People are "excluded" from pitching in the major leagues because they can't throw a 95 mph fastball. People are "excluded" from going to Harvard because they can't afford the tuition. If all people were equal then anyone would have the power to achieve any of their dreams, and we all know that doesn't happen.
So now we don't have the free will to not vote, and will be fined for it? Do you even understand how draconian your ideas are? You've just singled out anarchists and punished them for their political beliefs. The process of learning and understanding is a personal journey. We all interpret events and their meaning/consequences differently. By standardizing a test, you remove any room for political differences. Not to mention, who trusts the people who write the tests to write answers that don't favor their faction or ideology? That's just more f**king socialism as far as I am concerned. Like the bogus elections in Soviet Russia. You can vote for anyone you want, as long as they are in the communist party. So you're going to fine people for not protecting themselves? WTF happened to the right of self-determination? If you're going to outlaw willful ignorance, you might as well outlaw willful intelligence because it will be meaningless. I'm wondering if the people proposing lobotomizing or excluding voters are really evil, or just have such a narrow view that they cannot understand how precious liberty really is? This sort of social engineering is dangerous. I assume the plan is to continue to tax the people who are not allowed to vote? Why don't we just go back to serfs living under a King?
I hope you won't mind when I vote to strip you of your property. Or when I take your children away. Or when I raise your taxes. Or when I reduce your social services. Or when I strip you of your right to travel. And who do you trust to draw the line between smart and stupid? And by what moral authority will the smart get to rule the stupid? Is this not feudalism? No, it's not an excellent point. Is there no one in this forum who understands principle, and slippery slopes?
Well, this is based on the principle that intelligent people make intelligent decisions. If the intelligent ones abuse their power and do what they want without a good reason, there isn't a point in giving more power to intelligent people.
Just because you are very smart does not always equate to good common sense. Your IQ or how many books you have read should have no impact on your weight in politics. Those that have been blessed in those areas already recieve more weight on their opinions. Just put a Dr. in front of your name and people will listen to you.
That's not a principle. Intelligent people are capable of making stupid decisions. Well, now you are conflating intelligence with morality. Ever watch any sci-fi where the robots/computers/machines turn on their human masters? The analogy is the same. Man is too flawed to govern himself or be the dominant species. And so man is subjugated or exterminated. The decision may be intelligent, but it is not moral. The failure with government isn't that the voters are dumb. It's that the state trends towards grabbing power, which creates the sort of me vs. you scenarios, where we have to scrap and fight one another (voters) for power and wealth. Dumb is just an analogy for "doesn't vote my way, or in a way I think is rational". The big question in this topic is, WHO actually decides what constitutes smart? That's an awesome power to grant anyone, when smartness immediately elevates a citizen into a higher class.
Yes. But that is the exception rather than the rule. In the long run, decisions made by intelligent people are better. Higher intelligence generally equates to higher morality. Well, it's hard to decide what constitutes smartness. But it isn't that hard to separate the fools from the wise.
sure you have the free will not to vote I don't see anything draconian in an incentive to learn. how? the tests would not contain any ideology. It would only be questions with one possible correct answers like: What are the three powers as defined by the constitution? , How many chambers does the Parliament have?, Which is the supreme justice court?. Stuff like this which I'm pretty sure the vast majority of romanians currently have absolutely no ideea about. it's not anything like that, it's like this: you can vote for anyone you want as long as you have any fucking ideea how things work in your state yeah I don't ban anything, I just give an incentive not to be ignorant. If you don't like the ideea of being fined if you don't participsate then you could do it the other way: cut a % of the taxes they pay for a month to those who pass the test or simply pay them. I do understand how precious liberty is but I also see around me people who have absolutely no ideea what a democracy really is, what rights thy have, etc. One way or another they have to be stimulated to use that stuff inside their skulls uhmmm, the plan is to give an incentive to people to get educated about the state they live in and nothing else. Anyway, what's the ideal state for you?
Recently this was a hot topic in my country among journalists, one has stated that "one needs to pass tests to be privileged to drive a car but noone needs to pass anything but a certain age limit to drive the country", or as to decide who to drive it, something like that. Makes sense in a way but a very tough call, also reminds me of the Churchill quote about democracy, which i can't help agreeing, there are too many contradictions in the logic and there would be way too many corruptions in the case, however, there are flaws with the idea of democracy, people are easily manipulated. That's why some are so eager to spread it in the regimes they don't favor, because it will enable external manipulation and change it accordingly to their agenda.
@iul, my ideal state is a very small one. I'm a minarchist. When the state starts testing it's citizens to determine who can steer it, the state is autonomous. It no longer serves the people, but operates independently, and whoever controls it, wields near absolute power. This is unacceptable. No one or group should have that power over other people. Historically, divisions like this have resorted in atrocity. You may claim that it's innocent and well intentioned, and I believe you, but it's really just an opening for someone who is power hungry to exploit. I don't like democracy, and the idea of selective democracy is 100x worse. Voting is a fundamental right of a democracy. When you decide to screen for intelligence, you're talking about a technocracy. I recommend you research this type of government before proceeding further, it is not compatible with liberty or liberalism IMO.
Nope, at least not where I live. Skin color and the language you speak are what determine your priority in this world
I am for such a system, because the fact is with democracy something is doomed : most people can easily be influenced. The curve of IQ is low at the the extremes and very high in the middle, so the mass of people can be influenced by those who control the mass media. Something interesting for humanity as a whole can be discredited by mass media and then discarded by the majority of the population, so the political elections and decisions will always cater for the masses, which is not the best interest for themselves. But then, if such a system has to go through a democratic election in order to be implemented, I give it no chance to win!
Most western governments have elements of a technocracy. The UN is a technocracy. The EU is a technocracy. Here are your unelected experts. Sec. Defense Sec. State Sec. Treasury FED Chairman amongst others. The EU MPs don't IIRC actually write legislation. It's all prepared in committees by bureaucrats. Some of the most powerful positions in our government are given to unelected experts. And make no mistake, what people are talking about in this thread, where only a select few get to vote, is basically a closed system of leadership. Btw, a lot of you scare the crap out of me. People arguing that they should give up their right to participate, rights that in many cases were won with blood in a struggle for freedom, to be ruled by their betters. That is not a world I want to live in. The logical approach would be to educate your fellow man, instead of you and him concerning yourselves with your own self-gratification, and trading your liberty for it. If we've really reached the point where being happy is more important than being free, then we've failed as a species.
The ones that are arguing for an IQ based voting system would probably be shocked to find out that their IQ would limit their voting... I actually think they all might be part of the church of scientology by the sounds of their reasoning.
dude, you confuse the right to vote with freedom. The right to vote guarantees you absolutely nothing. The only thing that comes close to guaranteeing freedom is education. You keep saying the current US administration is stripping you of your rights but how are people supposed to reconise if that's happening if they don't even know what rights are guaranteed to them by the constitution?
I found these free online IQ tests. Not sure if they are honest or not because they advertise if your score is over 124, they will let you join the high IQ society for a mere $79 USD. Does anyone know of a source where you can take a free non-biased IQ test? In a true technocracy, wouldn't these positions be filled based on intelligence, skill, and ability? In our current system, do you think these positions are being filled by the best and brightest, or is it just a political who knows who thing? Heh
Actually, I don't. But for the purposes of this discussion, I'm avoiding anarchist theory. My claim is that the right to vote, is a right to self-determination. It implies that the voter is a shareholder in the system, not a customer or supplier. I know the right to vote guarantees nothing. Which is why I have argued with you about democracy before. That's nonsense. Let me put it this way, all of you social architects believe you can solve all problems through exclusion and/or confiscation. Exclusion of rights, and confiscation of property. You're wrong. People can exist without a society. A society cannot exist without people. By trying to "improve society" you would harm people. That's wrong, no matter how you try to justify it. It's not even about the f**king vote. It's about establishing a genetically superior elite class, that makes decisions for the majority. Kinda like how the Nazis thought Aryans were the superior race, and all of Europe should be under their rule. The government cannot discriminate between citizens based upon ideology, religion, wealth, color, intelligence, sexual preference, etc. because then you go from a government capable of immorality, to one likely to commit atrocity.
Check these two out, pretty good. I think these were ones i took a few years ago. would be fun to see if anything has changed from back then. http://web.tickle.com/net/search/index.html?query=iq+tests&sel=0 http://www.iqtest.com/