Can a Free Society Work for the Less Clever?
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
From the Article: "Honestly now: Do you have what it takes? We all like to think we’re smarter than average, but the math is cruel. Half of us are below median intelligence, and some of us are considerably lower. So why should we think that freedom is a good policy for everyone?
I believe freedom is the best policy, but sometimes that is a hard argument to make. A free society presupposes that people are capable of living self-responsibly. That in turn presupposes that they have enough intelligence to do so. And a free democracy presupposes that the majority will consistently make good political decisions. That also presupposes they have enough intelligence to do so.
But a strong claim can be made that it’s naive to think that most people are smart enough. So let’s take up that hard challenge, since only by facing the best arguments on all sides can we be most certain of our own conclusions."
-----------------------------------------------------------
The author goes on through various example and 'what ifs' to describe why a paternalistic approach to government might be justified in some thinking on how to deal with this situation, but that ethical concerns tell us that a 'free democratic' government is still better. But he doesn't really address what would happen to the less intelligent endowed, in a true 'free' government without the burden of a democracy that gives equal voting rights, regardless of intellectual ability.
Another way to describe such a government is the long sought one, strictly limited to only providing retaliatory force to initiators of force on others, defensive reaction to foreign aggression, and contract dispute resolution--with no opportunity to enact laws of taxation, mandatory fees, or any other forced collection/reimbursement device, and only free market capitalism to influence human interaction.
As an aside, one such way to ensure such a system is to require a super-majority vote for any legislative action and any and all financial related laws to be submitted to citizens, with again a super-majority vote required. But back to the point.
What happens to the less intellectual endowed with such a government that can no longer assert through a vote, any special considerations and more to the point, should we care. It's my contention that in such a system, those without such abilities, education, or drive would fail, and probably do so fatally. Over a very few generations, their numbers would drastically reduce to a point that they would be a true minority.
What would such a place look like? Would it look like a Gulch Nation? Would we all be comfortable there, and if we're not, should we leave or be forced to?
For those that don't like the sound of such a system, we've actually done this twice in our history. Once was the original settlement of the Eastern US, and the second was the settlement of the West during the 1800's. Individual and even group failure was rampant during those periods of this country and the man that pulled through such failures and went on to make it in other ventures was celebrated.
I believe freedom is the best policy, but sometimes that is a hard argument to make. A free society presupposes that people are capable of living self-responsibly. That in turn presupposes that they have enough intelligence to do so. And a free democracy presupposes that the majority will consistently make good political decisions. That also presupposes they have enough intelligence to do so.
But a strong claim can be made that it’s naive to think that most people are smart enough. So let’s take up that hard challenge, since only by facing the best arguments on all sides can we be most certain of our own conclusions."
-----------------------------------------------------------
The author goes on through various example and 'what ifs' to describe why a paternalistic approach to government might be justified in some thinking on how to deal with this situation, but that ethical concerns tell us that a 'free democratic' government is still better. But he doesn't really address what would happen to the less intelligent endowed, in a true 'free' government without the burden of a democracy that gives equal voting rights, regardless of intellectual ability.
Another way to describe such a government is the long sought one, strictly limited to only providing retaliatory force to initiators of force on others, defensive reaction to foreign aggression, and contract dispute resolution--with no opportunity to enact laws of taxation, mandatory fees, or any other forced collection/reimbursement device, and only free market capitalism to influence human interaction.
As an aside, one such way to ensure such a system is to require a super-majority vote for any legislative action and any and all financial related laws to be submitted to citizens, with again a super-majority vote required. But back to the point.
What happens to the less intellectual endowed with such a government that can no longer assert through a vote, any special considerations and more to the point, should we care. It's my contention that in such a system, those without such abilities, education, or drive would fail, and probably do so fatally. Over a very few generations, their numbers would drastically reduce to a point that they would be a true minority.
What would such a place look like? Would it look like a Gulch Nation? Would we all be comfortable there, and if we're not, should we leave or be forced to?
For those that don't like the sound of such a system, we've actually done this twice in our history. Once was the original settlement of the Eastern US, and the second was the settlement of the West during the 1800's. Individual and even group failure was rampant during those periods of this country and the man that pulled through such failures and went on to make it in other ventures was celebrated.
places for the less intelligent, in menial jobs suit-
ed to their capacity (and, probably, their tastes
also). Everybody doesn't have to be the same.
Eddie Willers could never have invented Rearden
Metal, but he appreciated it, and he was gain-
fully employed.
I suspect that over half the people - including most of the high-IQ folks - would freely choose to live in a socialist environment. This is something that is not taken into account when discussing personal freedoms.
Jan
There is nothing sacred about the union dictatorship.
Secession is the best peaceful answer.
$^(% Lincoln and his %@$^&* union.
For what it's worth:
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
--Benjamin Franklin
So, of course we are free to establish a new society, but if we want an enduring system, and don't want to repeat the mistakes of our predecessors, we should take what we have learned about our species into consideration.
Jan
Should my children or grandchildren want to be socialists, they're welcome to leave and do so elsewhere, not with me. How can a social microcosm exist within a laissez faire capitalist framework with the requirement of private owned property. A lot of communes were tried in the 60's and 70's and didn't work then and won't work now.
I think what we've learned about our species is that if humans are not taught or raised within a rational, selfish, environment that recognizes and celebrates the productive and emphasizes individual freedom, that insanity, idiocy, and ignorance will soon rise to be the norm and the brute will gain and exercise power over all and that system will fail as will those individuals within it.
Socialism/collectivism/statism/progressivism has been shown again and again to not work for the betterment of mankind or individuals throughout man's history and no amount of understanding, inclusiveness, acceptance, or improvement will make it work.
You bring up some additional topics, though: I do not think that self-selecting communes are universally failures. Religious communes have been profit centers over the years. I think that the communes in the 60's and 70's failed because they were incompetently managed.
I think that educational environment can shift some of the population into a mode that emphasizes the worth of the individual (and that these people will be reasonably happy in that mode) but I do think that most of humanity would joyfully exchange freedom for security.
Jan
As to religious communes being profit centers, so were cotton plantations in the 18th and early 17th century. When you have slaves either chained literally or figuratively as in religion, somebody may be making a profit, but it's not the slave.
The fact that a large percentage of our present population would exchange freedom for security, joyfully or not, speaks to my contention that the insanity of collectivism/statism needs to be 'rooted out' of the garden of humanity's belief system as an immediate threat to what private property and freedom we have left.
Your comments about communes, socialism, and ideas of the numbers of people willing to give up their freedoms reminds me of the arguments of Robbie against Objectivism, because humanity produced Attila, Hitler, and Stalin.
As long as the basic structure of society supports individual freedoms, I am in good shape. If individual freedoms are supported, then someone is free to choose socialism. How do I then keep this choice from poisoning the whole system (as it has done in our current life)? It is not by ignoring what I perceive as a part of human nature, it is by trying to find a way to contain their preferences in a manner that does not endanger me.
Jan
Many might say that's cruel. It is not, it is reality
I would like to think that Objectivism is the ultimate answer for culture and society. For the vast majority of those here in the Gulch, that would indeed be a utopia. However, I think that there are a large number of people in the general population (maybe even most people) who either cannot or will not think for themselves in a rational manner. I strongly suspect if you took an exit poll for any election, and asked people WHY they voted for a specific candidate, very few would give answers that would be considered logical and reasonable here in the Gulch.
The same, unfortunately applies to personal and financial decisions. Credit card debt is a plague, even though the info is readily available that interest rates are ridiculous. People buy houses and cars they can't really afford. They take out student loans to get degrees in basket weaving (or something equally rewarding).
We here in the Gulch sometimes forget that we are the vast minority. I wish the world were full of rational individuals like I find here. Unfortunately, I believe we are increasingly rare.
VG
I restored your point. I have no idea why someone would down-vote your comment. I believe we have a troll.
Respectfully,
O.A.
And of course, how many Objectivist are strong enough in their philosophy to understand why they must allow the weak minded and weak willed to fail in their midst?
As to a minority, yes we are and probably always will be, but I think the last few years has seen a growth. Whether that will sustain or continue to gain traction, I don't know. Most days, I fear the worst, and still consider leaving this country.
Me too. Everyday the news brings me more evidence of decline, of reduced freedom, of more Marxism... I search for an out, but now they even charge you to leave and become an ex-pat, while making it ever more difficult to gather sufficient resources to leave with some form/sense of security.
It is prison of their making imposed upon those of us that remember and desire sweet liberty.
Regards,
O.A.
I am not interested in being 'pure', just in being functional and ethical. So I think we fundamentally disagree with each other here, Zenphamy. Perhaps someday we will sit around a fire, drinking brandy, and arguing this until the stars dim and the sun rises.
Jan
Wasn't it Jefferson that's quoted as saying that your freedom to choose, or to act, end's at the tip of my nose. As to the brandy, I'll have cowboy coffee and Drambuie.
Does that mean no cowboy coffee and Drambuie? Maybe I will have hot coco and Drambuie...or just the Dram.
Jan
I am not in favor of unearned suffrage either.
Israel is, at it's base, a religious state founded on that religion which is also their culture. Everything is about being a Jew.
That is how you get some of these whiz bang "intelligentsia" - Robert Reich comes to mind - saying some of the DUMBest things.
IQ isn't the issue, rather it is whether freedom and independence matter more to you than nanny state security.
Jan
Jan
I'll concede that many in this country no longer understand the difference between freedom and slavery, but that doesn't give it any weight in a value measurement. It only points out the foolishness of a lot of people.
My honorable ancestors have fought for freedom in this country since before it was a country. I would like to save my personal values from oblivion - and take the rest of the US with me. But, with the great infrastructure advantages this would bring, it would also bring a lot of luggage.
I seriously suggest that if something like Objectivism ever gains the upper hand in governance of the US, one of the things we will have to deal with is the fact that a lot of intelligent people genuinely prefer socialism. My answer is the same as that of jdg: Let them form communes within the matrix of a free society. Society can treat with the 'commune' as an 'entity' (it must support itself and pay whatever taxes are appropriate, etc). The crucial proviso would be that no one could be prevented from leaving the commune whenever they wanted to.
I have no personal love for socialism (!), but forcing everyone to live by my preferences would be like making everyone eat steak because I like it (yum!). Some people want to be vegetarians. And, yes, I do think that >50% of human beings in general would prefer to live in a socialism, even if they were raised in a free environment (and yes, these socialists would include some of the most intelligent people in the country).
The topic of this post is "Can a free society work for the less clever"? I think that, for a free society to work at all (even were we to start over on another planet) we will have to take the basic nature of humanity into account - including the likelihood that some of our children and grandchildren will be socialists.
Jan
(edit grammar)
For myself, I look at socialism in any form as similar to a cancer in political and philosophical thought and a weed that should be 'rooted out' of humanities' garden of belief systems. The same treatment we should be able to apply to the magical belief of religious faith and altruism of any type. Although many in Libertarian and Objectivist circles agree that we all have the right of self defense, most limit that to physical types of immediate attack, I have no problem and even advocate for killing a nest of rattlesnakes discovered under my house as an appropriate measure of self defense.
If the system really allowed liberty for the more intelligent, wouldn't the laws exempt those with higher intelligence instead of those who are better liars?
Bottom line is that the existing system is nothing like the article describes. A little tinkering won't fix it. Laws are not passed to protect everyone from poor thinking ability of the less intelligent. Laws are passed to centralize power in the hands of bullies who believe without any rational basis that they should control everyone else. It is little different from the divine right of kings.
Your last paragraph reminded me of one of my favorite quotes: “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” ― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
Respectfully,
O.A.
Ayn described the power lusters as "Attillas and Witch Doctors"...
She needed to go one step further and simply see the power lusters as having successfully united money, prestige and power in an effort to wield mass control over the populace.
Washington has certainly accomplished that.
Edit: correct autocorrect
The implementation of "The Gulch" was based on the presupposition that Gulch-worth citizens were capable of living self-responsibly. Not all were invited, nor should they have been.
As for the general population, America before 1900 pretty much had it right.
Nice thread, Zenphamy. Thanks.
Darwinism has not applied to humans since society became serious about protecting the weak and disabled.
There have been some movements, which I don't agree at all with, who wanted government to take over this power of selecting who reproduces and who doesn't. But even if human organizations don't seek to arrogate that power to themselves, to some degree they do still control it. The idea that as intelligent beings we're now above evolution is a megalomaniac's fantasy.
"Society" did not become "serious" about anything. Societies are not entities that think. Individuals influenced by the destructive doctrine of welfare state collectivism, including conservative statists, have been more than serious about coercively imposing it as a false alternative to their malignant notion of freedom. A free society is not "Darwinism" and "natural selection" destroying the "weak and disabled" in a zero-sum political game.
But Spencer's main point of laissez faire was against the welfare programs and the paternalistic/elitist governance advocated by others in the latter 19th century which he saw as leading directly to socialism that he considered the ultimate evil. Whether Spencer was right or wrong, or partially fitting in either direction, I'll agree that a 'free society' does not destroy the weak and disabled and certainly not in a zero-sum form, however I do think that a 'free society' does reward the productive, strong, individualistic egoist and permits the weak and disabled, socialist minded to fall under the constructive destruction of a productive society made up of productive men, and again, not in a zero-sum.
Since we've never see a truly 'free society', we'll have to wait and can only speculate the fate of those not capable or willing of performing successfully in such a society.
There was an immigrant that started rebuilding starter motors and alternators in his kitchen table.
He did thousands of them by himself to make a living. His company is the largest North American auto electric rebuilder. He may have been smart. Don't know. But I have seen many that have an excellent touch earn big bucks even if they are more artsy than crafty. Welding comes to mind.
A kid can graduate high school with welding training and make $50/ hr within a year or two. After ten years a welder can pull in $250K/yr.
I prefer finding ways of restricting government to the preservation of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Those of the least ability have the most to be thankful for what is provided by the accomplishments of a small minority.
What happens is all the regulators, except maybe the heads of agencies who are political appointees, come from the lower percentiles. Regulation dumbs down the trade, raise its costs, and lower the products quality.
Those who cant do teach and those who cant teach regulate. Protect the lower percentile by having free markets where they are equals.
you might want to consider Trig Palin -- when free people care,
and they are more likely to do so absent government pressure,
there are serious positive effects!!! -- j
.
the Trig Palins of the world (he is a Down's Syndrome child)
if we were left alone to do it instead of being forced by
the government to do it through their corrupt hands. -- j
.
Sanger and selective culling of people seem rational? -- j
.
Great big difference.
allowing voluntary assistance by the better-equipped people
for those less-well-equipped, and never by state or State compulsion.
currently, I devote thousands of dollars voluntarily, and further
thousands involuntarily, for the less-well-equipped. . if we were
operating in a freer society, many of my involuntary dollars would
actually go to my intended receivers. . instead of graft-receivers. -- j
.
But to each his own.
and expect about 30 percent effectiveness in government
extortion money. . could be worse. . it's getting worse. -- j
.
See my thread also today on California doubling-down on stupid programs that were supposed to cost $500 million but save a billion or more, but are now costing $500 million and barely saving $200 million... but "they just haven't been given long enough to work yet".
I like the idea of a Gulch Nation, but the effects of automation/IT are working against it. It will be an uphill struggle but one worth pursuing.
In the agricultural and industrial ages, the location of the jobs was simplier and more stable. (i.e. they weren't as good.) My concern is people will see that simplicity going away and say that a market economy is just too complicated for the modern world. I'm afraid it will allow the best teachers to broadcast lectures and write teaching software to reach millions, making life harder for average teachers who before had a captive audience of people who could commute to school. This same thing is happening to average engineers like me, who must constantly struggle to find ways to solve customers' problems as the world changes rapidly.
All of this leads to some pressure for someone to pass a directive like in AS to stabilize things. I'm not saying they will win. There's a need for this site and articles like this though.
We'll probably never find out with no choice but the government controlling citizens mind set of the current one party system.
That leaves using ability to 'work' the system faster than it works you. But that's how to get ahead in any socialist society. Gather ye bread crumbs whilst they fail and rosebuds in the Spring. Pretty soon you'll have a whole loaf and be ahead of whomsoever believeth in les crapaud du Potomac.
Given all things equal and as intended, having a proper education that teaches 'Integrated' thinking and helps everyone find their own essence, (what one has a propensity and a passion for) this would likely not be a problem and yes there will always be 'some' for a myriad of reasons that might be problematic. At that point it should be up to the community, not government, that helps that individual to find his or her place in the community.
I think of the Andy Griffin show where Gomer was not the brightest bulb but was a useful and happy member of that community as a mechanic.
Just like in nature, everyone and everything has it's place in this world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QEI...
One of the problems I have in this arrangement is that it assumes a static technology base. In today's society, this pyramid gets turned completely on its head, as it is the "dunces" of society who gravitate towards government and the smartest who choose the route of private enterprise. (One interesting note: the modern military is composed of the brighter-than average individual.)
The true elite of society, frustrated occasionally by those stinking people who survive despite, do persevere to enlist any chance of individual success to be predicated as evidence and homage vouchsafe mounted prominently for all to see, and shouting uncompromising logic to the heathens: “I am smarter than you and this diploma proves it.”