$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 54.96

4,023 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
25.4% of Goal | 29 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: The Case Against Democracy rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
Interesting article overall:


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/07/the-case-agains...


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
North Dakota
flag msg tools
Thanks for the rent-free space in your head. Would have been nice if you'd cleaned it up a bit before you rented it out, though.
badge
I control your mind.
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh my lord.

Quote:
In a new book, “Against Democracy” (Princeton), Jason Brennan, a political philosopher at Georgetown, has turned Estlund’s hedging inside out to create an uninhibited argument for epistocracy. Against Estlund’s claim that universal suffrage is the default, Brennan argues that it’s entirely justifiable to limit the political power that the irrational, the ignorant, and the incompetent have over others. To counter Estlund’s concern for fairness, Brennan asserts that the public’s welfare is more important than anyone’s hurt feelings; after all, he writes, few would consider it unfair to disqualify jurors who are morally or cognitively incompetent. As for Estlund’s worry about demographic bias, Brennan waves it off. Empirical research shows that people rarely vote for their narrow self-interest; seniors favor Social Security no more strongly than the young do. Brennan suggests that since voters in an epistocracy would be more enlightened about crime and policing, “excluding the bottom 80 percent of white voters from voting might be just what poor blacks need.”


I wonder who will get to decide who is too irrational or ignorant to be allowed to vote? A panel of self-styled "smart people"?


5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
mbmbmbmbmb
We live in a representative republic. Stupid ends with the candidates they elect. Now if they're stupid....
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon M
United Kingdom
Hitchin
Herts
flag msg tools
It strikes me that the argument falls down on a simple fact. If the "ignorant" are no better than flipping a coin then by default the balance of power will rest with the "educated" anyway since the dumb votes will be split 50:50 between the two sides.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jasper
Netherlands
Leiden
flag msg tools
mb
Curiously, in the logic of the atricle, the voting public is both irrational, ignorant and incompetent yet also tends not to vote in it's own narrow self interest. The latter indicates to the ability to weigh and judge proposals according to their percieved benefit to society at large. Not something you'd expect the irrationally ignorant incompetents to pull off.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
Drew1365 wrote:
Oh my lord.

Quote:
In a new book, “Against Democracy” (Princeton), Jason Brennan, a political philosopher at Georgetown, has turned Estlund’s hedging inside out to create an uninhibited argument for epistocracy. Against Estlund’s claim that universal suffrage is the default, Brennan argues that it’s entirely justifiable to limit the political power that the irrational, the ignorant, and the incompetent have over others. To counter Estlund’s concern for fairness, Brennan asserts that the public’s welfare is more important than anyone’s hurt feelings; after all, he writes, few would consider it unfair to disqualify jurors who are morally or cognitively incompetent. As for Estlund’s worry about demographic bias, Brennan waves it off. Empirical research shows that people rarely vote for their narrow self-interest; seniors favor Social Security no more strongly than the young do. Brennan suggests that since voters in an epistocracy would be more enlightened about crime and policing, “excluding the bottom 80 percent of white voters from voting might be just what poor blacks need.”


I wonder who will get to decide who is too irrational or ignorant to be allowed to vote? A panel of self-styled "smart people"?



Exactly right my friend, exactly right.

"We're doing this for your own good" rarely ends up well.



Ferret
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
rcbevco wrote:
We live in a representative republic. Stupid ends with the candidates they elect. Now if they're stupid....


We've done pretty poorly this time around that's true.

To have gone from folks like Washington and Jefferson to Trump and Clinton is just...embarrassing.



Ferret
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
Elitist Ivory Tower Academicians.

Fuck'em
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
Oh my lord.

Quote:
In a new book, “Against Democracy” (Princeton), Jason Brennan, a political philosopher at Georgetown, has turned Estlund’s hedging inside out to create an uninhibited argument for epistocracy. Against Estlund’s claim that universal suffrage is the default, Brennan argues that it’s entirely justifiable to limit the political power that the irrational, the ignorant, and the incompetent have over others. To counter Estlund’s concern for fairness, Brennan asserts that the public’s welfare is more important than anyone’s hurt feelings; after all, he writes, few would consider it unfair to disqualify jurors who are morally or cognitively incompetent. As for Estlund’s worry about demographic bias, Brennan waves it off. Empirical research shows that people rarely vote for their narrow self-interest; seniors favor Social Security no more strongly than the young do. Brennan suggests that since voters in an epistocracy would be more enlightened about crime and policing, “excluding the bottom 80 percent of white voters from voting might be just what poor blacks need.”


I wonder who will get to decide who is too irrational or ignorant to be allowed to vote? A panel of self-styled "smart people"?



Exactly right my friend, exactly right.

"We're doing this for your own good" rarely ends up well.

Ferret


Why that's easy anybody who looks like me, shares the same cultural values as me and agrees with me , otherwise they are fucking too stupid to vote.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Beaton
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
I have a cunning plan
mbmbmbmbmb
It makes a change from "those people can't be trusted to vote because they just vote themselves free stuff"
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bartosh

Sunnyvale
California
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
“Vimes had once discussed the Ephebian idea of ‘democracy’ with Carrot, and had been rather interested in the idea that everyone had a vote until he found out that while he, Vimes, would have a vote, there was no way in the rules that anyone could prevent Nobby Nobbs from having one as well. Vimes could see the flaw there straight away.”


― Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
growlley wrote:

Why that's easy anybody who looks like me, shares the same cultural values as me and agrees with me , otherwise they are fucking too stupid to vote.


That is a straightforward rule-of-thumb.


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
How did this thread branch off from The Zeitgeist Movement thread? It was all so self-contained until this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.