The problem with this state of affairs should be obvious to anyone who has the ability to syanpse at least two pairs of neurons. Wrong decisions are going to be made....repeatedly.....even with the best of intentions.
The reason why I bring this up again is because I was familiarising myself with the Trayvon Martin case and became aware of Rachael Jeantel.
I think its important to put a face to the subject matter, since the topic on hand is not an abstraction but a real life problem. Rachael is a senior high school student who is illiterate. I mean how are you in senior high school and not able to read or write? But more importantly, Rachael Jeantel is 19, and therefore, as I understand it, has the God given right to Vote in the state of Florida. She gets the right to actively participate in the electoral process. She gets a say in the running of government.
How much consideration do you think she gives to national defense? Or how to finance health care? Social Security? How about to environmental care or nuclear power?
Dwell on those thoughts and remember that there are millions or Rachaels out there. Contrast her with Keith Tillage,
someone I've randomly pulled from the internet for no particularly reason apart from the fact that he came up when I Google successful black small business man. Do you think he is concerned about taxes, national defense and education? Law and order? Do you think he can read?
More importantly which one of these two is more likely, if given power, to turn tyrannical?
And yet, the democratic system of the Western World gives each one of these individuals an equal vote.
This is not a issue about Left or Right, it's a question about stupid and competent. Mencken was right. In any group of people there exists superior and inferior men. The notion of superiority chafes the democratic, but not conservative mind. Who can seriously argue, that on matters political Keith Tillage's opinion is worth more than Rachael Jeantel's ? From a conservative perspective, is it right to give a say in the political affairs of the nation to those who have no comprehension of them? The answer for any rational man is in the negative and therefore how should a rational man view unlimited democracy?
People need to remember that, numerically, the elites form only a small percentage of society. The reason why they are able to exert the influence that they do is by co-opting the unthinking orks of the underclass. The ideologues know how to play the system to their advantage. The leftward lurch of western society strongly correlates with the expansion of the right to vote. The French revolution would never have happened if the proles had stayed at home.
The Ancient Greeks felt that democracies eventually evolved into tyrannies. Looking at it from a systems perspective, it's easy to see why. Poor democratic governance keeps piling error upon error until it as a society fails. In the ensuing chaos, it's only the strong and ruthless that survive and such men are not likely to tolerate anyone's idiotic bullshit. Viewed from the vantage point chattering classes who squandered their inheritance he, the leader is a tyrant, but to the mob, they applaud him as a saviour. Whether or not he is good or evil is all up to pot luck.
The founding fathers of the U.S were as fearful of tyrants as of the mob. As Erik von Kuenhelt Leddihn shows in his book Liberty or Equality, they established a republic and not a democracy. It was Jackson who started diluting the quality pool by enlarging the franchise and establishing the spoils system. It may be too late, but conservatives, especially in the U.S need to make a pushback against the universal franchise. If there is any hope, it's not with the people.
27 comments:
Any attempt at limiting the franchise would involve criteria to be set not only by existing voters but by existing elites.
For example, an Education qualification might require a college degree, hence discriminating against intelligent non-college grads while simultaneously rewarding the generally left-leaning academics and administrators by further pushing people into their market.
A written test would very likely involve multiple-choice questions in which only the politically-correct answers (to questions about history, for example) would count.
Bah, on almost every issue the general population, or at least the white general population, has a better position than the so-called intelligent elite. A fish rots from the head down, and almost every major thing that is rotten about this society is being shoved down the throats of the people by the Revolting Elite. Someone once said that if the right to vote had been limited to Ph D's after WW2 the result would have quickly been a Stalinist dictatorship, and one look at our universities today supports that view. (Race in politics is a different issue. It's highly likely that Keith Tillage votes pretty much the same way that the Rachel Jeantels of this world do.) So no, it's not really about intelligence, it's about character. Would you say that the representatives from highly educated districts do better for society than those from working and lower middle-class white districts (to leave the racial issues aside)? I would say they are far more destructive.
I think the problem with any other system outside of 1 person, 1 vote, is that it automatically assumes an objective criteria for "best".
Once we've discarded that, the best that we can come up with is what the largest group of people define as "best".
(The traditional alternative for determining "best" depends upon killing anyone who disagrees with your criteria.)
Besides, the strength of the democratic system is not that it elects the "best" leaders, it's that it provides a system for removing them without violence.
Maybe it's a co-incidence, but Roissy linked to this article which backs up my view.
I'll reply later as I have to go.
The notion of superiority chafes the democratic, but not conservative mind.
I highly disagree. The only reason it doesn't come up is that conservatives generally consider themselves to be the superior.
Societies in which the conservatives are considered inferior suddenly develop a love of some form of democracy. Look at the (now) Republic of Iran as well as various other cultures were the conservative majority was widely considered inferior.
@David.
Personally, I'm practical test to determine voter eligibility.
Having an assets test, for instance, may be a better measure of practical real world understanding than an education.
Also, our understanding of education is different to our forefather's understanding. A PhD graduate today is really nothing more that a super qualified technician. Superbly confident in their own field but frequently clueless in others.
Education, in the old sense, was broad. Frankly, our current curricula are designed to produce specialists rather than generalists who take the big picture view of things. And it's precisely this big picture view that is necessary. Policy involves trade-offs, something fanatics never see.
Anon.
Most of the intelligent elite is white.
Tom.
is that it automatically assumes an objective criteria for "best".
Yes.
Are you arguing that competency is equivalent to incompetency? Or that Fat women are just as attractive and their normal weighted sisters. This blog advocates the idea of an objective good. It tolerates legitimate disagreement but seriously, are you arguing that nothing is better than anything else?
democratic system is not that it elects the "best" leaders, it's that it provides a system for removing them without violence.
As long as the leaders choose to do so. Hitler got voted in and had to be blasted out. Millions dead as a result.
The only reason it doesn't come up is that conservatives generally consider themselves to be the superior.
Generally they are. But they're not always the most intelligent of politicians. The last 100 years or so has been pretty much the triumph of the Left. Conservatives are better of doing more thinking instead of campaigning.
You can complain, protest, organize, whatever. But every day that you go to work, you are working to bolster the welfare state, and compared to that, all of your complaining, protesting and organizing is just spitting in the ocean.
The only solution is to go Galt.
I can't remember the name of the fellow right now but he was a British pro-nazi doctor who wanted to prove that democracy didn't work. He was wandering a fair one day and saw that there was a contest to test the weight of a cow. He decided to use this as a test of how stupid people were. What he discovered instead was that the people selected, on average, a weight almost exactly that of the cow.
As I get older I become more fond of the Venetian system. In it you had an elite that made decisions and allocated offices. Then you had the people who had the chance to veto by frequent lynching. I'm not keen on the violence, but I think there is something to said for having an elite that has the ability to push forward limited government policy and a public that can tell them to go to hell. Let congress do what they will, but give the people a veto power in excess of the president.
GK Chesterton, more people would go for the lynchings if it weren't for the panem et circenses that the Internet and mass media provide.
Also there is an overall loss of a sense of virtue, in the commoners and the elite.
It is funny that American 2nd Amendment advocates brag about being the most law abiding citizens in the country. That is their number one weakness. Every time a new piece of anti-gun legislation passes they either obey it grudgingly or flee. I can't recall any time that a people ever asked the government's permission to overthrow the government.
The woman is 19 and still a Junior? So she has what? 3 or 4 more years till she graduates?
It tolerates legitimate disagreement but seriously, are you arguing that nothing is better than anything else?
No. I'm arguing that no one individual can be trusted with making that evaluation in perpetuity.
In the end, given corruption, self-interest, mistaken beliefs, etc., I trust a system with a mechanism for self-correction, crude though it is, over any system that has no such system.
Now of course a majority of an entire population can be corrupted, but I'd argue that is vastly less likely to happen than any smaller group given perpetual power.
As far as Nazi's are concerned, it should be pointed out that while Hitler was elected to power, he felt the need to remove the mechanism for the most important part - his removal.
Would he have embarked on the same course if he knew the voters could remove him? Would his followers have embraced his actions?
I've often thought that restricting the franchise to the married-and-never-divorced male heads of households with at least one legitimate child would improve our politics immensely.
I've often thought that restricting the franchise to the married-and-never-divorced male heads of households with at least one legitimate child would improve our politics immensely
At least for us married-and-never-divorced male heads of households with at least one legitimate child.
@Tom
I'm not arguing for a dictatorship, I'm arguing for a qualified democracy. This isn't some radical notion, but one of the founding principles of the U.S. constitution and how democracy was initially established in the West.
Give some people the right to vote but allow all people to right to bear arms. That's how you stop prole abuse.
@Beefy.
Until recently you could only vote if you were a male in Switzerland. I can't actually remember it being a bastion of patriarchal oppression.
Give some people the right to vote but allow all people to right to bear arms. That's how you stop prole abuse.
The right to vote is pretty much a stand-in for "worthiness".
I've yet to see a society where the state *officially* determines that some people as more worthy than others that has not, in the long term, had a morally corrosive effect upon both the sanctified and a deleterious effect upon the rest.
I understand your concerns, even if I don't think they're as dangerous as you do. But I'm also *highly* aware of how elites corrupt themselves.
Perhaps as a "married-and-never-divorced male head of households with at least one legitimate child", I've no wish to be tempted by the government consistently telling me that *I* am the elite. I doubt it would do my soul much good.
It's highly likely that Keith Tillage votes pretty much the same way that the Rachel Jeantels of this world do.
Obviously. Because for blacks, the issue of being black dominates over other issues. "Blackness" has not seeped into the backgound yet. It is not a secondary consideration yet. It's a primary distinguishing trait, and not because it's indicative of negative character traits (there are plenty of white trash fools, or despicable white elites giving whites a bad name). It's residual racism that will only be eroded when enough black leaders have gained prominence to "blend" in.
But I'm also *highly* aware of how elites corrupt themselves.
But history shows that the mob too, is capable of self corruption. The fallacy that many advocates democracy advocate is the assumption that people, especially ignorant ones, will always act in their best interests. The reason why demagogues arise is because they exploit a defect in human populations, namely the fact that there are a lot of stupid people in them. The demagogue exploits this stupidity to his advantage and to the detriment of the nation.
Look at the current Morsi saga. He was democratically elected and then proceeded to screw the people over. The people themselves did not save the day and correct the error, but a select group of men called the military, who managed to arrange a peaceful exchange of power.
Secondly, I think that your concept of the "elite" and mine are different. My elite is functional not educational. My elite are people who are able to manage their own affairs successfully, not those who claim to be able to do so by virtue of class or education. Because when the rubber hits the road, what matters is being able to be competent, not theoretical.
I'm not arguing for a republic of like minded people like myself. I'm arguing for the opinions of a wide variety of people who are competent. The last thing I want is an echo chamber for my own opinions since that is another mechanism of societal collapse.
@Anon
I've got not problem with blacks voting for black interests. But I've got a problem with stupid blacks voting for black interests. I pretty confident that Black America would probably be much better off with Keith Tillage behind the wheel instead of Rachael Jeantel.
All conservatives must do is tie drug legalization with forfeiting your right to vote, voluntarily. This would solve two problems at once, require a cogent voter ID system, and paint the right as the guardians of "freedom". Of course, it's very easy to make the case that dopers should not run heavy equipment, own guns, VOTE, hold political office, etc. Win-Win!
Anon @1:33
Agree. I think most of the proles would give up the right to vote for some simple tangible benefit.
The problem with this "qualified democracy" is that you'll have to weave a gargantuan bureaucracy around it.
It would also likely be the single piece of legislation that every government would want to tamper with.
Just look at how much resources the 2 major US parties puts into re-destricting in US states. The qualification criteria alone would be a thousand times more messed with.
The French revolution would never have happened if the proles had stayed at home.
What makes you think the Proles drove it? It was clearly a case of the circulation of the elites, where the agitators were middle class lawyers like Voltaire and Robespierre. The proles in the Vendee, loyal to crown and Christ? They drowned them, much as Henry VIII did to the Catholic peasants to decatholicize his own land.
@Vicious
Nah, admin is easy. Make the tax offices/IRS administer it. If you have more than a certain amount of assets you can vote. Think about the implications.
@Electric Angel.
The proles got on board with the revolution by being convinced by the Jacobins. The incompetence of the Louis' regime left them dissatisfied and drifting, the elites fed them a plausible solution and thus they enlisted into the cause. The proles provided the muscle whilst the Jacobins the "brains".
@TSP
Well with that kind of criteria we've traversed from fun-to-think-about territory right into fantasy wonderland. I'm not directly opposed to the idea but I'm also a realist.
Given the huge administrations and federal bureaucracies in the US you're not exactly reinforcing your case by brushing it off by saying "nah, admin is easy".
Viscious.
It would be easy. No seriously, and it doesn't need to have a huge bureaucracy. It's not like the licensing of motor vehicle drivers is a drain on the national purse.
Simply determine the criteria, establish a register and maintain it.
By the way. I'm not proposing any novel idea. The U.S was founded on the principle of a limited franchise. Few people could actually vote. The men of Valley Forge were not fighting for the right of Racheal Jeantel to piss away their hard won victories.
See here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States
And what would you give up your right to vote for?
@Anon
I wouldn't give up my right to vote. But then again I'm not short term focused.
Rachael would probably give it up for a bag of skittles and and new phone.
Post a Comment