[Woden]

Woden, whats epistocracy? I'm sure I can look it up, by what makes you prefer it?

ETA: so basically voters in Democracy are not informed enough. Well, isnt that the responsibility of each voter? The thing is, is that the majority of people when voting only care about 1, maybe 2 issues at the most. The rest means nothing to them, even if educated on it.

Epistocracy is the government of the learned. Something like the platonic government of the philosophers.
Brennan proposes different forms of correcting the flawed democracy, like restraining the right to vote to the people with education, etc.
The book is a good one, with interesting points.

[Woden]

We need a soft Dûnyain system. Meritocratic, but instead of brutal eugenics we just softly eliminate genetic diseases in new generations. Also, laissez-faire capitalists will be sent to conversion camps.

I like it. The liberals will call it fascist and the reptilian capitalists communist but I don't really care.

[Hiro]

This is a loaded thread, and I hate to just leave a comment, like a troll, and not return for a while. But I'm still swamped in work. So the reason for this comment is that I've been thinking about the views on morality that were presented in this thread. They surprise me a little bit. Although, armchair philosophers that we are here, maybe not entirely.

Briefly, I think the idea of morality as something relative is fundamentally wrong. For a couple of reasons:

- (Straw man, but bear with me:) People who don't like moralizing view it as something divorced from their own concerns. I mean to say that I'm very confident that as soon as one's own life is at stake, of your own wife or daughter is raped and killed, one has no problem with morality, moralizing and clear moral choices. The question therefore is, why can't you apply that personal stake to others as well? Which is succinctly expressed in various religions as 'do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself' (paraphrasing a bit here).

- The reason that morality is not relative and can be based on something common to all is that all of us human beings share something upon which a shared sense of morality can, and I believe should, be based: the dignity of our own life and that of others. Hard to see at times, easily taken for granted, but this whole existence and our ability to even debate is presupposes our being alive. This seems to get lost often, however, life is primary in the beginning, in the middle and in the end.

- Both of these points lead to the recognition that our own life and that of others are not separate. Therefore, a basis for morality being relative is tenuous.

[Wilshire]

I mean to say that I'm very confident that as soon as one's own life is at stake, of your own wife or daughter is raped and killed, one has no problem with morality, moralizing and clear moral choices.
...
The question therefore is, why can't you apply that personal stake to others as well? Which is succinctly expressed in various religions as 'do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself' (paraphrasing a bit here).
...
the dignity of our own life and that of others.
...

- Both of these points lead to the recognition that our own life and that of others are not separate. Therefore, a basis for morality being relative is tenuous.

Defending yourself doesn't make it moral: ie, Hitler defended himself until he gave up. Does that justify his war because he knew if he lost that he'd be killed? I don't think it does.

Defending another doesn't make it moral: All war could be justified as defending your compatriots against the evil invaders.

I think people hold their own lives in high regard, but not those of others. See: war, or any other act of violence.

So, imo, your points point out only the disfunction of beliving in some type of objective morality: that self preservation is the only thing that 'morality' ever leads to. I'd rather not live in a world where "I" am the only thing that matters, justified by each persons personal sense of 'what is right'. There isn't objective morality that I've seen - I think if there was, then we'd all agree on it, certainly after thinking about it for 2000+ years.

[MSJ]

Epistocracy is the government of the learned. Something like the platonic government of the philosophers.
Brennan proposes different forms of correcting the flawed democracy, like restraining the right to vote to the people with education, etc.
The book is a good one, with interesting points.

Eh, yea, I have a ton a problems with this. One, if you look across the country today, for the most part, our Uni's and colleges are all run by liberals who are so far left their about ready to fall in the Pacific. Two, for many, its not very easy to just go and get a education. We have a problem with poverty in this country and it's a viscous cycle to break from. And, just because you haven't spent ten years in your local Uni pondering the ways of the world, doesn't mean your voice doesn't count. I can't get down with that.

There is no perfect system. But, I'll be damned if I want one where a select "elite" few are the only ones with a say. I'm not uneducated, have a 2 year degree and more schooling all the time through work. But, for those without the resources or chance to become more educated, I would still want their voice to count. They have issues that are dear to their heart.

[Wilshire]

As I said before, why not epistocracy?

Read Brennan "Against democracy".

Woden, whats epistocracy? I'm sure I can look it up, by what makes you prefer it?

ETA: so basically voters in Democracy are not informed enough. Well, isnt that the responsibility of each voter? The thing is, is that the majority of people when voting only care about 1, maybe 2 issues at the most. The rest means nothing to them, even if educated on it.

Epistocracy is the government of the learned. Something like the platonic government of the philosophers.
Brennan proposes different forms of correcting the flawed democracy, like restraining the right to vote to the people with education, etc.
The book is a good one, with interesting points.

Ah, very interesting.

We need a soft Dûnyain system. Meritocratic, but instead of brutal eugenics we just softly eliminate genetic diseases in new generations. Also, laissez-faire capitalists will be sent to conversion camps.

We need a soft Dûnyain system. Meritocratic, but instead of brutal eugenics we just softly eliminate genetic diseases in new generations. Also, laissez-faire capitalists will be sent to conversion camps.

I like it. The liberals will call it fascist and the reptilian capitalists communist but I don't really care.

Wasn't this something like what happened in Atlas Shrugged? I never read it, so sorry for the reference.

I like it . Now just to get these things out there and get rid of our currently lame systems. How do we go about that lol? I don't suppose violent coups are on the table...

[MSJ]

I like it . Now just to get these things out there and get rid of our currently lame systems. How do we go about that lol? I don't suppose violent coups are on the table...

For arguments sake, of this system was put in place, who would be these all-knowing intellectuals that would save America from ruin? Would they be diverse? Would the represent those from all walks of life? To me, and maybe I don't get the complete idea of this system, but it would just be a few making decisions for the masses. I think we fought a war a couple centuries ago to get away from that type of thing.

I think the election of Trump has made people question democracy. I never heard any of this when Obama was elected, it was praised then. That even a one of a minority who was enslaved and just began to get equal rights decades ago, could still reach the highest office in this nation. I was proud of that. Proud that my vote counted to get that man in office. While, I don't agree with all that he did, I think overall he did just fine. And, it was a great example of why democracy is so great. Flip to 8 years later. A maglomanical, egotistic businessman was smart enough to play in the hate of so many for the past 8 years. Spoke to the ones who have been ignored (I don't feel this way, that's just the gist of it), and a man who should be nowhere near the oval office is our President. It sucks man, it does. But, it's the same system that got Obama in and nobody was complaining about democracy then.

And, this is what Trump is doing to us. He is having us question our own system, values and beliefs. I for one, won't buy into it. I think the system is fine. Just the Democratic party, who has been ignoring the white middle-class man for a decade or two now, got what they deserved. West Virginia has always been Democratic. Because, the party always looked out for the poor, to middle-class persons. But, over the years, the forgot about them. Gun control, LGBTQ+, and other issues were all you heard about from that party. While I value those issues and some a very important to me, their decision to ignore a huge part of their constituents, blew up in their face. And here we are. Because, a man who shouldn't be the President is, and now we're questioning the system which has made this country great, and gave everyone a voice.

[TLEILAXU]

To me, and maybe I don't get the complete idea of this system, but it would just be a few making decisions for the masses. I think we fought a war a couple centuries ago to get away from that type of thing.

That's pretty much what democracy is though, except the ones making the decisions seem to more often than not be predatory power-seekers instead of people genuinely seeking the long-term success and proliferation of humans. The opinions of the masses are worthless when you can engineer narratives that have no basis in real world fact, but are only there to feed the narrative. The problem with not having democracy is that all autocratic governments to date have been nepotistic and corrupt.
Imagine having something like an Ark though, an AI that determines how things work. That might ironically be better for us.

[Woden]

Epistocracy is the government of the learned. Something like the platonic government of the philosophers.
Brennan proposes different forms of correcting the flawed democracy, like restraining the right to vote to the people with education, etc.
The book is a good one, with interesting points.

Eh, yea, I have a ton a problems with this. One, if you look across the country today, for the most part, our Uni's and colleges are all run by liberals who are so far left their about ready to fall in the Pacific. Two, for many, its not very easy to just go and get a education. We have a problem with poverty in this country and it's a viscous cycle to break from. And, just because you haven't spent ten years in your local Uni pondering the ways of the world, doesn't mean your voice doesn't count. I can't get down with that.

There is no perfect system. But, I'll be damned if I want one where a select "elite" few are the only ones with a say. I'm not uneducated, have a 2 year degree and more schooling all the time through work. But, for those without the resources or chance to become more educated, I would still want their voice to count. They have issues that are dear to their heart.

Another possible restricted democracy could be just restricting the right to vote to those who have served the country in army, public service, etc, like in Heinlein "Starship troopers".

Brennan doesn't propose a system with a very restrict suffrage, he proposes several alternatives, one of them is just to pass test of minimum concepts to have right to vote (just the things that one need to acquire the citizenship nowadays). That test would exclude the complete ignorant.

[MSJ]

That's pretty much what democracy is though, except the ones making the decisions seem to more often than not be predatory power-seekers instead of people genuinely seeking the long-term success and proliferation of humans. The opinions of the masses are worthless when you can engineer narratives that have no basis in real world fact, but are only there to feed the narrative. The problem with not having democracy is that all autocratic governments to date have been nepotistic and corrupt.
Imagine having something like an Ark though, an AI that determines how things work. That might ironically be better for us.

I agree the ones in power are, generally speaking, not worried about the overall welfare of the masses. If this new system would be any good it would have to be made up of people who a genuinely concerned with the welfare of everyone. And, I honestly cannot see a way that would happen. What is good for one, is definitely not for another. I don't think there can or will ever be a perfect system. Whats to say these "intellectuals" wouldn't succumb to the trappings of power as everyone inevitably does?

[Somnambulist]

That's pretty much what democracy is though, except the ones making the decisions seem to more often than not be predatory power-seekers instead of people genuinely seeking the long-term success and proliferation of humans. The opinions of the masses are worthless when you can engineer narratives that have no basis in real world fact, but are only there to feed the narrative. The problem with not having democracy is that all autocratic governments to date have been nepotistic and corrupt.
Imagine having something like an Ark though, an AI that determines how things work. That might ironically be better for us.

I agree the ones in power are, generally speaking, not worried about the overall welfare of the masses. If this new system would be any good it would have to be made up of people who a genuinely concerned with the welfare of everyone. And, I honestly cannot see a way that would happen. What is good for one, is definitely not for another. I don't think there can or will ever be a perfect system. Whats to say these "intellectuals" wouldn't succumb to the trappings of power as everyone inevitably does?

By making it a capital offense to profit in any way, aside from their base pay, while in office.  That would be a good start.

[MSJ]

Another possible restricted democracy could be just restricting the right to vote to those who have served the country in army, public service, etc, like in Heinlein "Starship troopers".

Restricted Democracy....hmmmm. What makes those persons views the right ones? Wouldn't that lead to the government controlling the vote? If only those who can vote served the government? I don't know, none of these, to me, are any better than what we have. In fact, imo, your taking away rights from the majority of the nation. Doesn't seem to me What this country was founded on.

[Wilshire]

Whats to say these "intellectuals" wouldn't succumb to the trappings of power as everyone inevitably does?

As I've said, its very difficult to remove people from the equation.
People are easily corruptible and manipulated.
The opinions of the masses though aren't much better.  People are idiots.

something like an Ark though, an AI that determines how things work. That might ironically be better for us.

I largely agree. This solution bothers me less than it does most, I think.

Another possible restricted democracy could be just restricting the right to vote to those who have served the country in army, public service, etc, like in Heinlein "Starship troopers".

I like the idea of restricted democracies. I just wouldn't want to do the job of sorting out who gets to vote and who doesn't.  I don't think I deserve to vote - I don't know shit about politics and the idea that there are a bunch of people like me running around voting terrifies me, not even considering that there are people who's motives I can't even fathom...

Maybe the bottom line is that its laughable to have a country the size of the US. To wide geographically, to populous, to many industries. Cut the states loose and see what happens...

Democracies perhaps decrease in effectiveness proportionally to their population size.

[Wilshire]

Restricted Democracy....hmmmm. What makes those persons views the right ones?

All I can think of is how we jerrymander voting blocks, imagine doing that directly with who passes which criteria every election cycle. You'd just end up with 1 party/person in power forever.

Wouldn't that lead to the government controlling the vote?

Yup, probably. But it already largely does, so not much of a change.

If only those who can vote served the government?

Certainly personallity types are prone to this or that thing - be it fighting in a battle or voulenteering out a soup kitchen. Neither is necessarily better than the other. We are all bias, and people who wanted to be in power would just do whatever that thing is that's required to get to high office.

I don't know, none of these, to me, are any better than what we have. In fact, imo, your taking away rights from the majority of the nation. Doesn't seem to me What this country was founded on.

Yes, taking away the right to vote for many people is largely the point. Mob mentality is not a great way to make decisions - it panders to the base instincts like fear/hope. Might as well let a bunch of lemurs pick a name out of a hat.

I don't think we're talking necessarily about 'what our country was founded on', but more so what would be better for us as a whole.

[Woden]

Another possible restricted democracy could be just restricting the right to vote to those who have served the country in army, public service, etc, like in Heinlein "Starship troopers".

Restricted Democracy....hmmmm. What makes those persons views the right ones? Wouldn't that lead to the government controlling the vote? If only those who can vote served the government? I don't know, none of these, to me, are any better than what we have. In fact, imo, your taking away rights from the majority of the nation. Doesn't seem to me What this country was founded on.

Every country have different histories and background.
Simplifying: My country was founded on fighting Islam and retake the land that muslims have taken, that struggle was what united our different christian kingdoms. Our main problem is that probably we will have to fight again sooner or later.

Anyway, Heinlein said that only the citizens that have done something for their country should have the right to vote, the others that haven't done anything will have their liberty, etc, but not the right to vote or to partake in the government of the country.
I like that.

If you haven't read "Starship troopers", please do it. YOU MUST READ IT. It is a masterpiece of sci-fi. The movie is a blasphemous adaptation that perverts and inverts the message of the book, so do not care about it and read the book.

And if you have the possibility read the essay of Brennan too, it was edited by Princeton press last year. You can agree or disagree with what proposes but Brennan's diagnosis of the current state of affairs in democracy is fairly accurate.