From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Thu Aug 15 2002 - 17:23:56 MDT
Technotranscendence wrote:
On Wednesday, August 14, 2002 6:28 PM Rafal Smigrodzki
rms2g@virginia.edu wrote:
> Yet, the differences between the average citizens and the +two-sigma
group
> are real (meaning - these classes exist whether we acknowledge them or
not),
Ah, but the differences between rich and poor are real too. Should the
upper house be rich and the lower house poor? How about those between
ethnic groups? What about male/female differences? What about other
real differences? What do you mean by a non-real differences here?
### The differences between the rich and poor have a much weaker correlation
with the ability to govern (that is, there is only a weak correlation
between personal wealth and the ability to make sound political decisions),
and, more importantly, wealth has no causal relationship to governing
ability, while IQ does. I don't quite understand the question regarding
ethnic groups here. Gender differences in cognition might have an impact on
the ability to govern but I feel we have insufficient data to decide in
which direction they go (are women better than men at governance?). I wrote
about "real differences" as physical characteristics of persons (such as
height or IQ), while a non-real difference would be merely a difference in
our attitudes towards a person, such as being untrustworthy by virtue of not
belonging to one's tribe, or guilty of an arbitrarily defined crime.
------
But that's the point under discussion: whether your system would work or
work better. (I assume by "efficient process of lawmaking" you mean
"efficient" at making good and just laws and not just making laws. If
not, why not just have an unelected bureaucracy ruled by an absolute
despot bent on making efficient laws?)
### Having smart people design a product usually makes it better, and giving
the customers the ability to examine and accept/reject it assures a
consistently high quality. The upper chamber being the engineers and the
lower chamber as the discerning customers would simulate the free market
better than the current system (still very crudely, I know). Even the most
ethical and unselfish despot would not be able to approach the market's
abilities.
-------
You might also want to consider Bruno Leoni's differentiation between
legislature made law and court made law as given in his _Freedom and the
Law_ (http://www.libertyfund.org/details.asp?displayID=1648). There are
several key differences between the two. One is that judicial law comes
from consenting parties and only applies to them while legislative law
applies to whole classes of or all of the people. Another is that it's
reactive, while legislative law is usually proactive. Still another is
that courts have to compete usually to get cases -- in a common law
system, that is -- while legislatures have sovereignty and face no
competition.
### You are right. However, so far I haven't heard of a good, competitive
way of managing large-scale violence, fraud and enslavement, therefore the
singleton solution embodied in a government is, by default, the only one. I
can think about making it less dangerous and more efficient but not about
dispensing with it altogether.
One point - does judicial law apply only to consenting parties? I thought a
summons is a type of coercion, isn't it? Also, don't precedents extend
single decisions to a large number of cases?
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:09 MST