# Would a Country Work Better if Only Intellectuals Participated in Government? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2015, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331 "2015-03-06T02:17:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/21 "2015-03-06T16:14:16Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I suggest you could offer up a “trade away your right to vote for season tickets!” offer in order to get people who shouldn’t be in the voting pool out of the voting pool. Let’s see. Homeowner, taxpayer, responsible parent, multiple degrees, writer, artist, musician, passionate advocate of political awareness and critical thinking. ISTM I’m right in the OP’s wheelhouse…and yet, I might take that offer. Mind you, the waiting list for Timbers season tickets is like seven years long now, so it might be more of a motivation for me. But still. I don’t think the intersection of “people who shouldn’t vote” and “people who like sportball” is particularly large. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/22 "2015-03-06T16:16:56Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I suggest you could offer up a “trade away your right to vote for season tickets!” offer in order to get people who shouldn’t be in the voting pool out of the voting pool. By _tax on people who are bad at math_ logic – trade your vote to enter a lottery? ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/23 "2015-03-06T16:18:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Define “positive outcome”. > > What on earth makes you think that you and I would have the same definition? Why should accept your definition? A positive outcome is one in which the greatest amount of happiness and satisfaction is achieved in a group. This is utilitarian thinking. You should accept my definition because it is my term, and I define my own terms. This is debate 101. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/24 "2015-03-06T16:28:26Z")
Even if you could somehow figure out a way to determine which individuals are capable of good governing, I’d argue it would be a bad idea to give them exclusive control of the government. Because you’d still have the issue of where their interests lie. Any government answers to the people who have power over it. If you have an intellectual elite that holds all political power, you’re going to end up with a government that places the interests of that elite ahead of the interests of everyone else. That’s the reason democracy works better than other systems. It gives the broadest spectrum of people power over the government so the government has to serve a broad spectrum of people. So I like our system. The general population has power through the voting process so the government has to answer to us. But we choose representatives - hopefully, those individuals who are capable of good governing - to run the government. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/25 "2015-03-06T16:34:51Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > A positive outcome is one in which the greatest amount of happiness and satisfaction is achieved in a group. This is utilitarian thinking. How do you address the organ donor scenario? Don’t get me wrong. I’m generally a utilitarian myself. I feel it’s the best working system for ethics we’ve come up with. But I regard it the way I regard democracy as the best working system for government we’ve come up with and capitalism as the best working system for economics we’ve come up with. They’re the best systems we’ve got but none of them are perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/26 "2015-03-06T16:38:43Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > lol. > > To return to the OP, the problem is that not everyone who is logical in one area is such in all areas of their lives. For instance Ben Carson is a very accomplished neurosurgeon but would make a terrible President, similarly Noam Chomsky’s politics are naive and silly regardless of his expertise in linguistics. Also more generally a disproportionate number of public intellectuals (ie those who usually come to mind) are really not intellectuals such as the late Christopher Hitchens who mostly became famous for writing well-worded critiques of famous people or the hordes of aptly-named Very Serious People in DC who proclaim we would go back to the bipartisan 1950s if only the Democrats would gut Social Security in exchange for Republicans agreeing to gay marriage and an Assault Weapons Ban, This is not a utopia I’m proposing; Just something better than we have now. Ben Carson’s vote would probably count, but plenty of irrational votes would be taken away also. I don’t want to get too specific about who would make the cut, and who wouldn’t. All that needs to be acknowledged is that some personalities rely more heavily on emotions and traditions to make judgements. Taking more of these votes away would probably result in more rational votes being cast. Also, Noam Chomsky probably still wouldn’t choose to vote. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/27 "2015-03-06T16:46:23Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > That is basically the way I feel about it too. There are plenty of people who are intellectuals of note in one field but are not even qualified to vote for the local animal control officer (at least least not more than anyone else). Noam Chompsky is a good example. There is no way to even identify ‘intellectuals’ that should run all of society. Communism tried that with inevitably terrible results even though, ironically, the standard line was that was what they were claiming to combat. College campuses are often microcosms of intellectual infighting among people with really opinionated marginal views and that is no way to run society at large. > > I am not a big fan of forced voting laws either and would never advocate for them in the U.S. I think the best theoretical government model is the benevolent dictator but that could never work in practice either at least not in a sustainable way. There is room for improvement on the democratic republic model that we currently use but I will defer to Winston Churchill for the ultimate rebuttal for alternate systems. Keep in mind that the loudest views often come from from the fringes. Sensationalism sells, and you won’t here many moderate opinions. These famous people that keep getting mentioned still only get one vote. Noam Chompsky is a rational-minded thinker. That does not mean he comes to rational conclusions, but he does prefer to think in abstractions. He would probably get a vote, but it’s still just one vote. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/28 "2015-03-06T16:46:24Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s the reason democracy works better than other systems. It gives the broadest spectrum of people power over the government so the government has to serve a broad spectrum of people. Which, I think, inherently leads to a situation where “gridlock” is likely to occur. One might even consider it to be not a bug but a feature of a government accountable to so many different people/powers. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/29 "2015-03-06T16:49:20Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#): > > OP, you may be interested in the neoreactionary movement, which proposes, among other things, the abolition of democracy and a return to a traditional society with a monarch and an aristocracy. But, are the monarch and aristos to be chosen for intellectual qualities as defined by the OP? Historically, I think, most such have been the sort who, to the contrary, “put more value on emotional reasoning, common-sense, and traditional beliefs.” Understandably so, since monarchy and aristocracy are fundamentally traditional things. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/30 "2015-03-06T16:50:52Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > My definition of intellectual was one that did apply critical thinking, logic, and evidence based reasoning. People who adopt the term don’t necessarily qualify. I would expect to see more intellectuals in STEM fields, than I would in gender studies. So, basically, you want people who think like you think? Or at least what you imagine is an idealized version of how you think? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/31 "2015-03-06T16:51:41Z")
I don’t think the government needs to change, I think the culture of America needs to change. We need to stop voting for politicians who are anti-science, anti-evidence, or anti-intellectual. We shouldn’t mandate intellectuals\* in public office, but that should be our ultimate goal. - As mentioned, being an “intellectual” shouldn’t be sufficient qualification for leadership, but being anti-intellectual should certainly be a disqualifier. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/32 "2015-03-06T17:01:31Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I’m not sure it would necessarily fix gridlock. I think intellectuals have just as entrenched disputes and disagreements with each other, sometimes even seemingly more intractably so. I don’t see them having worse gridlocks than the ones we have in America. We shut down the government for 16 days over Obamacare. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/33 "2015-03-06T17:06:33Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > Definitely some wacky ideas there. > > I’m not referring to intellectuals as the hard leftist type on campuses that garner the most attention from the media. My definition of intellectual was one that did apply critical thinking, logic, and evidence based reasoning. People who adopt the term don’t necessarily qualify. I would expect to see more intellectuals in STEM fields, than I would in gender studies. Ah, then, you don’t want philosopher-kings, you want [Technocracy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement)! ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/34 "2015-03-06T17:22:35Z")
Plenty of intellectuals have little experience dealing with “real world” problems, and consequently, they come up with ideas that sound great on paper, but don’t work in practice. College professors are notorious for this. Never in a million years would I want economic decisions affecting me to be made by some tenured professor who has never had to worry about job security. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/35 "2015-03-06T17:33:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Define “positive outcome”. > > What on earth makes you think that you and I would have the same definition? Why should accept your definition? I would prefer to leave the _means_ in the hands of the experts—people who have knowledge of the specific issues involved—and give everyone input into the _ends_. I have my doubts as to whether general-purpose “intellectuals” have any special handle on either of these. > [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > A positive outcome is one in which the greatest amount of happiness and satisfaction is achieved in a group. This is utilitarian thinking. You should accept my definition because it is my term, and I define my own terms. This is debate 101. Ah, but how do you define “happiness”? What do you do when one desired thing directly conflicts with another (e.g. liberty vs. safety vs. prosperity)? What about when one group’s happiness or well-being conflicts with another’s? What about the fundamental disagreement between those who believe government should be directly responsible for as much “happiness” as possible and those who believe government should leave people free to pursue their own happiness? ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/36 "2015-03-06T18:07:39Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > Define “works better”. > In terms of greater material success (at what cost to whom and at what benefit to whom)? Or in terms of emotional contentment (whose? and to whose dissatisfaction?) The greatest satisfaction and happiness for the greatest number of people. > [@](#): > > The argument for democracy is that it is the only way in which competing views and interests can be resolved in a way that, by including all adults, gives them a stake in therefore secures general acceptance of the system and its decisions, and that allows for peaceful means of redress of problems and disagreements. That’s the pitch, but most people don’t accept the system and it’s decisions; Rather they tolerate them if things are going well enough for them. There is still rioting in democracies when conditions have gotten poor enough. This points to general welfare, instead of having a stake, as the reason people can go on about their lives after they don’t get their way. > [@](#): > > Different systems may well fall down on that criterion for a whole variety of reasons, but excluding people is not an answer to such problems, whether that’s on the basis of some abstract definition of intellectual quality or because they don’t own a sufficient level of physical property (as used to be the case until much more recently than is often realised). I’m not sure what you mean by an abstract definition. If personalities are real, then they are measurable. We may lack the tools and science to adequately measure them now, however. Also, no one is talking about excluding for lack of property, nor is it comparable to my argument. This reeks of an association fallacy in an otherwise thoughtful post. > [@](#): > > Exclude people and they have no stake in and therefore no obligation to abide by the decisions made. Aside from threat of fines and jail time; Yea, no one has any obligation to follow the law. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/37 "2015-03-06T18:28:15Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > The fundamental problem is - who do you get to look after the interests of the dumb and uneducated? > > They don’t have the skills … but at least they have the motivation. > > An elite would lack the motivation. > > At the moment, the elite can make policy in their own favour and against the interest of the masses, by convincing the masses that the policies _are_ in their favour. > > Taking away the ability of the masses to have any say at all wouldn’t get better policies _for them_ - would make it easier for the political classes not to have to spend so much time on spin though. > > We might get better policy on things that affect everyone though. Global Warming comes to mind… Again, it’s about personality; Not intelligence and education level (although rational personalities tend to score higher in academics). You can find these people scattered throughout all demographics. What decisions would only benefit themselves? ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/38 "2015-03-06T18:34:30Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > Plenty of intellectuals have little experience dealing with “real world” problems, and consequently, they come up with ideas that sound great on paper, but don’t work in practice. > > College professors are notorious for this. Never in a million years would I want economic decisions affecting me to be made by some tenured professor who has never had to worry about job security. He’s already making that decision for you. The only difference is so are many other people in addition to him. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/39 "2015-03-06T18:35:17Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > I don’t want to get too specific about who would make the cut, and who wouldn’t. All that needs to be acknowledged is that some personalities rely more heavily on emotions and traditions to make judgements. Taking more of these votes away would probably result in more rational votes being cast. You want to a propose a system where only a subset of the adult population gets to vote, but you “don’t want to get too specific about who would make the cut”? You’ve gotta be kidding… :rolleyes: So, what is the process by which the chosen few are chosen? Who decides what process is to be used? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/40 "2015-03-06T18:37:15Z")
And how do you transition from democracy to aristocracy? People aren’t going to vote away their right to vote. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331.md?page=3)