From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 07 2002 - 13:30:50 MDT
Technotranscendence wrote:
However, by
dividing people into two groups (based on IQ) and giving one more
political power, this builds a class system from the start.
### You raise an important point here, but then I did (implicitly) address
it; the upper chamber can design rules, but only the lower chamber can vote
them into law. It's another application of the checks-and-balances
approach - the two groups have to cooperate and at the same time they cannot
easily collude. It's true that the membership in these groups is hereditary
(to about 85%) but then this is just a recognition of a true, objective
difference. As Eliezer wrote one day, failing to recognize IQ as an
objective truth is going against Mother Nature (I am paraphrasing). So I do
not build a class system, I merely recognize existing differences, and I put
them to good use, allowing both efficiency and the division of power
necessary for stability.
-------
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?
### If the power was distributed between the two groups in the manner I
suggested, both groups would come out ahead.
-----
> 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?
### But what stops a market anarchy from decaying?
(didn't we discuss this some time ago?)
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:56 MST