From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Jun 13 2004 - 03:02:47 BST
Hi all,
Since there are some forum participants who believe NC is some kinda
intellectual elitist, I'd like to post this email exchange from
today's batch. Basically, the questioner thinks we should allow
people to vote only if they meet minimum IQ requirements, what he
calls a "meritocracy" rather than democracy. His description of
"meritocracy" is long, and follows NC's response. This is like the
third exchange between the two, and NC's just a little irritated. I
think this exchange demonstrates the respect, and patience, NC has
for any and all serious questioners.
Would a "meritocracy" have high value as a social institution, if
analyzed by MoQ principles?
Best to all,
msh
Reply from NC,
I think we've reached the limits of useful discussion on
this, and are repeating ourselves pretty much. I don't
agree with you that democracy requires that two-year olds
should have a right to vote. There are no such simple
axioms in human affairs.
The question is whether someone -- let's say you and your
friends -- should have the right to determine whether some
category of the adult population should be compelled to
cede responsibility for their fate to another category who
we decide know better how to represent their interests.
You think so. I don't. But even if, for the sake of
argument, we were to accept your principle, I would
certainly not want it to be on the basis of "intelligence,"
however measured (and it's a very dubious notion, something
I've been putting aside). There are far more significant
criteria -- if we accept your principle, which I don't. So
why not restrict the vote to those who score high enough on
a test of moral judgment, say Larry Kohlberg's scale or
some improvement of it? That would certainly make a lot
more sense than "intelligence." Why not exclude those who
exhibit tendencies towards savagery, brutality, arrogance,
power-seeking, etc., thus excluding just about everyone in
positions of economic, political, and doctrinal management,
which privilege such tendencies in our institutions?
I really don't think there is much point in pursuing these
issues. But if you want to do so, I think you ought to put
aside "intelligence" and consider much more significant
criteria, no less easily measured, and far more pertinent -
- again, under assumptions I do not think anyone should
accept. And I would also recommend dropping the term
"meritocracy." You are using it in a rather idiosyncratic
way, which is sure to mislead people. You should also
distinguish between eligibility for office and for voting,
which are mixed up in your discussion. I would also
suggest that you rethink what Jefferson said, which you are
misinterpreting. And you should spell out just what you
suggest in cases like Copernicus, or contemporary
analogues.
My actual advice is to drop the matter. I think it's a
fruitless quest. I've tried to explain why. But that's a
personal judgment. It's for you to decide.
Noam Chomsky
QUESTION
Would I be correct in saying that in a nation that has a
democratic constitution, the electorate base is composed of
every citizen who is above a certain age?
If I contrast it with meritocracy, a meritocratic nation
will have an electorate composed of every citizen who has a
level of intelligence above a certain level.
In both cases, the electorate base does not encompass the
entire population. So, both are not egalitarian per se. At
this time, I will not discuss the structure of the
governing body, but would like to contrast the two systems'
criteria for voting eligibility.
Democracy gives the right to anyone over a certain age to
cast a vote and it is counted if successfully exercised ...
this would include the functionally disabled (physically or
mentally) of whom some are unable to make a vote because of
technological and medical limitations ... consequently,
their votes are not counted. This is a matter of inability
rather than desire. This reduces the size of the effective
size of the electorate base. If "true" democracy is to
exist, there should not be such a case. The same goes for
the legal age ... there may be a sound reasoning behind why
people below a certain maturity level should not have their
rights to vote, but selecting an arbitrary age in my
opinion does much injustice. My point is, while democracy
gives the right to ALL people, eligibility to vote falls
under several criteria and thus makes the effective
electorate smaller than it says it should be. The
population does not have the effective voting power, but a
sample within the population.
Meritocracy already has a sample within the population with
effective voting power. Depending on at what level of
intelligence is determined for eligibility, its number may
form a big majority within the population (e.g. IQ at least
70)... or even a small minority (e.g. IQ at least 120). I
understand that IQ does not measure many other kinds of
intelligences such as creative intelligence or EQ.
Therefore, I am not saying that IQ is wholly representative
of human intelligence ... it is just to demonstrate the
meritocratic electoral system. Instead of saying ALL the
people, meritocracy honestly defines the effective
electorate.
Meritocracy is for putting intelligence into use and not to
take away the freedoms and privileges of the people. It
fine tunes democracy into "geniocracy" from something which
is often a "mediocracy". Each brain with a certain level of
functionality can vote democratically.
Meritocracy also defines the eligibility for running for
public office based on the level of intelligence. True,
guys like Pol Pot or Wolfowitz may be eligible for
candidacy, but so are many others who are compassionate
humanitarians. Meritocracy does not attempt in guaranteeing
a "benevolent" government. In this regard, meritocracy
functions exactly the same way democracy runs ... by
"popular" vote, a government is established or removed. In
meritocracy, the voice of the people (i.e. the electorate)
comes from functioning minds. Democracy makes an attempt in
limiting its electorate by using the legal age and other
poorly defined excuses, such as excluding all people who
have been convicted for breaking the law.
If there is complete freedom of information flow, every
"intelligent" person could make informed decisions with
their voting rights. That vote may not be "the best one"
but certainly is better than someone who has a mental
handicap or impaired judgement. The vote of the latter does
not have intellectual weight, in some cases like asking a
4-year old to vote. And since democracy already indirectly
discriminates intellectually, meritocracy is not really
coming out to be so radical. No political faction can
remain in power indefinitely since it depends on the
people.
It is interesting that democrats in essence fear
superiority; they would not trust the intellectually gifted
with noble egalitarian intentions. Meritocracy, which is a
more honest form of democracy, would not allow for harm and
suffering to prevail in society. If Man is essentially
"honest and safe", we should equally consider intelligent
ones to be so, too. And, as I have mentioned before, since
intelligent people come from all walks of life, they too
should be considered a "depository of the public interest".
The same goes for the group eligible to run for public
office. A hypothetical situation could be Chomsky vs.
Wolfowitz among others ... who do you think will get
elected? : >
Jefferson et al.'s view of democracy is stuck in the
paradigm of socio-economic class. Why should all
intelligent "responsible men" be condemned to a privileged
group huddled together? Surely they are not advocating
total anarchism, but a governing body representative of the
population. Meritocracy offers such a fair system.
Votes only have a positive effect when there is an
equivalence of knowledge and intellect. Copernicus was
condemned by a majority of incompetent people because he
was the only one at the time who had a sufficiently high
level of comprehension. When the first cars were invented,
if we had asked everyone to vote to establish whether cars
should be allowed to exist or not, he majority, who knew
nothing about cars and did not care, would have responded
negatively and we would still be riding in a horse and
cart. To govern is to foresee, and most of the great
problems that humanity is now facing prove that past
governments did not have the foresight and therefore
incompetent governments. And the majority of which most
were not awakened enough and who responded in the interests
of their immediate gratification (low EQ), or as a result
of instinctive reactions from unconscious conditioning
voted for them. Nevertheless, the problem does not lie with
the people who govern but rather the technique that is used
to choos
Governments based on universal suffrage nor public opinion
polls retard development with relatively more unnecessary
suffering than would be in a meritocratic government.
There are numerous leaders who can lead humanity and anyone
would like them to be intelligent ... and meritocracy gives
them *all* to decide, democratically amongst each other,
what is the best course of action for all. Will not the
"good" outweigh the "bad"?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 13 2004 - 03:00:47 BST