killing a nest of rattlesnakes discovered under my house as an appropriate measure of self defense.
Load more comments...