From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Mon Aug 05 2002 - 18:04:49 MDT
On Monday, August 05, 2002 6:07 PM Rafal Smigrodzki rms2g@virginia.edu
wrote:
> ### IQ up to 140 correlates well with not only academic achievement
(in the
> sense of doing well in school) but also with financial success,
success in
> virtually any profession you test with independent and
occupation-specific
> methods (police, accounting, management, teaching, etc.), and it
negatively
> correlates with antisocial and destructive behavior (wife-beating,
child
> abuse). There is a substantial body of peer-reviewed literature on
this. We
> can plausibly postulate that a similar relationship pertains for
performance
> in the design of laws. We must remember that only a very small
minority of
> the gifted are ivory-tower academics, and the vast majority are
productively
> involved in activities in all walks of life. A demarchy would then
draw from
> a much wider group than the power-hungry lawyers who represent the
current
> candidate pool for politics.
This limitation on the idea of sortition -- the usual term used for such
random methods of selecting people for office (see Sigmund Knag's "Let's
Toss for It: A Surprising Curb on Political Greed" in _Independent
Review_ 3(2) [Fall 1998] (Rafal, that's the article I mentioned off
list)) -- is still not without problems. Of course, while I'm not
advocating the idea, I do consider it an interesting start. However, by
dividing people into two groups (based on IQ) and giving one more
political power, this builds a class system from the start. (Political
power is _essentially_ coercive, so that's why I'm using "class" here.)
This is bound to make those who have the power more likely to use it to
their advantage against those who don't.
But let me offer an analogy here, since Rafal brought up some
correlations. Some would argue -- and this is based on a lot of data,
though much of it unpopular -- that certain ethnic groups are more
productive and less given to crime (real crime, such as theft, assualt,
rape, and murder) that perhaps those ethnic groups should rule while
members of other ethnic groups should be kept from positions of power --
or, to insert this in Rafal's scheme, only allowed to be part of the
lower house.
Does anyone believe that under such a system that members of the less
powerful ethnic groups will be treated fairly and the laws created by
the more powerful ones will be just, fair, and for the benefit of the
whole society?
> I would want a system with an upper chamber (top 10% of volunteers
drawn for
> the parliament), allowed to propose laws, and a lower chamber (the
rest),
> who would accept or reject the proposed laws but not independently
design or
> modify them. With term limits, automatic sunset clauses on all laws,
and
> financial oversight of the upper chamber by the lower one and
vice-versa,
> this could be a dynamic and responsive system, virtually free of
vested
> interest influence.
I tend to think such limits will curb the abuse of power, but eventually
the powerful or the power-lusting will find a way around them, just as
constitutional limits on power have no prevented the US government from
growing into almost every nook and cranny of American life -- and now,
it would seem, world life. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be tried,
but I tend to think they will decay faster than a market anarchy
solution. (Granted, no social arrangement is going to eternally prevent
a class system from arising, but at least market anarchy will probably
put the most and the most effective barriers in the way of preventing
statism from arising in the first place.) Why not go for the gold?
Cheers!
Dan
Read more my drivel at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:54 MST