The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Return of Jim Crow
Schrodinger
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
All I can say is, holy shit.
Not surprisingly, John Stossel apparently loves this guy:
Great! So let's bring back Jim Crow laws, by only offering the right to vote to people who we deem "economically literate," and/or giving these people extra votes. And how exactly does John Stossel measure economic literacy? Here's a hint: This is a guy who considers "State of Fear" to be a sound scientific critique of global warming.
Jonah Goldberg apparently gets his glowing review printed in the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg31jul31,0,5010759.column?coll=la-opinion-center
Fortunately, this proposal is not without it's critics:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/08/why-is-jonah-go.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070801/cm_huffpost/058660;_ylt=AqDs3ASRLv_QiLpDZ9Vdf7Ss0NUE
I'm sorry, but this is just evil. Didn't we learn anything from history? Voting is a right. We live in a democracy. You do get to place literacy tests and other arbitrary barriers just because you're scared that people will vote for a candidate who you don't like. Especially if we know those barriers will unfairly target poor people and minorities, who tend to vote for the opposing party, and who are already disenfranchised as it is. That is not how democracy works.
The Myth of Bryan Caplan's Seriousness
Libertarians gather to hear the case against letting the ignorant, irrational masses decide the direction of society.
What happens when libertarians get together to talk about why people who disagree with them shouldn't make decisions, why democracy isn't really as important as people think, and why low voter turnout isn't a bad thing? People roll their eyes and move on, right? Actually, no. Apparently employees of government agencies, embassies, and think tanks trek down to 1000 Massachusetts Avenue to listen and be enlightened in the F. A. Hayek Auditorium.
On Tuesday, the Cato Institute sponsored a panel discussing George Mason economics professor Bryan Caplan's new book The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies (Princeton University Press, 2007). Cato Unbound managing editor Will Wilkinson moderated, Caplan gave an overview of his argument, and the Pew Research Center's Director of Survey Research Scott Keeter provided a few comments.
"If you were to ask me, I would tell you that mammals make the best pets," Wilkinson explained by way of introduction. "But if you're shopping for your seven year old daughter, you shouldn't be indifferent between a kitten and a badger." And just like we choose not to keep badgers as pets, should we also decide to remove economic policy from the domain of democratic decision-making? "If voters don't know what they're doing and support policies and politicians for silly, arbitrary, or purely emotional reasons," Wilkinson continued, "we may end up with policies that make us all worse off." Perhaps, he suggested, we should limit the scope of democracy in favor of other things: like experts, or markets, or... well, just not the unwashed masses.
He then introduced Caplan, whose argument is basically that the general public is not simply ignorant, but irrational. Rather than making random errors in political judgment, its errors are systematically biased against libertarian economics. To make up for this supposedly harmful situation, Caplan suggests limiting the scope of democratic involvement in economic decision making because economics experts would make better policies for society at large.
Caplan said many people think there is a "self-serving bias" that leads economists -- presumed to be disproportionately well off and comfortable in their jobs -- to assume markets are working for them and thus they must be working for everyone else as well. Second, he said, some people accuse economists of having an "ideological bias" towards being right-wing ideologues regardless of evidence.
"Neither of these stories can stand up against the data," Caplan asserted. Rich economists still think differently than rich non-economists, he said, and most economists are moderate Democrats with disproportionately pro-market economic views.
Not surprisingly, John Stossel apparently loves this guy:
Caplan's book isn't calculated to cheer up those of us who favor more market and less democracy. He offers some solutions that aren't likely to be adopted any time soon, such as permitting only the economically literate to vote, or giving them more votes, or eliminating get-out-the-vote campaigns (which serve only to get out the uneducated vote).
Great! So let's bring back Jim Crow laws, by only offering the right to vote to people who we deem "economically literate," and/or giving these people extra votes. And how exactly does John Stossel measure economic literacy? Here's a hint: This is a guy who considers "State of Fear" to be a sound scientific critique of global warming.
Jonah Goldberg apparently gets his glowing review printed in the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg31jul31,0,5010759.column?coll=la-opinion-center
Fortunately, this proposal is not without it's critics:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/08/why-is-jonah-go.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070801/cm_huffpost/058660;_ylt=AqDs3ASRLv_QiLpDZ9Vdf7Ss0NUE
I'm sorry, but this is just evil. Didn't we learn anything from history? Voting is a right. We live in a democracy. You do get to place literacy tests and other arbitrary barriers just because you're scared that people will vote for a candidate who you don't like. Especially if we know those barriers will unfairly target poor people and minorities, who tend to vote for the opposing party, and who are already disenfranchised as it is. That is not how democracy works.
Schrodinger on
0
Posts
Regardless of what you think of the position regarding taking or giving the right to vote, you have to admit that he does have a point...a large portion of the public couldn't care less who's in charge, as long as it doesn't interrupt their viewing of American Idol.
And there are lots of people who vote for candidates based on reasons such as "he looks trustworthy" or "I'm voting for her because she's a woman", without once looking at the speeches, voting records, and positions of their chosen candidates to see if the person they're voting for has the same ideals they do.
I have very little faith in the public when it comes to elections and decision making, just as I have very little faith in the government to do much of anything right.
But I can't see taking away the "right" to vote.
I'm suddenly reminded of the whole FairPlay idiocy a few years back, where they were calling for a boycott of game buying for a week to protest the prices of games. Their argument? If you drop prices, you'll sell tons more games! Unfortunately, it wouldn't work that way, and the drop would end up only making niche games inviable.
Economists assume as part of their model that their actors are economically rational. What this means is that the actors are not just rational, but rational only in the economic sphere. When you consider this, what this means is that to an economist, someone who knowingly pays more for products because they refuse to shop at Walmart is being irrational - while in reality, their decision is in fact rational when you factor in their social beliefs. This is why a lot of libertarians seem to not understand why so few people agree with them - your normal person has a bunch of different stances, and their decisions are informed by differing opinions. Using one dimension as a filter only gives a distorted view.
tl;dr - Reality has an anti-libertarian bias.
Now, to the actual point, I think that while it's certainly the case that people, taken as a whole, are stupid and shouldn't be let near sharp objects, the idea of a merit based limit on democratic participation fails more on practical than ideological grounds. The idea that you should have some bare minimum of competence and knowledge before anyone has to care what you think is a good one, the problem comes when you try and define what that minimum is (and the fact no one is necessarily objective in deciding) though I think it could theoretically be overcome.
See if she still has that video of "Why Harvard is voting for Hilary"
Watch it, and see 8 minutes of students are Harvard saying, "OH I THINK IT'D BE SO GREAT TO HAVE A WOMAN PRESIDENT"
The solution is obvious. We go all starship troopers up in here. Citizens vote, civilians dont.
the percentage of people who already don't vote is ridiculously high already. after X many years of non-voting the right be taken away.
I dunno, maybe it would streamline campaigns. politicians spent less time pandering to people who aren't going to vote anyway. Of course, it would probably skew politics towards the older generation even more than it is already. Maybe encourage younger people to vote, because if they don't do it now. you won't be able to later.
*shrug* I dunno.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
It goes beyond that. Rationality is in the eye of the beholder. What seems to really bother this fellow is that people will make decisions based on such things as "social justice" and "religion".
Though one could argue that when people CHOSE not to vote when they are freely able to it means they don't especially care about the legitimacy of the government in the first place.
If they were barred from voting, that may be a different story. It might be simply impossible for someone who wasn't able to pass a basic competency test to accept the fault was in them and not the system, even if the rest of society agreed, which is by no means a given.
No it isn't, we're comparable to Canada's turnout rate. Political involvement is always at a low when the economy is strong and most people have it good.
Which one is it when "which candidate would you like to have a beer with" is considered a serious political question? Social justice or religious belief? How about polls rating how attractive the candidates are?
Caplan takes no issue with the type of "irrational" that shows in social justice or religion (hurting yourself to help others who are worse off), he rightly points out that it's idiotic to buy into lose-lose scenarios for clearly wrong reasons, which happens all too often. That's the kind of irrational we're talking about here.
I was thinking the exact same thing. There is a certain attractiveness to the idea I have to admit. You want to vote? earn it bitch! If not, fine, you're still a free civillian, just don't get to complain if the laws don't get voted the way you want.
maybe military service isn't exactly the best benchmark of "earning" citizen status, but that doesn't mean there isn't a good benchmark out there. somewhere
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Um, no.
His problem is that people don't use his yardstick when making decisions. His solution? Only let people with his yardstick make decisions. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. If I choose to make my decisions from a social impact standpoint, that doesn't make them any less rational or valid.
It's basically the classic "you're a libertarian or you're a moron" rhetoric, just packaged up in a pretty bow. But no matter how you wrap it, a turd's a turd.
Understood. And I'd have to disagree with taking away voting ability based on that...I mean, deciding that kind of stuff is what voting is all about.
There is. Birth or the naturalization process. When you start saying "you have to be this to be a citizen", what you're saying is "the views and stances of this are the proper ones."
You don't find it at all ironic you're assessment of his argument is argument? He's stupid and I don't agree with him because he thinks people who don't agree with him are stupid.
Honestly, I'm not even sure how to argue the point here, since you aren't making any points. His case really isn't that people are disagreeing with him and therefore wrong, it's that they disagree with anyone who knows anything about the subject, regardless of what their view may be, for reasons that make no rational sense. He isn't shilling the libertarian view on the issues in question, he's just pointing out most people have NO view that's based on any sort of reality.
Again, I don't think his suggestions for solutions could work, but that doesn't invalidate the observations of the problem.
It would be great to have a woman president.
Now go play in traffic or something.
True, but isn't that how it is already? you don't get to be a politician unless you act a "proper" way or etc. we'd just be putting it down on paper.
Of course, the only ones who would have the power to change that piece of paper would be the ones who are already in. So the "Citizen Club" might get more and more exclusive over time
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
That's not necessarily the only that could work (though it might be the most likely).
If the goals that have to be meet are the understanding of certain objective fact (rudimentary understanding of the legal system, how government words, basic economics, etc - all issues where there's no room for interpretation) then it's not "you have to believe X" it's you have to "acknowledge the real world exists".
Well, continuing to exist while time elapses could be considered 'acting a proper way.' I suppose.
But do you vote for her because she's a woman, or because you agree with the ideals she holds and her plan for America?
Either one is a valid enough reason for someone to cast a vote, it's just that one sorta makes you roll your eyes and wonder where this country is headed.
I think a female president wouldn't be any different from any other president. I'm just not convinced Hillary Clinton is the right choice to be that first female president.
Maybe instead of trying to take away people's rights they should focus on making our public education system better so they don't have to worry about people who don't know things voting? You know, like, teaching people?
It would be ideal if everyone was competent, whatever they believe, but I think that's just not in the cards. We already have free but mandatory education (including civics in most states I believe), and it seems to pretty consistently not be working for those who need it most.
You can't make someone who doesn't want to learn do so, meaning you have to either hope the ignorant have as little impact as possible or how culture shifts to remove the viability of being ignorant in the first place.
You want to run for office? sure, just pass these advanced economic, political, and judicial courses with a minimum benchmark!
MWO: Adamski
He presupposes that purely libertarian political decisions are the best decisions, then proposes to subvert democracy to make it so.
I strongly disagree with his premise and violently disagree with his prescription.
I need to read the book again, but unless I really forgot something he doesn't presuppose libertarian decisions are best, he presupposes rational decisions are. He may think that a purely rational view will end up agreeing with him, but I really seem to recall him saying any objective look at reality, whatever the conclusion thereof, is better than what we have now.
I don't think there's any arguing with his premise, since the examples of mass humanity acting in anything other than the most base and idiotic ways are few and far between. The solution he proposes may not be tenable or even desirable, but the need for a solution is pretty glaring.
Define rational.
Therein lies the problem.
Yes, but is economic rationality the end all be all?
Also, I don't think the populace is stupid. And I tend to be VERY wary of those who do.
This line
would seem to suggest that "errors in political judgment" and "libertarian economics" are juxtaposed concepts. Additionally, the prescription of using economists in making these decisions is justified by his characterization of economists as holding "disproportionately pro-market economic views"
Unfortunately, aside from semi-universal suffrage, we haven't found a reliable way to prevent tyranny, and even that doesn't work too well.
No, it's not the end all be all, but it's the most easily measured and (to the best of my knowledge) the most studied when it comes to rationality and human behavior. At the very least, it should be taken into consideration when you are talking about problems that can be described using this particular model.
As far as the general level of intelligence in the citizenry...I have to disagree with you. I am sure that there are many smart people out there, but the vast majority of citizens (at least in my country) have little to no interest in politics other than during elections or when the media whips up a frenzy over some scandal. When people aren't interested, they are more likely to make poor, reactionary choices - and that's what happens, time and again. The worst is between elections, when the general citizenry doesn't even do it's job (holding those who rule to account).
People are smart and able to make informed rational decisions, especially when they are decisions that effect them. Once you have a group of people, they tend to just go along, unless they're negatively effected by the group's actions. The louder people become leaders and can move the group a little in one direction or the other. In a democracy the leaders don't always tell the group what's hapenning, and as long as enough people are content, nothing changes. The population isn't stupid, we just have it really good.
edit: Politics encompasses a lot. Politics is voting, it's keeping certain people happy and ignoring another group, it's lying to one person and backstabing another. I can totally understand why people are not interested in it. The common conception is that it's dirty and you have to be dirty to succeed.
And now we've come full circle to my "it's a good theoretical idea, it's nailing the specific details that are the problem". It's basically the porn problem, you clearly know irrationality when you see it, but trying to lock it away is either an exercise in futility or authoritarianism. That's the reason the proposal fails as a practical suggestion, not some ideological flaw.
On the other hand, I think the idea is a valid basis for discussion and really makes us look at fundamentals.
That's not a direct line from the book, is it? If so, I clearly missed and my apologies.
It SOUNDS like it's the book being put into context for a libertarian discussion at a libertarian group meeting. In that case, obviously they're going to put it in the context of furthering their goals (the abuse potential of it being one of the fundamental issues with the idea in the first place). I don't think that necessarily detracts from the accuracy of its description of the problem or the value of the proposals as ideas to be debated.
Really, though, the democratic representative system we have is roughly what is being described - representatives are elected by the hoi polloi, and experts (bureaucrats) are appointed by the representatives to craft and present policy. There are at least two steps of separation between the masses and the policy. This insulates decisionmaking to some degree from the potential ignorance or whims of the electorate.
Fundamentally, however, the consent of the governed is the absolute philosophical cornerstone of our government. There's really no way to get around that, regardless of how deeply one believes in the ideology one is advocating.
1. Answer: 3 * 5 + 7 - 3 = ____
2. Vote
O Some Retard
O Other Retard
O Third Party Retard
It's a nice, fair way of knowing who's too stupid to vote.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.