If the only decisions that mattered to me were the decisions made by government officials, I would agree with you.
However, the rich and powerful, both individually and collectively, are capable of making a large number of decisions that benefit themselves personally to the detriment of the rest of us. And since I don’t have any say in choosing who runs major corporations or how the rich spend their money, I want strong elected officials to counterbalance the power of the moneyed elites.
Democracy, for all its limitations, is still the best system around.
I wish I had stunningly revolutionary ideas for making it work far better to elect good candidates, but I’m left with two: 1) mandate school courses from elementary levels on up through high school to teach the bases of critical thinking including how to recognize logical fallacies and demagoguery, and 2) revamp campaign spending regulations to limit current abuses (ideally get Supreme Court justices who don’t equate money with free speech, but that’s a tough prospect).
Yesterday I read an article about a Santorum campaign appearance in Georgia. One of his supporters approvingly noted that Rick came off as an average guy, just like the man’s next-door neighbor.
I’ve had lots of next-door neighbors and I can’t think of a single one who would have been remotely qualified to run for President. Somewhere along the line we’ve got to lose this idea that having expert knowledge is a bad thing and convince people that the arrogance of ignorance is damaging our society.
This is true, but it’s also true that uneducated voters do tend to be wrong in specific ways. There’s even a book about it.
Thanks for the reply.
Could you provide me with a few examples of that, please?
How about the recent mortgage meltdown?
Isn’t this ultimately another way of saying most people aren’t competent enough to make democracy flourish, that is, people cannot put reasoning above mere inclination? Is the point simply to get what one wants, regardless of its actual value? I had hoped for more.
Public schools make virtually no effort to teach subjects like economics or current international politics in any detail, so it would seem to be by design that the general public is ignorant on those issues.
By design, American education has historically focused less on the content of subjects and more on teaching employable meta-skills, unlike its European counterparts.
Yes, let the pointy headed intellectual, effete snobs decide who gets to vote.
Excellent point.
I happen to despise Microsoft. Trust me, I am using Kubuntu to post this. The dog forums are full of idiots bashing P&G and Nestle products.
Largely caused by government interference with lending standards and promises to cover loses.
One last point. A bunch of school kids found a puppy and were trying to decide if it was a boy or a girl. Finally one boy said ‘‘I know how we can tell. We can take a vote.’’
Many of our top economic experts completely missed the 2008 crash. I don’t believe economics is a science, it’s mostly voodoo ginned up to support the wealthy.
Do you disbelieve in climate science because they can’t tell you what the weather is goign to be like in April? Same thing… chaotic systems only lend themselves to certain particular kinds of prediction.
How about it?
Why do you think that was a result of people making decisions with their own resources, with the associated risks, rewards and consequences of doing so?
So vote for it.
The study seems to be almost stupidly independent of the inescapable fact that democracy is effective. Democratic countries work better. No independent, democratic country in modern times has ever had an actual famine. Democratic countries almost never fight wars against each other (I believe there are some rare exceptions.) They’re freer, richer, nicer places to live and they’re vastly likelier to stay that way. Democracy DOES flourish. Clearly, either the model used by our friends at Cornell is wrong or the results are being twisted by the media (the latter is quite often the case.)
It’s the equivalent of conducting an experiment that says it’s not physically possible for rain to fall from the sky while, out the window, it’s raining.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Many of our top economic experts completely missed the 2008 crash. I don’t believe economics is a science…
[/QUOTE]
They never see earthquakes coming. Therefore, physics isn’t a science. Also, why is it people unexpectedly get cancer and die of it even after being treated? Biology’s a crock, man, it’s all voodoo.
It’s actually not so grim as that. There only needs to be a plurality percentage among several options (e.g. 34 33 33). When there are only two, then that is indeed greater than fifty percent. Which, if you are of the opinion that who is elected matters a great deal, argues convincingly (IMO) for a multi-party system supported by a voting system which isn’t plurality voting.
I don’t think it’s valid to compare economics, or any other social science, to hard sciences like physics.
People just aren’t ‘smart’ (I suppose they actually mean ‘educated’, though perhaps they also think it has to do with raw intelligence as well) enough to know what’s good for them! 
We should all listen to the experts, and let them lead us to salvation. Problem is…WHICH experts should we be listening too? Which economists? Which experts on taxation? Well, the ones ‘we’ (insert whichever group you happen to belong to, those of you going along with this idea) agree with, obviously!
Yeah, that’s going to work really well…much better than letting the ignorant masses muddle through. The various experts can fight it out and then tell us poor ignorant slobs where to march! I am in hopeful anticipation of the coming of my new propeller headed overlords, though you folks best watch out for the IT engineering faction, when we take up the rule of all your network and data systems, 'cause though we are the experts all you poor, ignorant/stupid folks who don’t know much about it are going to be singularly unhappy with the results. Oh, and tell those fucking triple E’s to shut the fuck up and stay in their own areas of expertise…this is OUR turf!
(Somehow I don’t think the egghead types really thought all of this through very well, to be honest)
-XT
The captain of the Costa Concordia completely failed to miss a reef. That didn’t make make him an expert in physics even though the results of driving a hundred thousand tons of ship aground are pretty predictable.
Then perhaps you are not smart enough to weigh in on economic policy.
Well, its inability to predict and the way it tends to support conservative notions abut property and wealth and so forth. Whenever a science follows a political ideology too closely, you have to suspect Lysenkoism. Couple that with its inability to predict economic crashes, and economics is pretty durned useless.
The good professor seems to think that the purpose of a government should be to promote the most intellectually superior policies. It isn’t. The purpose of government is to keep life from being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. The purpose of democracy, a specific type of government, is to have the people choose the policy makers and administrators because imposing choosers that exclude some citizens is tyranny.
Or to paraphrase Winston Churchill, democracy is the worst form of government ever devised and implemented. Except for all the others.
Out of curiosity, what precisely is your familiarity with economics? Have you actually studied it at a reputable school, or is it “stuff I read in the newspaper” type understanding?
Because, while I hate to break this to you, on this subject, you sound exactly like the type of people being described in the Cornell University study.