-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious Are intellectuals more fit to govern society?
- Thread starter Danmire
- Start date
I believe the problem is more uninformed voters than who they put into power. Aren't a lot of top Washington politicians are graduates of Ivy League schools anyways?
people go into media and academia to increase their personal power? thats a ridiculously dumb claim. Maybe Rupert Murdoch, but I'll leave yours alone and just bask in the irony.
I think the problem with government is how the leaders are selected, not who the leaders are. I agree with Deck in that being an intellectual does not mean you're a good or capable person. It just means you're an intellectual.
I don't agree that this means government should have as little a role as possible, because I think government's size should be dependent on what it needs to be able to do, not on how well it is able to do it. If government is not doing a good job, then there needs to be a fundamental change to how the government is decided.
I don't agree that this means government should have as little a role as possible, because I think government's size should be dependent on what it needs to be able to do, not on how well it is able to do it. If government is not doing a good job, then there needs to be a fundamental change to how the government is decided.
I can never understand how people take the leap from "government should serve us" to "government should be small". Government is in the best position to do certain things, just as any other institution is in the best position to do certain things. Figuring that out should come down to honest assessments, not sledgehammer philosophies. To reject a view because it isn't fully fleshed out is a fallacy as well, especially since the people who have "everything figured out" tend also to look at every issue from a single lens, which really has been shown to be extremely dangerous. This is why we have a democracy.
If the "we" in question is the United States of America, we emphatically do NOT have a democracy. We have a Constitutional Republic that elects its representatives through democratic means. The difference is massive and foundational.
Moreover "honest assessments" can easily be arrived at through a consistent and comprehensive ideology. One does not decide to build half a bridge because one side philosophically supports the bridge and the other philosophically opposes it. Ideologies work because they attempt to be comprehensive, it is moderation for its own sake that is inherently dishonest.
Government is force. You should use it only when force is required, and for nothing else. For me this means limiting it only to goods which cannot be individually redeemed like welfare checks and corporate bailouts (corporations are considered a singular legal entity), or one time spending like bombing the hell out of a national security threat.
Government should be small just like any form of overriding direct power should be small. If you allow a power that can arrest you and take your property based on a proscribed behavior to become too great, they soon find newer ways to proscribe you. How many times have we had SOPA and PIPA threads where the same folks who think government running the health care industry is a great idea get apoplectic about government possibly taking over their ISP? Isn't government wise, and benevolent, and cuddly, and always looking out for the little guy instead of the big mean "other (insert your preferred race/class/gender boogeyman)"?
Of course not. No one believes government is benevolent when it attempts regulating a freedom they want to enjoy to its maximum extent. It's just the intellectually honest people recognize the concept applies more universally. And that's an honest assessment, despite also being a consistent ideological one.
Bringing this back to intellectuals, if an intellectual is a person who has thought through their worldview and is willing to defend it (whatever it is) on its own merits then they are someone I could work with (if in disagreement, because they aren't BSing me about their priorities or devolving into demagogic character assassination) or support (if in agreement). Using that definition we should be governed primarily by intellectuals, and the rest of us can go about our lives knowing that the few who are dedicated to the public good take the policy and outcomes seriously.
I was fully with you the whole way until the last sentence. It doesn't follow anything else that you have said. Not only does democracy not have any impact on how "fleshed out" a view is, it often benefits those who have "everything figured out" because they 'sound confident' or are able to repeat ideologies easily. If that's why we have a democracy, then you make a good argument for abolishing it.
No it's not. It's as much economic and political stability as it is "force" as you call it. The problem is the interests it serves, but the fact of the matter is that no one can be happy with every single policy enacted, but it should act in the general interests of the people. I've never seen a proponent of small government who did not stand to gain much from deregulation/lack of regulation entirely, the former of which is a direct contributor of the current financial crisis. I have yet to see evidence that the average citizen is oh-so-constrained by the federal government.
The United States of America is a Federal Republic, not a direct democracy. To put things in perspective, while the U. S. government may not look like a well oiled machine, when compared to other first-world democratic governments (France, Italy, Japan to name a few) it is quite efficient.
This efficiency comes from its size. While it is by no means small, it is not a sprawling, all-engulfing bureaucracy like many European governments. It provides basic social services to its people, such as a good public education system and a safety net, not to mention Social Security. It also taxes them at a rate when compared to Europe is extremely low. Thus the United States economy is a mostly-free market with a government providing perhaps just a tad less oversight than it should in some cases, but I feel the amount of regulation is good enough for the country to prosper.
The United States government oversees the world's third-largest population, largest GDP, and largest military. While it may go too far in some instances and not far enough in others, by and large it is and has been an incredible success for most of its nearly 250 years in existence.
What I'm trying to say is that there is no problem. While the United States has a debt that needs to be cut and generally too-conservative stances on social issues, it remains the most powerful nation on the planet for the time being.
This efficiency comes from its size. While it is by no means small, it is not a sprawling, all-engulfing bureaucracy like many European governments. It provides basic social services to its people, such as a good public education system and a safety net, not to mention Social Security. It also taxes them at a rate when compared to Europe is extremely low. Thus the United States economy is a mostly-free market with a government providing perhaps just a tad less oversight than it should in some cases, but I feel the amount of regulation is good enough for the country to prosper.
The United States government oversees the world's third-largest population, largest GDP, and largest military. While it may go too far in some instances and not far enough in others, by and large it is and has been an incredible success for most of its nearly 250 years in existence.
What I'm trying to say is that there is no problem. While the United States has a debt that needs to be cut and generally too-conservative stances on social issues, it remains the most powerful nation on the planet for the time being.
ITT: liberal v conservative debate overrides all other topics
As far as I can see, the question of intellectuals as leaders really isn't affected much by what type of government it is. In any system, intellectual leaders will have the same strengths and weaknesses as they would have in any other system.
As far as I can see, the question of intellectuals as leaders really isn't affected much by what type of government it is. In any system, intellectual leaders will have the same strengths and weaknesses as they would have in any other system.
*sigh* I really should have thought about that last sentence because I know everyone thinks of democracy as mob rule where everybody votes for whatever reason they want. What I meant was we don't all subscribe to a single ideology because ideologies tend to have flaws. We get to choose on a case-by-case basis. "Democracy" was a horrible word to describe that and I'm sorry if it confused the rest of the point I was making.
An ideology, such as total-value utilitarianism or libertarianism or egalitarianism or whatever else, is a blank check to ignore aspects of society that are incompatible with, or irrelevant to, the ideology. A lot of conservatives and libertarians seem to be capable of ignoring human psychology and sociology almost completely due to irrelevance under their models. More than that, I find that most people who supposedly follow some ideology religiously do not actually do so, and they are quick to reject what the ideology would tell them to do if it became inconvenient for them or it clashed with some other belief system. So from where I stand, to look at every perspective is more honest and more respectful of how we as humans "work" than any single ideology could ever hope to be. Sometimes we need to stand up for freedom. Other times we need to stand up for safety. Still other times we need to stand up for something else. It's not inconsistent to admit that humans are more complex than what can be described by a buzzword like "freedom" or "happiness" or "safety". It's not dishonest to admit that we haven't quite figured ourselves out.
An ideology, such as total-value utilitarianism or libertarianism or egalitarianism or whatever else, is a blank check to ignore aspects of society that are incompatible with, or irrelevant to, the ideology. A lot of conservatives and libertarians seem to be capable of ignoring human psychology and sociology almost completely due to irrelevance under their models. More than that, I find that most people who supposedly follow some ideology religiously do not actually do so, and they are quick to reject what the ideology would tell them to do if it became inconvenient for them or it clashed with some other belief system. So from where I stand, to look at every perspective is more honest and more respectful of how we as humans "work" than any single ideology could ever hope to be. Sometimes we need to stand up for freedom. Other times we need to stand up for safety. Still other times we need to stand up for something else. It's not inconsistent to admit that humans are more complex than what can be described by a buzzword like "freedom" or "happiness" or "safety". It's not dishonest to admit that we haven't quite figured ourselves out.
Democracy is mob rule where everyone votes for whatever reason they want. If you don't want us to misinterpret, use the right terms.
What I hope you're getting at is requiring government to look at issues from a number of different angles, which it definitely already does. With out any doubt, government decisions are heavily looked at and criticized. All angles are present and evaluated somewhere.
The problem is how the final decision is made, where whichever party got the majority of the votes up to 4 years ago can unequivocally pass whatever they wanted in the first place. The intelligence, experience or intellectuality of those responsible does not affect how many views get taken into account, it only affects who takes the final decision.
I would hope still that issues are more complex than what can be described by buzzwords. Just like people who uncompromisingly support ideology show disdain for issues, grouping issues along those buzzwords oversimplify the issues (e.g.: Deck grouping SOPA and PIPA with health care reform).
What I hope you're getting at is requiring government to look at issues from a number of different angles, which it definitely already does. With out any doubt, government decisions are heavily looked at and criticized. All angles are present and evaluated somewhere.
The problem is how the final decision is made, where whichever party got the majority of the votes up to 4 years ago can unequivocally pass whatever they wanted in the first place. The intelligence, experience or intellectuality of those responsible does not affect how many views get taken into account, it only affects who takes the final decision.
One thing I noticed is many of the "intellectuals", such as Ivy League professors and graduates seem to lean liberally. Can anyone confirm and/or explain this?
You don't necessarily have to be a genius but I think it is safe to say that all major leader have something that separates them from the masses they lead. I believe that includes intelligence but not confided to that. I feel leadership is something that's doesn't come with being an expert of a field. Even if it's a relevant field such as economics, technology, etc. those are of course useful to know but doesn't mean you should be a leader.
You don't necessarily have to be a genius but I think it is safe to say that all major leader have something that separates them from the masses they lead. I believe that includes intelligence but not confided to that. I feel leadership is something that's doesn't come with being an expert of a field. Even if it's a relevant field such as economics, technology, etc. those are of course useful to know but doesn't mean you should be a leader.
Here's a few from last election. Oddly enough, it seems like republicans did better among college grads, whereas democrats did better with people with more or less education.
Well, I'm not going to sit here and feel like I have to explain my very choice of words even though I already apologized for it. fwiw I'm pretty sure "mob rule" and "democracy" exist as separate terms for a reason, and personally I would view "democracy" as requiring honest discussion to determine what is fact and what is fundamental opinion that should be voted on. Obviously, we can never perfectly achieve this, making this sense of "democracy" into a spectrum. At any rate, I apologize again for my poorly explained/worded conclusion there. I just don't want to feel like I have to defend something I already admitted was a mistake.
As far as my posts go, I was mainly attacking the notion of using rigid ideology to solve all problems.
I certainly agree that "the system" is almost entirely to blame for what we have in governments now, but this thread is about the people, and really, both aspects are intertwined. For example, it could be argued that a system that compels extremists into the ranks of a two-party framework (rather than forming their own party) is bad because it gives extremists a legitimate-looking foothold in politics, and they can avoid accusations of forming "undemocratic coalitions" (see: Canada's invisible conservative coalition versus its hypothetical visible center-left coalition). So I still think that something can be said about the people in charge. If we have the goal of having the government makeup better reflect the conditions and needs of the people, then that can be used to justify changing the system.
As far as my posts go, I was mainly attacking the notion of using rigid ideology to solve all problems.
I certainly agree that "the system" is almost entirely to blame for what we have in governments now, but this thread is about the people, and really, both aspects are intertwined. For example, it could be argued that a system that compels extremists into the ranks of a two-party framework (rather than forming their own party) is bad because it gives extremists a legitimate-looking foothold in politics, and they can avoid accusations of forming "undemocratic coalitions" (see: Canada's invisible conservative coalition versus its hypothetical visible center-left coalition). So I still think that something can be said about the people in charge. If we have the goal of having the government makeup better reflect the conditions and needs of the people, then that can be used to justify changing the system.
Your problem is that you're limiting "intellectuals" way too much right there.
I am not limiting intellectuals to only being people who are in Ivy League schools. I am only posted about a certain group of people who tend to lean liberally.
Many things in this world are force, Government is only one of them. It's quite easy to argue that in our world money is force.
It's a very simplistic opinion to say Government is force (or that the alternative is not force), in much the same vein that "The government staying out of everything is freedom" is also a massive oversimplification; Freedom is like Infinity, there are many kinds and some larger than others.
There's no real measure of government efficiency, also the term efficiency is thrown around like a football without noting that there are two distinct things that can be implied by efficiency.
1. The most cost effective service in terms of value for money relative to services provided.
2. The most cost effective service in terms of value for money relative to outcomes of the service provided.
It's important to note the difference: if you're using definition 2, an example would be that a government could only offer education though schools in heavily populated areas and by teaching a standardised curriculum. It would be damn efficient at getting around 70-80% of kids educated but it wouldn't fall within a level of service we're content with.
In the US conservatives are mostly strongly tied to religion, intellectual pursuits and religion do not often run hand in hand. Non-religious people make up something like 90% of the national science academy and about 15% of the national population. Democrats are not particularly liberal by European or Australian standards.
1) Postgrads leaned far more strongly Democrat than any other group leaned anything.
2) Senate races also have a lot to do with candidates, you'll notice that more standard democrats like Nelson did well with college grads while the far left, blue dogs, and heavily union backed democrats did not.
There's been a lot of talk about whether intellect is sufficient for leadership, and I think we all agree that it isn't. However, I do think that some basic level of literacy in the subject matters that are being discussed should be seen as necessary. You can be scientifically literate and still be a poet or a politician or an artist or whatever you want. The problem comes when people who aren't internet-literate try to make laws about the internet, and people who aren't scientifically literate go around saying that climate change is a hoax and the Big Bang is a lie from the devil (despite it being initially proposed by a Catholic priest). That kind of thing should be regarded in exactly the same light as the people at Occupy Wall Street who made economically ridiculous demands.