From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Aug 08 2002 - 22:52:31 MDT
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> 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.
>
If it takes a higher IQ to do a good job of designing laws then
why does it not take a higher IQ to decide which of the designs
should actually become law? Also, are there any limitations
on this process, say, certain individual rights that cannot be
legislated away?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:58 MST