# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/121 "2015-03-09T02:13:27Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > Limiting certain votes in a representative democracy, or a direct democracy, would still lead to more rational decisions being made. Is assuming things without evidence rational? ---
**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 9, 2015, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/122 "2015-03-09T02:44:47Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Is assuming things without evidence rational? Depends on the exercise. I’ll quote the OP for you: > [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > **This is more speculation** than an idea ready-made for implementation. I’m not proposing any heuristic for testing whether a person meets this criteria or not. I’m simply asking if society would meet utilitarian goals better by taking votes away from people who put less value on critical thinking, logic, and evidence based reasoning, and put more value on emotional reasoning, common-sense, and traditional beliefs. > > It’s hard to expect a positive outcome in modern democracies like America where voting rights are considered essential (at least for a few generations until it became the norm). Would this idea require a shift in cultural values, or would it fail in any setting? All arguments for the proposition are hitherto based in logic and not evidence. ra·tion·al ˈraSH(ə)n(ə)l/ adjective adjective: rational ``` 1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Scytheria](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/76d3ee/32.png) [@Scytheria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scytheria)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/123 "2015-03-09T04:42:50Z")
What the OP is proposing is in many ways a form of meritocracy. Intellectualism, however, is not likely to be the best measure of capability. I know a lot of people who would be classed as intellectuals, but not all of them are intelligent, experienced, wise, cultured, compassionate or diligent. Democracy is a complete myth, sold in a bastard form to the masses in order to placate them and give them a sense of control over their lives. As a form of government (i.e. for the purposes of building a stable, sustainable, contented society) it generally fails miserably, but at least gives the electorate somebody to blame for the failure. Meritocracy - government by the most capable - is a sensible concept, but the current rulers of the world fall short of being the most capable, so will do anything and everything within their power (even allowing the myth of democracy to be perpetuated) in order to keep a better system from ever being introduced. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/124 "2015-03-09T05:11:43Z")
I’m not even happy with how the OP defines “participate in government” as “voting.” People who pay taxes are “participating in government.” People who sit on juries are “participating in government.” People who testify in trials are “participating in government.” People who call the police on wrongdoers rather than act as vigilantes are “participating in government.” People who work for the government (including the military) are “participating in government.” People who stage peaceful protests are “participating in government.” People who volunteer for public service are “participating in government.” People who run for public office are “participating in government.” I’m sure there are more that I haven’t thought of. Do all these people not get to vote if they’re not “intellectual” enough? If enough of them are disenfranchised, I could practically guarantee the country would be a lot worse off. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/125 "2015-03-09T05:48:21Z")
> [@Scytheria](#): > > . . . Democracy is a complete myth, sold in a bastard form to the masses in order to placate them and give them a sense of control over their lives. As a form of government (i.e. for the purposes of building a stable, sustainable, contented society) it generally fails miserably, but at least gives the electorate somebody to blame for the failure. . . . Well, to begin with, name a better system. (“Show me a better 'ole, ducky…”) Democracy does better than any other system in producing legitimacy. Even if that’s only an illusion, it’s an illusion that promotes stability and serves the real needs of the populace. Democracy is relatively responsive to real needs. It can be kept from being too responsive by the intermediary of representatives. But when the people have a gripe, voting is a much better way of expressing it than rioting is. And how can you seriously say it “generally fails miserably?” The world’s democratic nations are the richest, safest, healthiest, best educated, with the longest lifespans, and are the ones best, right now, at feeding themselves. By nearly every measure of success, democracy outstrips every one of its competitors. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/126 "2015-03-09T06:56:15Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > The late Bill Buckley once said “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” > > Now, he has a point. > > I’d rather be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than by Bill Buckley and 1,999 of his best friends and colleagues, but the point is the same, and it’s a good one (even if Bill Buckley was really just a pseudo-intellectual and wouldn’t come up in a discussion of which intellectuals should run things). > > “Intellectuals” (a) can’t really be defined all that precisely, and (b) are demonstrably no more likely to be good at governing than anyone else. Buckley, William F. Jr., was a Yale graduate and hated all things Harvard as part of his rivalry tendencies and frequently took these kinds of pointed pot shots at Harvard. There is a lot to be said about being governed by the first two thousand people in the phone book as though it was jury duty. They will try to do their best. There is something to be said for the Harvard faculty (Yale gave us two Bushes and Kerry and Buckley and who knows what other losers) but you are going to get the occasional Timothy Leary. Maybe the Learys of the world will be overruled by the not so nutty professors, and maybe not. I tend to go along with the very conservative Winston Churchill in noting that democracy is the worst form of government imaginable, except for all the others. It is our government, our responsibility, duty and choice and we bear the consequences and when things do not go as hoped, we can look in the collective mirror and see the responsible parties. Ronald Reagan’s interest in garnering the personal prestige of political power and letting his conservative friends destroy America and the world is in my view the worst thing to happen after World War II, with long and devastating consequences. But we did elect him. Twice. Hell, Nixon was a slimy bastard, but we elected him. Twice. W’s cronies stole two elections, and there was no legitimacy in that at all. We can blame them. ---
**Author:** ![GeorgeLTirebiter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5ac83/32.png) [@GeorgeLTirebiter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GeorgeLTirebiter)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/127 "2015-03-09T14:11:39Z")
Government by intellectuals only? Consider Einstein’s take on intellingence - “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination”. Can you imagine what those people could dream up? Send me to Sweden. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/128 "2015-03-09T15:18:39Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > This is more speculation than an idea ready-made for implementation. I’m not proposing any heuristic for testing whether a person meets this criteria or not. I’m simply asking if society would meet utilitarian goals better by taking votes away from people who put less value on critical thinking, logic, and evidence based reasoning, and put more value on emotional reasoning, common-sense, and traditional beliefs. Your idea seems based on some faulty assumptions: One, that the point of democracy is to make good decisions. It is not. The point of democracy is to give as many people as possible a voice in decisions that affect them, and to give people a stake in society. Two, that making good decisions would lead to the meeting utilitarian goals better than keeping people enfranchised and engaged in the governing of society. I’m fairly sure experience shows that societies with enfranchised populations meet utilitarian goals far better than societies governed by an elite. Three, that the people you describe make better decisions. I am dubious, I remember too many wild-eyed young men, the nations brightest youth, explaining how Albania was the light of the world and the nation everyone should emulate. Or Pol Pot. > [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > people who put less value on critical thinking, logic, and evidence based reasoning, and put more value on emotional reasoning, common-sense, and traditional beliefs. The people you are describing as better able to make decisions are the ones more like sociopaths. Just saying. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/129 "2015-03-09T15:32:06Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > These representatives still appeal to the lowest common denominator of their bases. Politicians vote according to what get’s them elected next term; Not what society they want to live in. A great politician is measured by how exceptionally average his stances are. > > Limiting certain votes in a representative democracy, or a direct democracy, would still lead to more rational decisions being made. (underline added) Your government would not have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Your government could ignore the needs, and wants, of the lowest common denominators because those people’s needs do not meet the criteria of the society that you want to live in. Somebodies going to end up with the short end of the stick and it may as well be those people who no longer have anyone in government who actually represents them. How many Latinos, Jews, Women, Blacks, Gays, 2nd Amendment supporters, and any other politically active group will fall into your lowest common denominator demographic? I believe that a great politician is measured by their ability to reach a compromise that’s mostly acceptable to all sides of an issue. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/130 "2015-03-09T16:48:20Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > Your idea seems based on some faulty assumptions: > > One, that the point of democracy is to make good decisions. It is not. > The point of democracy is to give as many people as possible a voice in decisions that affect them, and to give people a stake in society. I don’t think anyone is making the above assumptions. Certainly my belief is that what you say about democracy is true and that this is its weakness, not its strength, a problem that is greatly exacerbated when the channels of communication through which voters are informed and persuaded are so much in control of an oligarchy of vested interests. > [@Grim\_Render](#): > > Two, that making good decisions would lead to the meeting utilitarian goals better than keeping people enfranchised and engaged in the governing of society. I’m fairly sure experience shows that societies with enfranchised populations meet utilitarian goals far better than societies governed by an elite. You appear to be making the perplexing argument that bad decisions meet utilitarian goals better than good decisions. Consider this analogous question. What would be the prospects for success of a large business in which the executive leadership was elected by, and accountable only to, the rank and file employees of the organization, instead of executives being appointed by their superiors and ultimately accountable to the owners or board of directors? I think you would get executives elected on the basis of having good hair, of “looking like an executive” or being “a guy you would like to have a beer with”, and most of all on the basis of perks and goodies promised to the employees and how much time off they got. And the business would be bankrupt within a couple of years. Or let’s just say that the business would, at least, have an enormous and growing debt and would be managed with appalling ineptitude while the rank and file clamored for more perks and less work. But by golly, the executives would have good hair! > [@Grim\_Render](#): > > Three, that the people you describe make better decisions. I am dubious, I remember too many wild-eyed young men, the nations brightest youth, explaining how Albania was the light of the world and the nation everyone should emulate. Or Pol Pot. I would not consider immature wild-eyed idealists among those qualified for a merit-based franchise. Is it your belief that academics and intellectuals were all supporters of Pol Pot? ---
**Author:** ![Ruby\_Slippers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/94ad74/32.png) [@Ruby\_Slippers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruby_Slippers)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/131 "2015-03-09T17:00:38Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I’m not even happy with how the OP defines “participate in government” as “voting.” > > People who pay taxes are “participating in government.” > > People who sit on juries are “participating in government.” > > People who testify in trials are “participating in government.” > > People who call the police on wrongdoers rather than act as vigilantes are “participating in government.” > > People who work for the government (including the military) are “participating in government.” > > People who stage peaceful protests are “participating in government.” > > People who volunteer for public service are “participating in government.” > > People who run for public office are “participating in government.” > > I’m sure there are more that I haven’t thought of. Do all these people not get to vote if they’re not “intellectual” enough? If enough of them are disenfranchised, I could practically guarantee the country would be a lot worse off. I totally agree with this. Just to take the first two on Boyo Jim’s list, would you expect the disenfranchised to continue to pay taxes or sit on juries? And both of those questions include many levels. We have federal income taxes as well as state and municipal taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes; we also have federal juries, state juries, local juries, both grand juries and trial juries. Do you expect people to be willing to continue to shoulder these burdens in support of a government in which they have no voice? ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/132 "2015-03-09T17:35:50Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > I’m not sure this is really a great comparison. For one, gender studies tends to revolve around the notion of societal change and awareness – it’s more or less a goal to propagate the ideas and theories discussed to the populous at large. Second, I don’t really liken C++ to, say, patriarchy theory. C++ is closer to, say, reading a text through a specific feminist lens; it’s a tool, and while STEM types will frequently (and wrongly) disparage such notions, they’re not really going to discuss the minutiae of using a anarcha-feminist lens when analyzing the cultural impact of fiction. your first point is good, but I don’t think the second is incredibly relevant. If a person is trying to criticize something they don’t understand, that person is foolish regardless whether the topic is a tool or a conclusion > [@Jragon](#): > > And plenty of uninformed people do argue STEM concepts: evolution, internet regulations, global warming, whether they be gender studies types or otherwise. I’ve seen some pretty silly feminist critiques of boolean logic (though that’s a cheap shot since you can find someone with a silly opinion of anything). I had an English teacher who claimed that the theory of gravity was exactly as good as any other explanation for why we don’t float because there is no objective reality and all scientific work is ultimately just a reflection of cultural bias. Here’s the meat of what was wrong with my comparison. You are right, Gender studies people do criticize STEM stuff they don’t understand. > [@Jragon](#): > > I think there’s a lot of mutual misunderstanding between “both” sides (though I really don’t accept the strict dichotomy, it’s more fluid than that). Neither side is necessarily worse, and the misunderstandings can be harmful in very different ways. Both sides can also be poor at communicating their ideas to outsiders to varying degrees (though I think this is true of academics regardless of their field). > > All that aside, the OP’s idea is an ill defined trainwreck waiting to happen. For one, rationality isn’t something you can even really agree on. It’s valid to state that a rational agent would do what’s in their self interest, but given that you can’t do an exhaustive search of every potential future state of the universe you’ll never know the correct answer. It’s also valid to state that maybe we don’t want people who solely act in their best self interest and maybe act altruistically, but again, what actions constitute that? > > I think a lot of the US’ problems stem from the dichotomy the two party system and (effectively) popular vote presidency system sets up. It’s much harder to vote for a candidate you actually like in such a system. Certainly proportional systems aren’t perfect, but they appear to react rationally and support a breadth of perspectives and rational discourse more often than the system we have that puts so much burden on individual politicians to play, manipulate, and pander to their direct constituents. Agreed re: neither “side” being better. I was more rankled at OP’s claiming that gender studies people were obviously less likely to be rational than STEM folks than seriously contending that gender studies were better. OP’s idea is a mess, but since it was pretty well universally shot down, I didn’t feel a need to throw my hat into why it was bad. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/133 "2015-03-09T17:59:13Z")
> [@Ruby\_Slippers](#): > > … would you expect the disenfranchised to continue to pay taxes or sit on juries? And both of those questions include many levels. We have federal income taxes as well as state and municipal taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes; we also have federal juries, state juries, local juries, both grand juries and trial juries. Do you expect people to be willing to continue to shoulder these burdens in support of a government in which they have no voice? A few points about that. One, to what extent do you realistically have a voice in the taxes you pay, especially the big federal one? Does the ability to vote either Republican or Democrat (or the option of throwing your vote away) let you determine your tax rate in any meaningful way? Some folks have tried to intervene directly by, say, refusing to pay that portion of their taxes that goes to the military or some other objective they don’t agree with. That hasn’t worked out well for them. Second, when people _ **are** _ given direct control of tax questions, such as by a referendum asking whether or not taxes should be levied for a particular purpose – the ultimate example of direct democracy in action – the answer is almost always "NO’, regardless of what the purpose was. And the consequences of this knee-jerk populist tax avoidance are often disastrous. It’s a lot like a child shying away from a vaccination needle. Third, I would personally be more interested in seeing my tax dollars spent efficiently and effectively than in the degree to which I had some alleged dubious “voice” in a process that wastes them with staggering ineptitude and ceaseless pandering to special interests. Obviously I’m not arguing against democracy as that would be silly. I’m just pointing out that there are legitimate questions about some of its failings and that there are things that can be done to improve its implementation. ---
**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 9, 2015, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/134 "2015-03-09T18:13:03Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You appear to be making the perplexing argument that bad decisions meet utilitarian goals better than good decisions. I think it’s more that handing power to a small elite hasn’t, historically, resulted in better decisions being made. Instead, the small elite oppresses and loots the rest of the citizenry. And it’s hard to imagine an elite selected for rationality being any different: what’s more rational than lining your own pockets and carving out privileges for you and yours? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/135 "2015-03-09T19:25:30Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > 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. If you think even tenured professors have never had to worry about job security, you know nothing about academia. Very few of us are in jobs where if you don’t jump through the right hoops you get fired in 5 or 6 years. \ No vote for you! ---
**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 9, 2015, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/136 "2015-03-09T20:21:59Z")
> [@Scytheria](#): > > What the OP is proposing is in many ways a form of meritocracy. Intellectualism, however, is not likely to be the best measure of capability. I know a lot of people who would be classed as intellectuals, but not all of them are intelligent, experienced, wise, cultured, compassionate or diligent. It is a meritocracy; Good call. What standard would work better, in your opinion, than on the basis of rational personality? The more strict it becomes; The more it starts looking like an oligarchy. > [@](#): > > Democracy is a complete myth, sold in a bastard form to the masses in order to placate them and give them a sense of control over their lives. As a form of government (i.e. for the purposes of building a stable, sustainable, contented society) it generally fails miserably, but at least gives the electorate somebody to blame for the failure. It does spread out the blame, and makes it hard to point to a boogeyman. The democrats blame the republicans, and the republicans blame democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/137 "2015-03-09T20:36:44Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > It is a meritocracy; Good call. … I’d argue that it’s not. To me, a meritocracy means someone actually earns their privileges by good work, not by scoring high on standardized testing or having a good vocabularity or simply arguing better than most other people. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/138 "2015-03-09T20:50:37Z")
So ultimately, the point isn’t to really get better government via intellectuals, but rather to try and erect an institutional barrier to the masses voting themselves “bread and circuses” as Juvenal put it, and also to avoid similar maladies caused by a self-serving voter base, like being against environmental controls, because they like bigger cars, or they think it’s a communist plot or whatever other silly thing is preventing it. I can see the genesis of this idea, hearing people routinely spout off stuff that’s flat-out wrong, and not even a matter of opinion, and then trying to link it to Obama or the Republicans. It makes me more than a little sad and angry that people who can’t be bothered to do their research will vote and spout off based on that ignorance, and that there seem to be quite a few of them relative to the number of otherwise rational and educated people out there. I think in theory, that’s kind of the point of having a representative republic instead of a direct democracy; the hoi polloi can elect whatever guy they want, but that guy is expected to base his votes on something other than party-line idiocy or popular mania. Problem is, the hoi polloi often elect people even dumber/more crooked/resistant to reason than anyone can imagine. ---
**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 9, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/139 "2015-03-09T21:43:19Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I’d argue that it’s not. To me, a meritocracy means someone actually earns their privileges by good work, not by scoring high on standardized testing or having a good vocabularity or simply arguing better than most other people. Search Results ``` mer·i·toc·ra·cy ˌmerəˈtäkrəsē/ noun noun: meritocracy government or the holding of power by people selected on the **basis of their ability.** ``` [meritocracy - Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?q=meritocracy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=fs&trackid=sp-006&gws_rd=ssl)] ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331/140 "2015-03-09T21:59:06Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I think it’s more that handing power to a small elite hasn’t, historically, resulted in better decisions being made. Instead, the small elite oppresses and loots the rest of the citizenry. And it’s hard to imagine an elite selected for rationality being any different: what’s more rational than lining your own pockets and carving out privileges for you and yours? How would this be different than what is already happening? It might indeed be different – and better – because in the present situation that small elite is entirely self-serving and doesn’t even pretend to be a meritocracy – they are a self-selected oligarchy that controls the political process because, well, because they can. Of course the _hoi polloi_ are secure in the belief that they make all the decisions democratically based on facts – facts which are helpfully and reassuringly provided by the Koch brothers, Exxon Mobil and the entire industrial sector, and Fox News. At least a hypothetical architected meritocracy really could be merit-based, and could have appropriate accountability and checks and balances. Who is the oligarchy accountable to when their puppets screw up like GWB did so spectacularly, or when a Republican Congress with consummate lunatics like Ted Cruz, Joni Ernst, or James Inhofe are doing so even as we speak? How the f\*ck do people like this manage to get even _ **one** _ vote, let alone win an election? Is this “the wisdom of the common people” at work? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-country-work-better-if-only-intellectuals-participated-in-government/714331.md?page=8)