Essay on the menace of overpopulation. What to do with the teeming masses?
Posted on: March 1, 2008
What, exactly, does “national population policy” mean, if not forced abortions and euthanasia? What else could it possibly mean? Would it make sense to carry out these things in the most prosperous nation in the history of the world? In the nation that’s currently ranked the 179th most population-dense (out of a possible 242) – is there really a problem with resources? Is this policy consistent with our nation’s ideals – guaranteeing a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
There are never too many white people. Never too many rich, overcaffeinated jerks. Never too many corrupt powerbroking politicians. Never too many contractors, squeezing city halls dry all across America. The prevailing myth is that it’s always too many illegal Mexicans and too many black welfare mothers draining everything from Good Wholesome Citizens.
With a “national population policy” I picture something like forced abortions in China. Or something out of Margaret Atwood’s novel – the Handmaid’s Tale, in which the state dictates what you can desire, when you can desire it, and not a moment before or after. I picture a world wherein the Undesirable People are cruelly made to vanish from the Desirable Places in order to make room for the privileged, the higher-born, those who would benefit from the policy instead of fearing it, those who can manipulate the laws they write in order to suit themselves, and to hell with the rest of is.
Unacceptable.
It’s time to realize that we are not anywhere near overpopulation. According to Wikipedia, the United States is the 179th most population-dense out of 241 (the data was compiled before Kosovo’s independence). The very world “overpopulation” is just fearmongering and scapegoating, smoke and mirrors, a myth to keep the downtrodden clawing at each other tooth and nail for food and jobs and gas and clothes and heat and electricity and water that’s supposedly “limited.”
Just the other day, scientists reported a way to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it back into usable fuel. It’s an expensive process, for now. The necessity of it, like with computers and cellphones and automobiles, will stimulate increased production, then increased availability, which will ultimately drive the price of the process down. I hope. Once we, as a society, can make it so that clean air is no longer a threatened resource, hopefully we can follow suit with other resources.
Food? We’re about the most obese nation on the planet AND WE STILL throw away more food than some poor nations even consume. So obviously, the problem is not one of lacking food. The problem lies in getting our excess food to those who really need it. Charge a bit more for food, use that charge to subsidize distribution for food. The obese middle classes will be less reluctant to overeat, the poor will stop undereating, the universe inches closer to harmony.
Housing: In Los Angeles, my hometown, there is no hope. In Kansas, where I live now, hosing costs are actually not preposterously disgustingly sky-high. Less demand here, obviously, but maybe not everybody can live in the mot densely populated areas. Why not encourage people to eke out a living in rural areas, where they can afford it?
Health care: there are a couple of good people running for leader of the free world, who, if elected, will work hard to institute plans that will make sure we’re all cared for, and that we don’t have to force abortions or euthenasia on anyone, and although I am not a religious person, I pray to God with all my might that their dreams come to fruition. That’s the beauty of having a democracy with leaders who have society’s best interests in mind: I don’t have to solve all of our problems as long as I vote for someone who can.
In conclusion: we’re not playing a zero-sum game. Scarcity is artificial. The problem is one of distribution, of getting resources to the right place rather than letting a greedy few gobble them all up and blame scapegoats for draining it all. One day we might become the advanced aliens we see in sci-fi movies; the luminous beings with the domineering sense of culture and technological prowess – the ones who descend in a glowing pillar of light from a giant levitating disc, having cross the span of millions of light years and are merely annoyed, even though they haven’t aged one bit; those who have made themselves immune to genetic infirmities, infectious diseases, environmental pollutants, those who can spread peace and enlightenment to the far corners of the universe – those imperious cowboys could be us, if we make knowledge a priority and stop wasting money on bombing Islamic nations.
25 Responses to "Essay on the menace of overpopulation. What to do with the teeming masses?"
March 14, 2008 at 4:49 am
Umm, I’m not a socialist. You don’t need to, like, call me names to make your point.
No, we probably can’t feed everyone. When I wrote this, I sat in a bar, pounding back Bloody Marys while scrawling notes on to napkins. The general idea was that we can do a much much much better job of managing our resources than we currently are. It’s all a matter of shifting priorities. The idea of a “national population policy” is complete bull, and seems to scapegoat people who its convenient to blame. There’s no way it can be put into practice fairly. Oodles of studies have shown that birth rates drop off in societies as they become more developed and start using their resources more wisely. The rich consume way more than the poor. The developed nations of the West consume twice as much food as all the combined nations of the much-more-populous Third World. And you’re right: if we do finally get some wise leaders, we can make some good things happen for everyone.
March 14, 2008 at 10:39 am
Hello again.
I wasn’t calling you names – I was correctly classifying you by listening to your own words. All of the things you have said are the exact arguments and mindset that Socialists have. Many people are proud to be Socialists, and so I was not attempting to insult you. Rather, I was just clarifying exactly what you have said.
Whether or not you define yourself as a Socialist, your attitude and words on this subject are in perfect harmony with Socialist philosophy. You are what you are – not what you label yourself.
Socialists are opposed (supposedly) to concentrations of power, so that the common people will not be oppressed by that power. Rather, resources and power are to be shared fairly and equally so that nobody is capable of oppressing others, and so that the majority will and common good can be achieved. Anywhere an underclass or downtrodden group of people exist, that is a sign of oppression and over-concentration of power into too few hands. Discrimination by race or gender is considered to be a political issue, rather than a cultural issue. By making it a political issue, Socialists seek to use political power to ‘equalize’ the situation by promoting the oppressed group over the mainstream/majority members of the society. This is, once again, so that no concentrations of power can exist anywhere. Raising up the Low to become equal to the rest erases these concentrations, making the playing field fair and evenly balanced. Above all else, Socialism seeks to BALANCE power and resources among the people so that fair conditions for human life can exist.
This is the essential core of Socialism. In modern America, it is labelled ‘Liberalism’. But labels are irrelevent. If you believe this way, you ARE a Socialist – and you should be proud to call yourself such. Millions of people around the world agree with you and are proud to call themselves Socialists.
I am not a conservative, but I am opposed to Socialism on various philosophical grounds. First of these is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to ‘balance’ power into a stable, even distribution. Just like water, power flows from place to place and collects in pools; following the flow of gravity. Power inevitably ends up in the hands of the few, even if that few is the elite leadership of a supposedly egalitarian Socialist government. The common people neither seek power nor know what to do with it when they are given it. Inevitably, they will throw their support behind a charismatic ‘leader’ who speaks the flattering words they crave. And so handing out power evenly to all the people only results in them quickly just giving that power to somebody else who appeals to them.
As such, the end-goal of Socialism is impossible to achieve simply because of human nature. Some people are better at collecting and wielding power than the rest of the masses are. Balance cannot be achieved. And even if it were, it would only stay that way for just a moment. The people don’t respect power – they fear it. As long as they feel safe, they want it out of their hands as quickly as possible.
Another problem with Socialism is that by having a perfectly ‘balanced’ society, it is impossible for change or progress to occur. All progress is the result of an individual or small group doing something truly different from the masses, because they have an accumulation of power that enables them to act. But in a Socialist world where no accumulations of power exist, nobody has the power to do anything new or unique. Socialism causes stagnation, because nobody has the power to make any kind of impact upon the world.
Socialism also uses a strange, moralistic way of thinking. Just because somebody is a victim of some ‘oppression’, we are to believe that they are morally superior people who deserve our support. The definition of ‘oppression’ is accomplished in utterly illogical ways. Just for being poor or of African or Latino ancestry, it is presumed that people are de facto oppressed. And also the flipside is true. Just for being rich or Caucasian, especially male Causcasian, one is considered to be an ‘oppressor’ whose own trials and difficulties in life are irrelevent because either ‘He is advantaged enough to have no excuses’ or ‘He is guilty of harming these other people, so who cares about him’. As such, Socialism/Liberalism is a profoundly RACIST philosophy. While it is true that history shows many injustices, Socialsts seem to have never heard the wisdom of ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right’. Punishing the innocent descendants of a possibly-guilty people doesn’t fix anything, nor is it justice.
Socialism also ignores the possibility that those who suffer in our society might actually BE DOING SOMETHING WRONG instead of just being oppressed. We cannot say that all poor people are stupid just because they are poor. I know far better than that. But overall, poor people are poor because they are making mistakes that inhibit their material success. This is not true overwhelmingly, but it certainly is the case more than half the time. Socialism cannot see the reality here, and instead turns these people into morally-superior saints simply because they suffer. Socialists seem to think that those with wealth go around every day personally oppressing every poor person in the nation, for there is no other reason why these people remain poor. But if you drop the righteous indignation for a moment, and actually go LIVE with some of these people for a while; you soon discover that their poverty is caused by a mix of oppression from above combined with their own lack of vision and/or ability. Mostly, it is their own deficiencies that attract the oppression to them in the first place. So it isn’t right how our society treats and uses these people, but they sure aint saints or sages themselves, and making them so seriously warps reality.
So moving on to poopulation:
If we can’t feed everybody already here (your words), then what is your opposition to have less people so that we CAN feed all of them? Isn’t it the DUTY of government to enact policies that PROTECT THE PEOPLE? Isn’t starvation one of the worst things that can happen – one of the primary problems government should defend against?
We aren’t interseted in scapegoats. You seem to make everything a moral issue when it is not. It is a simple scientific reality that there are too many people, and that our world will soon have less food and energy for those who are already here.
You say that there is no way to reduce population fairly. So what? If the ship is sinking and we only have lifeboats for half the people; is the FAIR solution for NOBODY to get into the lifeboats? Once again, your Socialist mindset makes you more concerned about FAIRNESS than REALITY. Obviously, for humanities’ sake, we should put half the people in the lifeboats and the other half will get left out. Shall aliens visit our world in the future and find us all dead because we were too squeamish to be UNFAIR about letting anybody survive with an UNFAIR advantage? Ridiculous!
These dire situations can be avoided if we start to reduce our population NOW. If we do this successfully (by breeding less) we may not have to leave anybody out of the lifeboat. Nobody is gleefully looking to the demise of these poor souls. I want everybody to be as fairly treated and live as happily as they can. But people like you and your refusal to address the REALITY of the situation like an adult will just doom our world (and the poor) to extreme misery that was avoidable.
You talk about ‘using resources more wisely’. You don’t get the point. WE ARE RUNNING OUT. Having everybody use 25% less of everything won’t help a thing if we just get another 25% more people in 15-20 years. And then we reduce our consumption even more – but still an equivalent number of new people are born. This process doesn’t fix anything, and just forces everybody here to live with less and less as time goes on. Conservation is irrelevant without population reduction.
You will see gas rationing in America within 5 years, and prices will reach $5/gal within 2 years. Electricity will be rationed in America within 10 years – no more 24 hour power grid. Food prices will climb 5-10 times within 10 years.
TIME IS UP – WE ARE RUNNING OUT.
Unless we start to fix the main problem (overpopulation) humanely and intelligently, famine and war will savagely kill off billions of people within 20 years. If you really care about the poor people out there, step up to reality and start to make a real difference in the world.
Or you can keep saying ‘That’s not fair’ while my words become reality one by one…
March 14, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Fair enough. I’m not going to argue whether I *am* or *am not* a socialist, just like I’m also not going to argue whether you *are* or *are not* a eugenicist. I’m just going to say that I have seen the light and you’re absolutely correct. We’ve got too many people here, and the wise thing to do, instead of figuring out a way to manage and produce resources more efficiently, is to just kill off a bunch of people. That way your electricity bill can stay low. We should force abortions, sterilizations, and euthanasia on wasteful undesirables over the course of one generation, to set things in motion.
Who should we start with? Jews? Gypsies? Homosexuals? Brown-skinned people? The Chinese? It’s obvious that there are just WAY TOO MANY Chinese. How bout the poor? Everyone knows that poor people are the ones eating ALL the food, using all of the energy driving huge 8-cylinder cars, and frittering away space by crowding into apartments, instead of using larger, more efficient mansions. Plus, the poor just make the well-to-do feel bad about themselves with all that “moralizing.” Shame and guilt are a resource too; why throw it away on ugly, dirty people?
Yes: a national population policy would be awesome! All the rapists, murderers, thieves, and pot smokers gobbling up resources in prison? Off with their heads. Japan is pretty crowded. Since the people there haven’t figured out how to live in a tiny space with limited resources, the Japanese should be guillotined too. And why waste all that flesh? We can celebrate our brilliant solution by feasting on the flesh of the poor. Seasoned in their own blood and despair! To a eugenicist, that’s practically the breakfast of champions! And that way, we don’t waste space on graveyards. Minorities and the poor don’t practice “funerals” anyway; they just drop dead in city streets, causing major gridlock. I simply hate gridlock. Don’t you?
But what if any more annoying, wasteful poor people happen to spring up somewhere? Solution: regular purges. We save the worlde and ensure the prosperity of billions of the future privileged. Oh, right; I meant “hundreds” of the future privileged. Bravo!
March 15, 2008 at 2:14 am
Once again we see that it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with most Liberals/Socialists, because they are so unreasoningly self-righteous that they cannot even listen. I expressly pointed out that I am NOT in favor of killing anybody, and that population control can be accomplished without these tactics. You simply ignore what I say and pretend as if I said something different, because it serves your purposes to demonize me. You aren’t intelligent enough to actually engage in debate, so you just ignore my ideas and attack me. You will notice that this is NOT what I have done with you.
Where is your broadmindedness, tolerance and inclusiveness that you liberals cherish so much? Where is the free, intelligent exchange of ideas from all viewpoints that is your supposed mode of operation? We can see that liberals are among the most closeminded and dogmatic of all the people on the planet. If you don’t say something that agrees with them, they ignore your words and just blindly attack. You are just like religious fanatics.
I am trying to help save the lives of billions of people, of every race and creed, all over the world. But all you want to do is ignore reality and ignore even the very words spoken to you. The blood of the future starving is on your hands – not mine.
None of the things you have said about me represent my views. You neither listen nor reason. I have conclusively shown that your views are the same as socialist views. You have done nothing to link me with eugenics BECAUSE I NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT – AND I EVEN SAID OPPOSITE THINGS. Your weak attempt at logic, trying to catch me in a GOTCHA moment failed miserably. Perhaps you should stop this propaganda blog and just spend more time at the bar. It seems that you would be better at that…
BTW.. here is a test to see if you are a socialist or not. Pick one of these two choices:
1) Power should be given to a wise minority to govern the people because they are not capable of governing themselves as well.
2) Power should be given to all the people themselves so that they cannot be oppressed.
If you choose #2, you ARE a socialist.
So what’s the response going to be this time? Are you going to pretend that I said we should kill every tenth baby (gotta put the RACIAL angle in it – make it every tenth non-white baby) or some other horrific thing? Just make up some BS and pretend that is what I supposedly said. Nice debate skills man…
March 15, 2008 at 2:51 am
1. Geez man, get a sense of humor. I wasn’t debating you. I was making fun of you. Doesn’t being a harbinger of gloom and doom get kind of tiresome after a couple of days? Relax, listen to some jazz, go out dancing, tell a joke, then come back for some “debate.”
2. Think about it: there are a wide range of choices OTHER THAN #1 and #2 (hello, representative government?). As for #1: how do we judge whether this minority is “wise?” Are they elected – by the unwise? Are they well-born? Historically, how do wise governing minorities treat those who are UNwise and NOT governing? As for #2: that’s that sounds more like anarchy than socialism. Not that I’m well-versed in such matters – you’ll have to confirm it for me.
3. So what, exactly, do you mean by “reduce population” if not eugenics, sterilization, forced abortions, etc? Please be specific. How could a national population policy possibly ever be applied fairly?
4. I know that no society can be perfectly balanced. That doesn’t mean we can’t strive for as much social justice as possible.
5. Many of these resources that are “running out” can be replaced and renewed. That’s the beauty of being human. To take a page from Marx – and this does not make me a socialist, because Ayn Rand would agree with this: we can produce the things we need to subsist on. As we run out of resources, we can find more. We don’t HAVE to stagnate.
6. It’s important to point out that, in fact, a very small amount of people are consuming most of the world’s resources. The poor aren’t eating all the food. They can’t afford to. They’re poor! Same goes with energy and real estate.
March 15, 2008 at 8:50 am
1) So….. the whole purpose of your blog is to spew propaganda, and then ‘make fun’ of the people who disagree with all your illogical claptrap. Nice.
Dude you have no clue about me. I play poker 5 days a week and make most of my money that way. I play guitar and regularly make some noise with my buddies. My girlfriend is a total sweetie, and we take weekend trips several times a year all over the place. I’ve always been the Black Sheep in my family, and my life has always been more bumpy (and more fun) than your average 8-5 cubicle worker.
I also have a brain and can see what is going on in the world. And because I also have a heart, I try to warn people so that we can make things a little bit better.
2) You missed the point. Either power is concentrated or it isn’t – that’s all. I was just checking which mode you prefer. Obviously, you can have good and bad variants of both modes, and there can be different levels of concentrations of power. But overall, there are only two philosophical orientations to ALL governments – concentrated power or diffuse power. Anarchy is not a type of government – it is life without government.
Your quibbling about ‘how do we judge if the rulers are actually wise’ shows that you distrust ALL forms of concentrations of power. I totally left it up to you to define wise however you wish. And yet you seem to believe that there are no wise people, or that they are only self-serving when put into power. This proves my point about you being a Socialist. This is the exact philosophical origin of Socialism – distrust of ALL rulers, or belief that power always corrupts good leaders into bad ones. This is why you would need to diffuse power – no other reason exists.
Other people believe that wise people can be found who are overall not corrupted by power, and that their superior perception and talents make them superior guardians of the people. They define ‘wise’ in a variety of different ways. But their overall philosophical orientation is to concentrate power instead of diffuse it.
And yes, historically, ruling minorities tend to make decisions that benefit the whole nation and all its people far more often than collections of average people, or rulers who pander to populist agendas. Aristocrats, overall, provide far better government for all the people than do Proletarians in positions of power. A quick look at the history of Russia and Germany quickly confirms this. Even when bad aristocrats held power, they never cause anywhere near as much damage to the common people as do a Lenin, Stalin, or Hitler. And there have been numerous times when good aristocrats ruled and the whole nation was propelled forward – including all the peasants.
Even when we look at America, we must recognize that our nation was founded by cultured aristocrats. And as time has eroded their wishes (direct election of Senators etc..) the nation has become more and more populist and more and more in trouble. The founders would be horrified to see what happened to the country – what the common people have ALLOWED to happen to the country.
While we can debate about whether rulers are wise or not, one thing is certain. The common people are foolish, and therefore not qualified or trustworthy to hold power. I don’t think you can possibly prove that the average person is wise…
3) First of all, we need to educate the people about the problem just as has been done with Global Warming. This will make them receptive to helping out BY THEIR OWN FREE WILL, just as people today are installing energy-efficient light bulbs and other lifestyle changes. We can get a lot of people to just not have any kids, and we can structure our society so that having kids is not the EXPECTED THING TO DO. Lots of people really would prefer a life without kids, but they just kind of automatically fall into having them because it is the ‘thing to do’.
Other people would be content to have just one child. It is certainly understandable that most of us want children. But we can reshape our lives so that it becomes normal and even progressive to have just one. People will want to help out, and will feel good in doing so, if we can just provide the leadership to reform our society and educate everybody.
Part of this process would be a massive increase in education and funding for contraception among our youth. We need to get the conservatives to shut up and accept that people WILL have sex, and abstinence is not the answer for most. We also need to make abortion more easily available to those who choose it. Not force it on anybody; that would be inhumane and counter-productive. But make it legally, financially, and societal simpler and less stressful than it is today. Nor more stigma or BS.
Next, financial incentives should be provided for those who have 0 or 1 kids only. I suggest two programs. First, there should be a $10,000 per year tax break for those who have zero kids. They can start to claim this tax break as soon as they are married for 5 years, or when they reach age 30 whether they are married or not. This will enable poor/lower middle-class people with zero kids to effectively pay zero federal income tax.
For those with 1 kid, they should get a $2,000 per year tax break after they are married 5 years or reach age 30.
Next, for people with zero kids (married 5 years or reaching age 30), they should be given a free 4-year college education at the least expensive State College System (some states have 2 systems) within their home state. If they already have a college degree, then they should be given an equivalent value of US 30-year Treasury Bonds. Notice for a married couple, that BOTH of them would get this benefit.
For people with 1 kid only (married 5 years or reaching age 30), their CHILD should be given a free 4-year college education at the least-expensive State College.
Those are the benefits. There will also be penalties.
First of all, we should eliminate the dependant exemptions in our tax system for all who have more than 2 kids. No more free money just for having babies.
Next, for those families with 4 kids we increase their tax obligation to 110% of what it is otherwise. Poor people pay a little more – richer people pay proportionally more. For those with 5 kids, we raise their taxes to 120%, 6 kids 140%, and 7 or more kids we make it 180%. THESE INCREASES APPLY TO NEW FAMILIES ONLY – OR TO NEW INCREASES IN THE FAMILY. At the time the law is changed, those families with 4 or more kids will be counted as having just 3. Then a grace period of 1 year will pass, so that pre-existing pregnancies will not be punished. Thereafter, every new birth adds to the total number of kids in the family, and changes their tax status. This allows large, poor families to simply not have any more kids and not be punished. But if they continue to have more, they will get the penalty.
With this combination of education, expansion of contraception, tax breaks, and tax penalties; we can easily get our population moving lower within 10 years. No terror or inhumanity required.
4) The issue of balance is not one of social justice. Justice is served by the people being ruled by a government that benefits them – not preys on them. Balance is NOT required for that to happen. My point was that when you give equal power (balanced) to ALL the people, that the power does not stay that way. The people very quickly give their power to somebody else, because they don’t want the responsibility that comes along with power. And because the people are mostly foolish, they mostly give their power to a foolish choice. So giving power equally to the people does not serve their interests, nor does it promote social justice. Instead, it just allows charismatic demagogues to rise to power, who then abuse the people.
If we truly seek social justice, we CANNOT give power equally to the people. The only way to secure justice for the people is to give power to those who will use it to serve the people. These rulers cannot be select by the people themselves, because they do not choose wisely.
If we can ever agree on this, I can provide details of a new government system that I am writing a book about that lays out exactly this kind of truly beneficial rule to the people. For now, just imagine a kind of ‘Starfleet Academy’ which trains the brightest people (not richest) from all over the world to become leaders and to serve the people. In my view, highly intelligent people with excellent training in many aspects of life, including arts and sciences, are the best choice for our rulers.
We can make them live among the people during part of their training, going to Africa, Asia, and wherever they can be of service (for they are not leaders yet). Send them into the field for 2 years and let them really see how the poor live and what humanity is all about. Let them learn wisdom and humility before they rise to power. Let them learn to love the people before they would command them.
When you take brilliant, highly educated and artistic people from around the world and then give them experiences to make them become wise; you have the best choices for who should be a ruler.
This is the only way we can achieve the social justice we both want.
5) Do you know what oil and coal are? They are accumulations of millions of years of solar energy into a small, convenient mass. This planet was given a treasure of energy that we inherited as we became civilized man. We have used up most of the treasure that was given to us, and it takes millions of years for nature to replenish it.
When energy is gone, it is gone. You speak of making more. We can’t. How can you ‘make’ energy? Hydrogen must be made from OTHER ENERGY. The same with ethanol or anything else. Even solar cells and windmills require energy to manufacture. We can collect free solar energy. But we only get a trickle every day from the sun. Oil, gas, and coal are as powerful as MILLIONS OF YEARS of solar energy.
The energy we make from solar, wind, biofuels, biomass, and hydro represent less than 1% of the total energy we have in the ground with fossil fuels. When these flues are gone, we will still have the others. But we will have far less total energy available for our use.
The only way we can make new energy is to develop Nuclear Fusion. That is what I recommend. But before that happens, we will start to have major oil shortages due to reduced production because the wells are running out. And no, there really isn’t much undiscovered oil left. Since 1965, new oil discoveries have dropped substantially. They are now less than the amount we consume. We aren’t building up the reserves anymore – now we are sucking them dry.
Major oil shortages will cause massive famine. Our agriculture system makes the land produce far more than it naturally would, because we use machines, irrigation, and fertilizer. All of these things require oil or oil energy. When the oil production starts to slow down, food production will slow down causing famine.
It’s like we had a refrigerator packed with all kinds of goodies that was meant to last us for 100 years until our technology advanced to the next level. But along came one generation and another just taking whatever they wanted faster and faster. Now, the fridge is running low, and we are still a long ways away from the next level. Over consumption has caused this. And overpopulation is the primary cause of over consumption.
6) I’m sorry, you are wrong. The poor consume most of the resources on the Earth.
Let’s say that there are 600 Million ‘Rich’ people and 6 Billion ‘Poor’ people. Let’s say that the Rich eat an average of 3500 calories per day, and the Poor eat 800 calories per day. Do the math:
Rich = 600 X 3500 = 2,100,000
Poor = 6,000 X 800 = 4,800,000
The poor consume more than double the food, and energy required to make food, than the rich do.
This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be more efficient – we should. But you also need to understand the huge impact that the poor have on our world – more than the rich do.
Instead of going on about how ‘unfair’ it is for us to consume more than the poor, we need to instead see the big picture. Justice will never come to the poor people until their numbers go down to sustainable levels. And there are too many rich people too. There is simply no reason why we need 6.6 Billion people. And there are plenty of reasons why we shouldn’t have this many.
You like dogs? Nice to have 1 or 2 dogs at home, right? How about 17? Too much of something good can still be bad…
March 17, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Of course! We should sit back and let the Enlightened Wise Men make all the decisions. What business is it of mine to “vote” on “proposals” that might “affect” me? Who am “I,” anyway, except an insignificant commoner, a leech on the beefy arms of Glorious Aristocrats? What business of mine is it to “decide” my “fate?” I am absolutely nobody. One among 6 billion commoners. How could a commoner possibly have any idea of what’s good for himself or anyone else? If the Wise Men can exert enough control over the hoi-polloi to make sure “common” opinions, which are inherently foolish – NEVER get voiced or heard, the world will surely be a better place.
Our founding patriarchs were awesome, weren’t they? In addition to being Wise Aristocrats, they believed that only property-owning white men should have the right to vote. And they were absolutely right! Womens’ Suffrage & the Civil Rights movement really mark some low points in our nation’s history, diluting the effectiveness of our white-male-centered social structure. We should completely lock the peasants out of all civic participation. That’s the principle on which our nation was built.
Whatever the Wise Men decide to do with me: appropriate my land, split up my family, send me away to kill Iraqis, let me rot in a gas chamber; seriously, whatever they decide is fine with me, because I am foolish and they are Wise. This is a GREAT idea!
On a serious note, of course I distrust those in power. I challenge authority. I mock it. I mock aristocrats. I mock aristocrats who feel an inflated sense of entitlement. I kick them in the shins and run away, pointing and laughing, metaphorically speaking. Expressing my creative underclass rage is an unalienable right. The highborn have enough power to silence me and my cranky outbursts at any moment, which only makes it more important that I give ’em hell while I still can. Frankly, I believe that by lobbing insults and piercing your bubble of “We’re so fabulous, wise, and deserving,” I’m doing them a favor. If that makes me a socialist, then the Soviet Union won the Cold War. By the way, there are plenty of countries with socialists in power, and guess what? Don’t see why I should trust those bastards either.
The definition of socialism is related to the distribution of private property, not the “distrust of all rulers.” We haven’t discussed private property, and distrust of rulers is frankly healthy. It’s what keeps the wise men wise. It doesn’t make anyone socialist by any stretch of the imagination.
It does not follow that because a man is “common” that he is foolish and unable to participate in the decisions that affect him.
Yes: our founding fathers were aristocrats. It does not follow, on this basis, that only aristocrats are capable of developing a sound theory of leadership and putting it into practice. The founding fathers were committed to the idea that those in power can govern only with the just consent of the governed; that when the government ceases to provide for the common welfare, it should be swiftly abolished and replaced. The government they established survives because of a government that allows for competition among approximately equal powers, including a bicameral legislature in which the riff-raff have representation too; also, we have social structure that allows for upward mobility, because everyone is guaranteed a certain measure of liberty (power); because of that we have a society that is flexible enough to allow commoners like me to have a stake in their own future.
You’re right: I don’t know much about you. But statements like “The common people are foolish, and therefore not qualified or trustworthy to hold power” tell me all I need to know about you. Fact is, the self-important wise guardian uncorrupted by power is the exception rather than the rule, and you should not govern a nation by such exceptions.
By the way, you’ll have to show me where you’re getting your statistics on how many calories the “poor” are consuming each day. Also, you’ll have to tell me how you’re defining “rich” and “poor,” because at a number like 6 billion, you might be counting middle class as “poor,” which would mean you’re perverting your statistics to support your argument.
Elitist snobs don’t have the common good in mind. They don’t govern with the consent of the governed. They do whatever the heck they want, pursuing their own self-interest, justifying it with that smug mantra “I am the guardian of knowledge and culture. It is my duty to protect it from the senseless raging of the hordes by keeping them out of power.” Their heads are so far up their asses that they really believe their stuff doesn’t stink. News flash: it smells just the same as everyone else’s. Aristocrats are nothing. They’re nobody. They are no different from anybody else and they don’t deserve authority just because they think they’re wise and fabulous.
Also: saving the world through tax breaks? For real?
March 18, 2008 at 2:18 am
Your anger has clouded your reason. What venom grips your heart! You are full of so much envy and hate that it has consumed your soul. I am sorry for you, for you are lost. The hope and promise that were visible in your eyes when you were a child has faded away into nothingness; leaving only a feckless, embittered shell of a man.
I do not speak about you this way just because you disagree with me. My ideas come from one section of the spectrum of philosophical thought. Other good-hearted people support other philosophies that differ from mine. I respect those who can intelligently discuss and promote their views, and who see us all as unified in seeking the truth and advancing the state of humanity. Many Socialists are honorable people who are truly seeking the good, just as I am.
But you listen only as far as is needed for you to formulate your next moronic, venomous attack. You say things without any attempt whatever to justify your position with logic. Instead, you substitute anger for reason. You behave as if it were obvious that your opinions were correct. They are neither obvious nor correct. There are indeed logical arguments that partially support some of your views. But you don’t reference these at all, nor discuss anything logically. I could do a better job taking your side of the debate than you have, for at least I know the logical/ethical bases that drive your particular philosophy. You don’t seem to be smart enough to even understand why you believe the way you do, for you have never provided any kind of explanation. Your “Essay on Overpopulation” isn’t an essay at all. You make no attempt for any logical support for you ideas. Instead, only a smug, self-righteous, sanctimonious diatribe is presented.
You couldn’t possible learn anything from what I say, for you don’t listen to me really. You think I am evil, and so like the frightened superstitious mobs of the past, you try to burn me at the stake of my own words – hearing dangerous words only and not the true goodness in the ideas they represent.
~~~~~~~~~~
GOVERNMENT ITSELF WOULD NOT BE NEEDED IF THE COMMON PEOPLE WERE NOT FOOLISH. IF THE AVERAGE MAN WAS WISE, PEACABLE, AND SELF-DISCIPLINED, NOBODY WOULD HAVE EVER SEEN A NEED FOR GOVERNMENT NOR AGREED TO BE BOUND BY IT.
The common people have no right to govern themselves. This is because they can’t actually do it. They spend their days working at their jobs and with their families, and do not have either the time or the training to understand the big picture of the nation or the world. They understand only those tiny little fragments of pseudo-facts/propaganda that are fed to them. They don’t even know how the government works or the basics of the constitution.
MOB RULE IS NOT FREEDOM.
Why does the pilot fly the airliner you ride in? How DARE he control your life and the lives of all the hundreds of people on board? Why? Because he knows what he is doing and can get the people to their destination safely. The common people on board cannot, and this is why they can have no say at all in the conduct of the airplane. The pilot has the right to rule all the people because he is the only one who knows everything necessary to the safe operation the of airplane. If turbulence strikes, and a majority of the passengers want to land right now – do they have the right to force the pilot to do so? Of course not! Doing so might be either impossible at this time or recklessly unsafe.
The people are foolish and fearful. They were that way in ancient times, medieval times, recent past centuries; and they are still that way today. They are to be excluded from the leadership – but they are always to be the main focus of the government. The pilot must care, above all, about the safety and comfort of the passengers. That is his job. And if other pilots see that this one stops caring about his passengers, they should have him removed from his position.
Is this world I propose so bad? Just because you don’t get to work the controls you have to bitch and moan? Would it be better if every dufus in a middle seat who got some weird notion decided to take control of the plane for 5 minutes? Maybe he wants to make the plane do a loop – ok with you? Isn’t the point of the whole operation for everybody to move ahead safely and efficiently as a group to our mutual destination – not just give everybody their say or turn at the controls?
In your world, you would shoot the pilot for being a ‘tyrant-elitist’, and then hold elections (mid-flight) to decide who gets to work the rudder, who works the throttle, and have a dozen other elected people operating controls they only vaguely know how to work. This of course, would cause the plane to crash, killing everybody. But who cares? At least you won’t have somebody telling you what you can and cannot do…
BETTER TO DIE AT YOUR OWN FOOLISH HANDS THAN LIVE AND PROSPER UNDER THE CONTROL OF AN ‘ARISTOCRAT’! (Good Slogan. Go chant this in the streets…)
Government exists to protect the people – from THEMSELVES mostly. The common people are incapable of running a government in such a way that protects the people, because when they get power they use it only for their immediate selfish material needs. The are ZERO examples from history that contradict this fact in any society containing millions of people. Therefore, IF YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE, YOU MUST SUPPORT EXCLUDING THE MASSES FROM POLITICAL POWER.
The man who advocates the rule of the people over themselves is a TRAITOR to the people. He seeks to overthrow the competent authority in place so that the people may rule themselves. But he knows that the people really need guidance in what they are to do. And so, HE will provide this guidance so that the people can ‘lead’ themselves. Vladimir Lenin is an excellent example of this.
The rulers I propose are neither wealthy nor high-born. Obviously, wise leadership is a complex problem that requires a high degree of self-discipline and ethics. The best choice for such rulers would be the most brilliant intellectual and artistic geniuses; held together by a rigidly-enforced high code of moral conduct for their rule of the people. They should be trained for years both to give them a comprehensive knowledge of the world, but also to give them experiences living with the people. Smarts is not enough. It must also be turned into wisdom.
But you will ridicule these people and this idea too. You neither see excellence anywhere nor respect it – for you have never known it yourself. For you, excellence is actually pretension and vanity. Sour Grapes of The Fool. I tell you excellence does exist. Some people are better basketball players than most. Some people are better dancers than most. Some people are better thinkers and leaders than most. Some of each of these are so much better than the masses that they are excellent – a class apart.
In your world, it’s ok to have the best athletes and singers do their thing – but the best leaders are ‘evil tyrants’ who should be killed should they try to do their job. Better to have the singers and athletes rule us, for at least they are just ‘regular people’ and not some brilliant ‘elite’ person. For you and your ilk, intelligence is a sign of evil. What a totally illogical attitude that demonstrates how utterly gripped by fear you are – for you are well aware that you are not one of these exceptional thinkers.
And so the fears of the intellectually-average prevent the changes in the world that would benefit everybody.
‘There are only two things that are infinite: The Universe and Human Stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former’ – Albert Einstein.
Either say something thoughtful, calm, and insightful in your next response or I am done with you. Disagree all you want. But either you switch your brain on and anger/envy off or there is no point for me to be here anymore.
The funniest thing of all is that you probably think you are ‘winning’ this debate…
March 18, 2008 at 5:26 pm
The anger is vital to reason. When someone in power tells me to sit back, be passive, just let the concentrated authority handle everything, you bet I’ll get suspicious. This country was born from a revolt in the first place. When you call my writing “moronic” and “venomous,” I wear it as a badge of honor. I like the idea that those in power feel threatened by my words. Also: yes, my essay was a sanctimonious diatribe. That’s probably because I wrote it very quickly, drunk, on a napkin, in a bar. Ummm, sorry bout that.
“The common people have no right to govern themselves. This is because they can’t actually do it.” – Give them a chance to prove their abilities. Don’t immediately marginalize them just because they have jobs and families.
This one thing we agree on:
“And if other pilots see that this one stops caring about his passengers, they should have him removed from his position.”
There should be a way to make sure that all the pilots are forced to sanction this one who stops caring about his passengers. If all the pilots got together, welcomed the uncaring one into their fold, and decided to keep him despite his ineptitude or uncaring, that would be disastrous, no?
The other thing about the pilot dynamic is that it is also in his own interest to fly the plane safely. If the plane crashes, everybody dies, pilot included. Government should be the same way. Someone who makes a bad decision that destroys a bunch of lives should not be immune from the effects.
The OTHER other thing about the pilot dynamic is that I have freely chosen to pay for my flight and step onto that plane. I could have just as easily hopped in a car or on a boat. In that sense, I did “hold an election” to decide how I want to get from A to B. Since I voted for having a pilot, I’m sticking with that decision for the term of one flight. If he does do something foolish and I happen to survive, of course I will report him to authorities. It’s a good thing he has to answer to somebody if he’s not fit to fly, isn’t it?
“BETTER TO DIE AT YOUR OWN FOOLISH HANDS THAN LIVE AND PROSPER UNDER THE CONTROL OF AN ‘ARISTOCRAT’!” — I don’t recall saying this, so it’s not my slogan. It posits a false dilemma: certain death without an aristocrat in charge. Have I given you my “socialist” opinion on false dilemmas? I don’t like them very much.
And it’s one thing if I actually do prosper. Suppose I don’t — what then? Time to replace that aristocrat with someone competent, who includes my best interests in his plans. Simple as that.
Everybody uses power only for his own immediate selfish material needs — aristocrats and commoners alike. In that respect, they are no different. Therefore, those in power should also be forced to come to terms with a separate, approximately equal power. The masses should also have representation in government. If they cannot participate directly – a logistical nightmare, to be sure – someone should make sure that their interests receive due consideration. Otherwise, you have authoritarianism, pure and simple.
“Obviously, wise leadership is a complex problem that requires a high degree of self-discipline and ethics. The best choice for such rulers would be the most brilliant intellectual and artistic geniuses; held together by a rigidly-enforced high code of moral conduct for their rule of the people.” It sounds pretty, and I agree with it, but I think it needs to be clear that a separate body should be rigidly enforcing the high code of moral conduct. Letting the wise men do it themselves does not provide enough protection against the abuse of power.
“But you will ridicule these people and this idea too.” – Yeah, that’s pretty much spot on.
“You neither see excellence anywhere nor respect it – for you have never known it yourself.” – Are you sure you want to assert this claim?
“For you, excellence is actually pretension and vanity.” – Excellence is excellence. Pretension is pretension. Vanity is vanity.
“Better to have the singers and athletes rule us, for at least they are just ‘regular people’ and not some brilliant ‘elite’ person.” — Again, not my words. Here’s what I’ll say about this: there are very few singers who are actually excellent and worth listening to. Most of the shlock on the airwaves and the intertubes is just more pretension and vanity.
“For you and your ilk, intelligence is a sign of evil.” I have respect for intelligence. I simply have an inherent distrust of those in power. They must PROVE that they deserve it. The test should be stringent, rigorous, and continuous. Governing the masses is a big effing deal. It’s not as simple as “I’m a better basketball player than most; therefore, I should decide policy for all 50 states.” That much, I’m sure we agree on. Excellence is as excellence DOES (by the way, I didn’t like that movie and I hate having to paraphrase from it, but whatever).
“You are well aware that you are not one of these exceptional thinkers.” – Socrates: the first step toward wisdom is admitting that you know nothing. I know elsewhere you stated that I have never known excellence myself, because you know so much about my life and experiences and accomplishments and failures and strengths and flaws that you are qualified to tell me what I have and have not known, but I read a lot. That’s something, isn’t it?
If you don’t want me to burn you at the stake with your own words, you shouldn’t say things like “The common people are foolish, and therefore not qualified or trustworthy to hold power.” Everybody says and does foolish things at some point. Everybody is capable of wisdom at some point. As it happens, most of us spend our youth and young adulthood at their jobs and with their families; as they age, they accrue experience (that phrase makes it sound like they’re playing Dragon Warrior, doesn’t it?), and with that, wisdom. So it turns out that the same person can be foolish at one point and wise at another. Not only that: no matter how much of a genius you are, at some point you need the fools to grow your food, construct your cars, police your streets, and sew your clothes. No matter how much of a “fool” someone is, he still participates in society somehow (unless he’s a complete wastrel. That’s beyond the scope of this debate), and his fool’s knowledge benefits you in some way. It seems unfair to rely on him and then floccify him when it comes time to make the Big Decisions.
“Winning?” I didn’t see this as a contest. Ommm…..
March 19, 2008 at 10:30 am
The funniest thing of all is that although you repeatedly cast my arguments as “moronic” and without logic I am the one who has pointed out specific logical fallacies you have committed. Repeatedly. I don’t mean this to sound hostile; it’s just true. I’m also still waiting for you to cite the following information you provided:
600 million rich people
6 billion poor people
What defines “rich?”
What defines “poor?”
Does the middle class not exist at all?
Which leads to this point: socialists tend to only group the world into rich and poor. I don’t. Ipso facto, I’m not a socialist. Get me?
March 21, 2008 at 1:57 am
Ok you were making progress. Were…
You have not indicated any logical flaws in my arguments. Rather, you have misunderstood or mischaracterized them. You still don’t understand the basic intention of my philosophy. I am not about a return to the rule of Kings. Neither do I think that the masses should be oppressed.
I have respect for your anger against power that harms the people. The problem with you is that you cannot imagine any power that doesn’t harm them, just because our history shows this happens many times. There have been other times when the people’s will was either ignored or even contravened where the leader was still acting in their best interests. One of the best examples of this in American history is the totally illegal and unsanctioned actions by FDR where he gradually injected us into WWII. He knew that it was imperative both for Europe and for America for us to become involved, and his judgment has indeed been validated by history.
We need a better definition of what exactly we mean by ‘in the people’s best interests’. We can see that FDR throwing America into war caused the death of thousands of young men who otherwise might not have died. There are also arguments that war was inevitable and it was better for us to face it earlier. We may even have suffered fewer casualties by doing so.
Clearly, for some INDIVIDUALS this action harmed them. But for the overall GROUP of our nation and society, FDR’s actions were clearly in the best interests of the people.
Notice how it is always possible to criticize the wise leader because his actions will always be detrimental to some INDIVIDUALS, and his wielding power will look tyrannical to these people. In our society, we no longer give the leader the benefit of the doubt that he is acting in our best interests. People like you become so rabid in their self-righteous denunciations, and this happens on both the left and the right. If anybody at all gets harmed by the leader’s policies, all hell breaks loose. This makes it impossible for the leader to actually DO anything.
This also causes us to lose wars. The Vietnam war was not lost so much by a failure of American military strategy (we were executing a long-term attrition war anyway) as it was a stunning strategic political victory for the North Vietnamese. They convinced the American people to give up, even though the actual battle was still very much a 50/50 situation, and our casualties were under 10% of WWII even though VietNam was a longer war.
The same thing is happening in Iraq. Even though the invasion was a tremendously stupid idea, now that we are engaged in the fight we are committed to winning as much as possible. Shall we just abandon all the treasure spent, lives lost, and territory controlled for nothing? The reason we continue to face problems is that the enemy knows that if he can just kill enough of our troops, the whiny American people will just lose their backbone and give up the fight – just like VietNam. If we presented a strong, unified face to the world, the insurgents would quickly lose hope of winning and have trouble recruiting or fielding their forces. We would win.
The Military only does half of the job in winning a war. The Civilians must do the other half. When the civilians give up (which may be the result of foolishness just as much as wisdom) the military cannot continue even though they might still win. The Russians in 1917 and then the Germans in 1918 are examples of this. Both nations suffered far worse by giving up than they likely would have experienced if their military had continued to be supported by the people.
it has become fashionable since the late 1960’s to distrust and villify all who hold power. This is an OVER-REACTION to the previous generation that followed orders a bit too blindly. What we need is a more balanced philosophy where power is respected and obeyed but not unconditionally or blindly. What we need is my philosophy.
–“The common people have no right to govern themselves. This is because they can’t actually do it.” – Give them a chance to prove their abilities. Don’t immediately marginalize them just because they have jobs and families. —
1) They have had their chance, and they have consistantly failed. The French Revolution. The Soviet Revolution. The Rise of Fascist Italy (popular movement). The Rise of Nazi Germany (popular movement / election). The Communist Chinese Revolution. Even in America, the people were supposed to act as guardians to prevent the government from becoming too strong. What happened? In America today we have a Dual-Oligarchical Dictatorship hidden behind the supposed ‘freedom to choose’ of the ballot box. Every time the people are given political power, they quickly screw things up by going wild killing ‘oppressors’, empowering a megalomaniac, or by just falling into the haze of apathy.
2) This is the logical outcome because the common people do not have the ABILITY to wield power wisely. BE HONEST. The war in Iraq is a complex matter. There are excellent arguments for pulling the troops out. There are excellent arguments for keeping them there. The only way to find out which course is right is to actually talk to the military commanders, the Iraqi Government leaders, the grunts on the ground to see what they say; and to have an understanding of the power situation with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Also, we would need to know about the world oil situation, and whether we need to stay in theatre to secure future oil. Or, maybe this would cause greater political instability…. You see my point. Even just this ONE issue is tremendously complex. It would take a lot of time and a lot of access to people and places to actually come to a truly smart decision. How can the common man possibly ever get anywhere near this amount of unbiased information? He can’t. Therefore, he cannot possibly come to any truly wise decision – he lacks all the data. When we take this problem and multiply it out to encompass all the OTHER serious problems like health care, social security, etc… how could ANYBODY from the masses ever possibly A) know what the hell is truly going on and 2) have anything intelligent to say about it?
3) The masses are comprised mostly of people who are either average IQ and therefore biologically incapable of coming to the wisest conclusions or; individuals within the masses may be high IQ, but the CULTURE of the common people tends to discourage inquisitiveness and imagination that are both needed to make wise political decisions.
4) Who does it help by letting the masses decide things? Certainly, it doesn’t even help themselves. They elected Hitler – did that help them? They set up the Soviet Union – did that help them? Great movements that help the masses are done by LEADERS – NOT MASSES. The Civil Rights laws of 1964 in America would never have happened without the southern president LBJ pushing hard for it and basically killing his chance for re-election. Change would not have come without MLK’s leadership. These strong leaders, these ELITE men made the changes happen – not the people. The people will do whatever they are led to do.
PUTTING GREAT, ELITE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNSHAKABLY COMMITTED TO JUSTICE AND CIVILIZATION INTO POWER IS THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE COMMON PEOPLE.
At the moment I gotta go. More to come later….
March 21, 2008 at 3:28 am
Here are the logical fallacies I found in your arguments:
a) You stated, that our country was founded by aristocrats, as an example of only aristocrats being qualified to lead or govern. My response: yes, our founding fathers were aristocrats; it does not follow, on this basis, that only aristocrats are capable of developing a sound theory of leadership and putting it into practice.
b) “BETTER TO DIE AT YOUR OWN FOOLISH HANDS THAN LIVE AND PROSPER UNDER THE CONTROL OF AN ‘ARISTOCRAT’!” — this was a false dilemma.
c) Your pilot metaphor broke down in several ways.
d) Hmm… I can’t find what meant my fourth point to be. How silly of me.
As far as I can tell, you intend neither to oppress the masses nor help them. As far as I can tell, you intend to leave them alone, let them tend to their families, work their menial jobs, consume 800 calories a day, and otherwise leave them out of the rest of the equation. Suffice it to say that the masses might not accept that situation for very long.
I can easily imagine a power that doesn’t harm the people. How hard is it to imagine such a thing? It would be a world wherein nobody is needlessly sent to war, everyone achieves his own personal best and helps those around him to do the same, we are all committed to a normative theory of ethics that binds our society together in an absolute way, like in Star Trek, et cetera et cetera. I could go on and on and on with good wishes for a great society led by aristocrats. The problem is that if aristocrats are allowed to wield absolute power, what’s to prevent their going bad? If nobody else has power, who is to prevent the aristocrats’ corruption? Shall we trust in their own personal code of ethics? Is that realistic? I’m sure you can think of plenty of examples of completely pure, incorruptible people; Mother Teresa, Gandhi, etc, but that is an exceptional state of mind for people and no one can ensure that such a person will just appear when people need him/her. Plus, Mother Teresa was religious and I’m not.
1) The common people do not have power under an oligarchy. Sadly, in America a small group of self-styled elites – oligarchs – have been able to seize power out of the hands of those who represent the rest of us. These elites were not concerned at all with our will or our interests. They only looked after their own. And here we are, pleasantly surprised. Alternately, the American Revolution was a popular movement. So was that little ol’ Civil Rights thingie.
2) So, if somebody from the masses actually finds a way to go out and obtain all the relevant information to the point that he has something intelligent to say or do regarding the situation at hand, at that point, he is no longer “common.” Alternately, he might just chance upon an insight. Who knows? Either of these situations could happen to almost anyone. It strikes me as unjust that a label of “common” could be slapped on someone and disqualify him from reaching his full potential in life and contributing the most he could contribute to society.
Also: the aristocrat and the commoner are equally corruptible. All the same, one might find a commoner with a whole lot of self-discipline, just like with an aristocrat.
I should also point out that, regarding the Iraq War, if you use information obtained from “grunts on the ground” that you couldn’t get anywhere, then you’re relying on information from commoners. The behavior of the commoners is a factor in a lot of decisions. As a leader, at some point you might be faced with the following choice: do what the commoners want, or ignore them and crush them if necessary.
3) The culture that discourages inquisitiveness and imagination is the culture that arbitrarily decides “you are common and therefore not smart enough to make decisions, so go back to your farmlands and ghettos or whatever.”
4) The masses may have elected Hitler. But Hitler, as an elite, set policy without being checked by an opposition (many who opposed him, such as Max Ernst, were forced to flee to the U. S. of A. as expatriates). The Civil Rights laws of 1964 would never have happened had a movement among the masses gained enough power and vitality to force the hand of the authorities. Change would not have come without MLK’s leadership, but he was expressing the will of a lot of people, not just his own. The masses did not carry out the Russian Revolution. The Bolsheviks did, and then made themselves into elites.
And as long as we’re judging people based on the smug tone of their writing, I should point out that statements like “You were making progress” reek of self-centered paternalism.
March 21, 2008 at 8:43 am
You continue to speak tangentally and obviously do not know how to debate. You are also woefully ignorant of history, and even of some aspects of reality itself. You have an average mind; an average mind that has been filled with propaganda. None of your communication is anything other than regurgitation of this propaganda. You will never understand me because, to put it bluntly, your IQ is too far below mine to have a clue about my meaning. You THINK you know exactly what I am saying because I use words that other people have used. I must mean the same thing that they do. Right? You are just not smart enough to perceive my unique ideas – you only just hear/read my familiar words, and so match them to familiar ideas that have nothing to do with me…
By now, it should have been clear to you that I actually want to help people live better lives. All the people. But instead you continue to pretend that I am their enemy because it serves your agenda. You need a punching bag to ‘fight the good fight’ for the people.
You fail to understand that taking an honest assessment of the abilities of the masses does not mean that you hate them or want them to stay as they are. They are foolish and stupid most of the time. Our world would not be this messed up were this not true. But seeing reality is the only way that one can make any plans to move forward so that they don’t remain foolish and stupid.
You just live in a fantasyland where all things mediocre are somehow best. “Everybody is Special” is your mantra (of course that is logically impossible if you know what ‘special’ really means). This doesn’t do a damn thing to help these very people. Flattery is not progressive. I want to actually help humanity – you want to just tell everybody how wonderful they are. How warm and fuzzy you feel protecting the masses from ‘mean people’ who tell them they are not wonderful. How brave and noble you are fighting so hard (?) a fight! Juvenile and self-serving stupidity.
Self-centered paternalism. As you have said before “excellence is as excellence does”. My understanding of these issues is vastly superior to yours. I even know your position and arguments better than you do. When I debate conservatives, I shred them far more than you could ever do. So to you, this looks paternalistic. Of course it would to a socialist – my elite intellect makes me suspect and guilty of all kinds of ‘anti-social attitudes’. And my exhasperation with your continued obstinate refusal to think makes me appear smug at times. Sorry about that. I could dumb myself down so that we could be friends – but what’s the point. You probably would think better of me if I did this, but I ‘m not about to start thinking like a child just to fit in socially.
So I am done here. I think you probably care about people and justice very much, and I can respect that. But unfortunately, you are just not smart enough to learn and grow beyond your present juvenile mental state. You will die thinking the same thoughts you have today – your brain is closed forever.
I know Liberals/Socialists who ARE mature and whom I respect. So this is not just a disagreement about beliefs. I simply cannot communicate with you because you are not smart enough to understand what I am saying. You THINK you understand, and quickly lump me into the same bin as other people who use similar words. But you don’t think clearly enough to see the huge difference between my ideas and theirs. When you heckle me, you are actually heckling somebody else (the 800-calorie crack, for example). You are attacking me with ammo that doesn’t have anything to do with me, but is effective against others who you apparently believe I think like.
WRONG. You don’t listen. I don’t care if you don’t agree with me, but at least take the time to understand clearly what I mean. You don’t do this, and so there is no point in saying anything further.
So I won’t.
March 21, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Here’s the thing: I’m not speaking tangentially. I’m quoting you directly and refuting you line by line by line, in a very pointed and specific manner. You say I “obviously do not know how to debate,” but in fact, I’m refuting you directly, by your own words, and I’m not even taking them out of context. That’s actually the exact opposite of NOT knowing how to debate.
Until you administer an IQ test to me, you are completely unqualified to say things like “Your IQ is too far below mine.” Leave that to the specialists. Go ahead an write your little book and see how many other dialecticians refute and undermine your so-called “logic” just like I do.
I understand that you want to help lives. It boils down to a simple question: do you really want a bunch of people running things if their sole qualification is that they think they’re smarter than everyone else? That doesn’t sound like the makings of a wise ruler. That sounds like the makings of an uber-criminal.
I didn’t say mediocre is best. I said that your aristocrats have to prove that they are not mediocre. It seems to me that I demand more out of an “aristocrat” than you do. As far as I can tell, in your world, there’s no independent means of assessing their worthiness. In your world, all you have to do is say “I’m an aristocrat,” and like magic, the club of elites is supposed to just let you in and grant you power over the lives of a lot of people. That’s just not good enough for me. That’s juvenile and self-serving stupidity.
“Everybody is special” is not my mantra. Those are quite clearly YOUR words being put into my mouth. This is not the first time you’ve attempted such a tactic. It’s kind of tiresome, to be honest. Is this seriously how you debate your “mature” socialist friends? Is that a stunning display of your amazing IQ? Just make up a slogan and claim your opponent said it? In philosophy 101 we called that a straw-man argument, and even if your supposedly mature friends accept this kind of mudslinging as rational debate, I just think it’s the last resort of a desperate ego. So don’t bring it here. It makes you look whiney.
It’s not your intellect that makes you guilty of anti-social attitudes. It’s the condescension towards people you don’t even know. They are distinct items. (Example: a statement such as ” could dumb myself down so that we could be friends” has absolutely no place in any kind of serious debate. It’s not even funny. You have no sense of humor. Does that make you a sociopathic imbecile?) Bottom line: I don’t think you’re as smart as you claim you are. I don’t care what conservatives you’ve beaten in what arguments. I don’t care what socialists you’ve beaten in what arguments. Is that supposed to intimidate me? The simple fact is you cannot answer the question I just posed: do you really want a bunch of people running things if their sole qualification is that they think they’re smarter than everyone else? The simple fact is you have yet to tell me where you got your figures from to “prove” poor people are eating all the world’s resources. I’m not even gonna bother asking for them any more.
“But unfortunately, you are just not smart enough to learn and grow beyond your present juvenile mental state.” So is that what a real debate is: directly insulting the intelligence of someone you know very little about, aside from the obviously superior sense of humor present in his writing style?
The 800-calorie “crack” was simply a questioning of your own made-up figures, sir.
I’ve actually never directly spoken or written to anybody who believed anything similar to what you do, so I don’t know how effective this would be against others who apparently follow similar beliefs as you do.
If you want me to understand what you mean, why not explain it clearly and without the condescending tone? You’ve become progressively more insulting with each post, and I could more easily forgive this if you were at least funny. You seriously believe in your own self-righteousness, almost as though it goes without saying, and you don’t even feel you should TRY to offer proof. “You will die thinking the same thoughts you have today” – a charmingly Zeuslike pronouncement, but utterly without merit, just like the rest of your claims. “My understanding of these issues is vastly superior to yours” — who talks that way? Those are the words of a super-villain, not somebody interested in saving the world. I know your position and your arguments far better than you realize, and all I’ve seen is a bunch of naive filth. You get upset when I simply call your naivete into question. So go, scamper along back to your insular community where everyone is either conservative or socialist, where you feel important and they’ll humor your baseless airheaded claims. Good luck on that book, too. It will probably gain a following among alienated teenagers who think they’re smarter than their peers just because they wear all black and read too many comic books. And yes, I mocked you again. You make it so easy. Party on.
March 22, 2008 at 12:43 am
“I understand that you want to help lives. It boils down to a simple question: do you really want a bunch of people running things if their sole qualification is that they think they’re smarter than everyone else? That doesn’t sound like the makings of a wise ruler. That sounds like the makings of an uber-criminal. ”
The main thing that you fail to understand is that people who actually ARE significantly smarter (IQ>160) almost never appear that way to average people because average people are incapable of comprehending an ability which they truly lack. High Intelligence is not just an ability, it is a completely different mindset that makes those endowed think and behave in ways that often contradict societal norms – because the society is built by less-intelligent (IQ 100-120) people. And so they just look like they are arrogant, ‘Zeus-like’, misanthropic, and dangerously deluded. Or the ones who have been beaten down by the world look like geeks; timid and quirky. That is the way the world wants them to look – not strong and a creative, forceful presence in the world.
In reality, they are the only people who actually are capable of real altruistic leadership. Everybody else just wants power for its own sake. High Intelligence is usually accompanied by High Empathy and a tremendous innate revulsion to barbarism. They are born Wise Leaders, people who would rather die than harm the people through evil use of power.
But you average/normal people are ruled by fear, and you fear that which you do not understand…
My apologies for my angry words. I was hopeful that you could begin to understand me, and my frustration overflowed. I am sorry for this, and I bear you no ill will. I suspect that my enthusiasm got the best of me, and I have expected too much from you too quickly.
March 22, 2008 at 1:56 am
Perhaps we can start again if we set up some ground rules. I suggest these:
1) You will make every effort to restrain mockery, and unwarranted extrapolations from what I say.
2) I will make every effort to avoid condescension and arrogant tone.
3) We will restrict our comments to very brief, single-topic discussions, so that we can build up a mutual understanding one step at a time without firing a whole shotgun of stuff at each other.
4) We will work first on definitions of terms, so that we don’t waste time talking past each other.
If these are agreeable, let us start by defining what these terms are:
THE MASSES / THE COMMON PEOPLE / THE AVERAGE MAN
My view is that most individuals belong to this group. They do not demonstrate any tangible leadership over others. They tend to consume more resources than they produce. They do not create any new artistic or scientific advancements to mankind’s body of knowlege and culture. They are neither good nor evil – individuals can be either.
March 22, 2008 at 5:12 am
frttg3i-7cip1rh-tw6q8342-0 http://www.google.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=MKRCVFW&adurl=//bestsslscripts.com/goog/allstate-insurance.html#1
soma
[url=http://www.cys.ru/forward.html?url=bestsslscripts.com/cys/soma.html#3]soma[/url]
[url]http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=wellbutrin+%3CIFRAME%20src=//bestsslscripts.com/medved/wellbutrin.html%3E#4[/url]
[http://www.cys.ru/forward.html?url=bestsslscripts.com/cys/cialis.html#5 cialis]
“wellbutrin”:http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=wellbutrin+%3CIFRAME%20src=//bestsslscripts.com/medved/wellbutrin.html%3E#6
[LINK http://www.cys.ru/forward.html?url=bestsslscripts.com/cys/cialis.html#7%5Dcialis%5B/LINK%5D
March 22, 2008 at 10:19 am
Obviously, this is a major issue, so let’s get this out of the way first. The only thing I will ever tell you about my IQ is that it’s greater than 120, and, not to be rude, but even that detail is (a) none of your business and (b) irrelevant to the debate at hand. I mention it only because it seems like that is some special qualifier that makes my opinions, in a sense, “valid,” to the self-styled elites, and even knowing that leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, which I will promptly wash down with whiskey. So warm, so sweet.
Moving on….as someone who has a lot of experience directly managing people, I have had to explain complex ideas and processes – even to people that do not have as high an IQ as mine – and I can do it WITHOUT insulting their intelligence. That’s how smart I am. IQ, by the way, is not the only way to measure intelligence. Often it’s not even a relevant measure, because it does not take social intelligence into account (yes, sorry, I just introduced another term), which is critical to leadership ability.
I’ve spoken to people with IQs greater than 160. I’ve been taught by them. I’ve lived with them. I’ve read some of their work, and when appropriate, I’ve challenged them. I don’t assess peoples’ logic or rhetorical style based on their IQ. It works the other way around.
I find that, for the most part, these people do indeed appear significantly smarter. But I am completely capable of understanding what they say. How smart can someone really be if he’s incapable of clearly articulating an argument? I am fully capable of distinguishing between high intelligence and the pretense to high intelligence.
Not to nitpick, but you said “You average/normal people are ruled by fear, and you fear that which you do not understand.” To take this apart:
a) “You fear that which you do not understand” sounds to me like another unwarranted generalization. In general, when I find something I don’t understand, I try to understand it. Argument, dialectic, and critique are also ways of understanding new ideas. Have you ever talked to a journalist? They often take an aggressive, hostile point of view in order to get their subjects to be specific about iffy claims.
b) Would it not also be true that the marginalization of “commoners” is also, to some extent, a product of fear of the masses? If so, wouldn’t it be the case that aristocrats/elites are ruled by fear? And if so, who really rules whom?
“Mockery and unwarranted assumptions:” what I’m aiming for is the very spirit of Aristotle’s “reducto ad absurdum.” But, if you insist, I will make every effort to avoid overdoing it. In the past I have written for a living and acquired certain rhetorical flourishes. Bad habits, if you will. Please understand that my writing often just takes a sarcastic tone. I’m just gonna go ahead and apologize in advance for it. If it happens again, please forgive, but if you’re keeping score, you’ll have to award me extra points for style.
Likewise, I do not demand that you avoid the condescension and arrogant tone. In all seriousness, if you need to use condescension and arrogance to make your point, then by all means, go for it. Just understand – again, in all seriousness – that I’ll know exactly what you’re doing, because I know how to spot the difference between arrogance and a logical progression of ideas. Even though I’m a commoner.
With that, on to the meat and potatoes. Here is one issue I have with your definition of “the masses / the common people / the average man” – it’s not really a problem; I just need clarification on this.
If being common or elite depends on measure of what you contribute to knowledge and culture, a man can not be called “common” or “elite” until after he is dead and the full extent of his artistic/cultural/social/scientific contributions can be itemized. Until then, even a common man is capable of contributing, and might very well do so. Likewise, until then, even an aristocrat might do something to injure society at large or even undermine his own accomplishments. Therefore, everybody living has the capacity to become common or elite, and no man living – including you and I – can properly be labeled as common or elite. Does that make sense?
Like I said, not really a problem; more of a question, really. For the sake of argument, I will accept your definition of “the masses / the common people / the average man.”
March 24, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Well said.
A few points there we have agreement on. For example, I define elite/common not by the origins of a person but by the accumulated works of PERMANENT value to the state of human culture, science, and history. Thus, any individual at all may be either elite or common. It all depends on what they accomplish, or by their inherent capacity to accomplish if they were free to live their lives according to their own designs.
But you surely can see that when we look at groups of individuals, that we tend to find accumulations of similarity. That is, in a group of ‘underperforming’ (not making as much science/art/etc..) people we are more likely to find a greater preponderance of individuals who are either not intelligent enough or otherwise uninterested in accomplishing those deeds which we both agree mainfest real FUNCTIONAL VALUE in a human life. All people, even those who are not so ‘functional’ still have an innate value as human beings, and so lack of functionality is not a justification to kill or oppress such people. But we must acknowlege the duality of reality here – People have BOTH an innate and a functional value. Those who are more functionally valuable are those I define as ELITE.
Elites, because they create/contribute things of permanent value to all of humanity, are the only people on earth who actually earn all the resources they consume in their lives. And while this is never a justification to harm the others (ALL humans have an unshakable INNATE value) it does provide a logical and ethical basis for putting those who thus earn all they take into more materially advantaged conditions SO THAT MERE MATERIAL ISSUES WILL NOT IMPEDE THEM IN THEIR FURTHER WORK. Great composers should not have to worry about working 40 hours at an office – they should be wealthy enough to be free of material concerns. Great Scientists should be free to work on their most beneficial project – not just the ones that show signs of profitability.
In addition, you and I both recognize the tremendous harm that can come to people through evil or faulty leadership and power. And yet we both understand that we must have some kind of government and control structures. Thus far, it seems as though your plan is to persist in an unshakable cynicism, and do everything possible to undercut the power of WHOMEVER may be the leader. By doing so, you hope to restrain the leaders from weilding unfettered power, and so your plan of cynicism and heckling is a defense mechanism. Please don’t get upset if I am mistaken about you here – this is what you APPEAR to operate and think like.
My view is instead of hamstringing every leader that comes along, making them either useless or retaliatory, why don’t we just use a better selection process for choosing whom we would empower? I do not beleive that every person is dangerously corruptable by power. Indeed, the reason we think so is because we only get leaders whose whole lives have been spent on a pathway of corruption, deception, and greed. When you put a politician into power, he WILL become more corrupt because that is the type of person he is. But if we were to take any random JPL/NASA scientist or random musician from the Philadelphia Orchestra, and make them our leader; I gurantee that such a person would be far more resistant to corruption and far more likely to enact policies that promote humane agendas.
To me, only the ELITE have a right to lead or even participate in a consensus because they are the only ones who have a view beyond their own immediate self-interest. Everybody else will push for whatever agenda is most materially or religiously beneficial to them. To me this is barbaric. Civilization and true leadership resides in seeing the big picture, the future outcomes, and the pathway that leads to goodness for ALL – not in the mob forming their stupid factions all fighting over their immediate material advantage. Fixing our world can be accomplished by simply taking power away from demagogues, dictators, and populists, and putting it into the hands of highly-intelligent people who are well versed in ACTUAL HUMAN ACCOMPLISHEMENTS such as arts and sciences. These people can be taught all they need to know to govern wisely, and by making sure that they spend enough time in their formative years out in the world with the people, we can establish their respect and love for the common people which they MUST have to rule wisely.
OK. Adressing your classification question about elite/common. I don’t look at it like a balance sheet. ‘Two symphonies we add to the good but we also have to subtract these other heinous acts.’ To me, just by being CAPABLE of doing ANYTHING of permanent positive functional value to humanity makes you elite. This is usually not known to all until such a deed is actually accomplished. But the person did not transform into a new creation when the deed was done. He was just as elite while he was a nobody working on the deed as he is after the work is completed. Elites are not MADE by their works, they are REVEALED by them.
In my view, almost all elites (except for those in the most horribly oppressive conditions) are almost constantly working on something that could eventually result in some great accomplishment. This work can be the most innocuous thing. In my research for poker and for the other investments I do, I have studied graduate-level mathematics and computer science texts for untold hours. For years, I appeared as that guy in the college library who looked a bit too old even to be a grad student. But my efforts have resulted in me discovering certain proprietary techniques that would have broad applications from geophysics to communications if I were to publish them. Other elites, by their own natural curiousity, are driven to do SOMETHING of value that on occasion explodes into the public arena. Curiousity is the single most effective marker of those who are elite.
And also, elites can cause damage and even be evil. But this does not negate who they are – elite. A Lion is a Lion, even if it becomes a dangerous man-eater. Under these circumstances, it is ESSENTIAL that the other elites step up to oppose an evil elite in their midst. This is the single biggest problem with the past aristocrats and monarchies – failure to suppress evil in their midst. But this is because these people were only part of the time truly elite a I define. The rest of the time they were a bunch of self-indulgent thugs pretending to possess that which they could not even comprehend.
Ok. More points…
You are not a commoner. Seeing through some of your hyperbole, I perceive ability and potential in you. I think that you are likely about half my age – and I remember my own mockery at that time – I was quite the bastard. I just have to do a better job in biting my tongue when I am talking to you. It may sound arrogant of me (again!) but I really do think you have some elite characteristics, even though I suspect that would be the LAST thing you would accept at this time.
Let’s make a test:
I just saw ‘The Fountain’ on HBO yesterday for the first time since the theatre. This film met with some horrible reviews (the masses don’t understand it) but I found it to be one of the most moving and philosophically profound works of art that I have ever seen anywhere. It is in a word, astonishing.
I suggest that you take some time and watch it when it comes on again, and then let me know what you think about it.
If you do indeed like it, I would suggest to you that this indicates both a greater comprehension of complex subjects, and a greater attraction to philosophical/abstract thought than is commonly found in the masses. If you are also moved emotionally by this film, let me suggest that this is further proof that neither you mind nor your heart operates as similary to the masses as you presume. If it did, how can you logically explain the huge disparity between their negative/boring reaction to the movie and yours?
I suspect that you will indeed like it, so if for no other reason than this, try it out.
IQ. We are not going to get into that too much because I think it would be conter-productive at this time. This is why I changed gears. Let’s just say that your >120 remark indicates to me that either you are full of shit and you are right around 110 – or that you are a hell of a lot higher than 120. 120 was a nice, innocuous number for you to pick. I suspect the latter case, and that you are some undetermined number above this. IQ is important to me because it has been the defining characteristic that has definied my life. All of the good things I have, even emotional things, have been the result of my unusually high IQ. All of the problems I have ever faced have been the result of profound differences between me and others – differences caused by the huge gulf that exists between our IQs. There is a far greater gulf between Normal people and me than exists between Normal people and Retarded people.
As you indicated, this is indeed a source of fear. Until one learns how to handle things, one does indeed fear the masses. The masses are capable of at any time bursting out into all kinds of unforseen and incomprehensible barbaric behavior. It is like living among a troup of baboons, who are usually peaceful and friendly with you. But from time to time, something will happen that will enrage all these baboons around you and whip them into doing something to others or you.
In time, I have learned that these people are just reacting to fear, either within themselves or projected from myself. And so by exhibiting more courage and leadership traits to those around me, they will both not attack me and also will follow my instructions.
This is the difference between elite and the masses. The masses NEVER outgrow their fears. Elites (once they acknowledge they ARE elite) will fear the masses, but with the application of courage will overcome these fears in time. Elites who can do this very successfully will become strong leaders, because the masses crave leadership and will follow the courageous man who cares about the people.
I have also had leadership positions both in my past church affiliations and also during the years that I managed 3 gas stations. In both cases, I had more than a dozen people under my leadership, and I have never ever insulted anybody. In my view, the leader needs to get people to voluntarily comply with his wishes, so that they will not feel oppressed by the commands. Also, the leader should protect those beneath him from BS from above. It is a two-way street. I have not been this respectful to you because I didn’t owe you the respect that I owed my employees. They worked their butts off for me every day – what have you done for me? They counted on me to keep their workplace secure and livable, without threats of firing from above or with a bunch of chickenshit/pointless work to accomplish just because the boss wants to flex nuts. These people have earned my respect. You are still a pending matter.
Anyway, I think I still should stay focused on what I am doing here – brain mining on the net. Getting rude and/or pissy will not help me much.
Have a look at ‘The Fountain’. And see if you understand where I am coming from on the elite/common classifaction.
March 28, 2008 at 7:16 am
Hi, Israelyy!
Mr. Nicol: IQ-wise, The threshold of 120 came from your prior comment:
“High Intelligence is not just an ability, it is a completely different mindset that makes those endowed think and behave in ways that often contradict societal norms – because the society is built by less-intelligent (IQ 100-120) people.”
“All of the problems I have ever faced have been the result of profound differences between me and others – differences caused by the huge gulf that exists between our IQs.” — I get this. The thing to do is to find a bunch of people with high IQs (some of them might be Socialists) and hang out with them. It does present its own special types of problems, but birds of a feather flock together, so they say.
As for this: “Let’s just say that your >120 remark indicates to me that either you are full of shit and you are right around 110 – or that you are a hell of a lot higher than 120.” — I feel like I just got an IQ test from a gas station manager. Sorry, that was wrong; I couldn’t resist.
But seriously, the thing is, there’s something that doesn’t feel right about your claims. Here’s what it is – of course, this is just idle thought-vomit on my part, and you are under no obligation to respond to it:
Among the high IQ people I have known, none of them have ever responded to an argument by mentioning their IQ. An argument can be sound or unsound, no matter what authority the source claims. Countering an argument with “But my IQ is higher than yours, therefore your claims are invalid” is just not a sound basis for policy. In fact, most high-IQ people I’ve known would not even bring up IQ in any sort of debate, unless we are debating whose IQ is higher, and what sort of braggart actually does that? The high-IQ people I’ve known just use logic, analogy, pathos, and humor to make their points. Whether the person is intelligent or not comes across by virtue of their claims, and not the other way around. Mockery, by the way, is the favorite tool of smartasses. It’s a way of saying “I have so much intelligence that I can be playful and frivolous with it. There is plenty more argument where mine came from, because I’m so smart I’m like a debate machine and I can get all the energy I need from consuming YOUR arguments” or something like that. High-IQ people don’t reject mockery; they understand the nuances of sarcasm and parody, even embracing them, and exploiting it as one of the highest expressions of free speech. Of course, I could be waaaay off; it may be that in the highest echelons of smartiness, one has to offer one’s IQ as though it’s an ID card, but that’s not my experience.
“My view is instead of hamstringing every leader that comes along, making them either useless or retaliatory, why don’t we just use a better selection process for choosing whom we would empower?” — Bingo! I also think accountability should be a factor, preventing the opportunity for a powerful elite to become evil and wipe out the other elites who would oppose him. I’m sorry if that sounds like the plot of an X-Men comic, but I used to read an awful lot of those.
What you’ve put forth sounds awfully close to tyranny. By shutting commoners out of the decision-making process, you ensure that elites remain distant, paternal, insular, beholden to themselves and no one else. In a population of 6.6 billion, is it responsible for one-tenth of that to just shut themselves off from the rest, claim the lions’ share of the resources that the masses themselves play a significant part in producing? Sure, elites may claim to espouse the highest ethics, but if the ethics originate with them, then they’re creating the standards by which they are judged, in which case all their social philosophy would be skewed against dissenting claims and standards because they have no checks and balances. In such a world, the slightest display of mockery becomes an expression of true courage.
The elites need those masses. Without their labor, there would be no society at all. How is it possible to manage them without being able to walk among them freely, unthreatened by the surging fury of the underclass, perhaps because you are one of them? And how else to motivate them, to get more labor and better labor out of them, except with the promise that with enough hard work or education or whatever it is society needs, one of the commoners can actually transcend his stratum and move into society’s elite echelons, refine himself, enjoy the fruits of prosperity and the responsibilities of leadership, and even strike down run-on sentences like this one? This mobility keeps all levels of society fresh, keeps ideas and knowledge and art and skill flowing continuously from top to bottom so that everyone has a chance to specialize and excel and contribute.
“Thus far, it seems as though your plan is to persist in an unshakable cynicism, and do everything possible to undercut the power of WHOMEVER may be the leader.” — The only way to make sure things get done is to hold people accountable. It’s a dirty job, but someone’s gotta do it, and it’s even better if it can be done with style and grace. To me, that the elites would resent this is the surest evidence of its necessity.
March 29, 2008 at 9:22 am
Hello Again.
‘I feel like I just got an IQ test from a gas station manager. Sorry, that was wrong; I couldn’t resist.’
What a deliciously old-fashioned elitist attitude; to presume that superlative intelligence correlates with a prestigious career. Social Darwinism at its mid 1890’s height. And all this from a LIBERAL who champions the brilliance and worth of every workingman? Utterly shocking…
Perhaps you would respect the words of a man with a much more distinguished career; let’s say a Clerk at the Swiss Patent Office. No, you are correct. A mere clerk could never be a genius or any kind of mind worth listening to. We should ignore Herr Einstein too for he is just a stupid as me. We need to find a truly smart person, like a Lawyer, Doctor, or even better would be an Accountant. Their mastery of Arithmetic makes my whole body positively tingle, and I am filled with awe as I imagine all those sums they tabulate each day. How do they do it?
‘But seriously, the thing is, there’s something that doesn’t feel right about your claims. Among the high IQ people I have known, none of them have ever responded to an argument by mentioning their IQ. An argument can be sound or unsound, no matter what authority the source claims. Countering an argument with “But my IQ is higher than yours, therefore your claims are invalid” is just not a sound basis for policy. In fact, most high-IQ people I’ve known would not even bring up IQ in any sort of debate, unless we are debating whose IQ is higher, and what sort of braggart actually does that?’
The basic premise of my philosophy and the new political system springing from it is:
The Common People, and Mankind in general, are best served by creating a ubiquitous respect for, and government by, superlatively intelligent people. No other people are capable of deciding public policy issues without an undue bias towards self-interest and short-term thinking, for no other people have the physical/biological structures in their very brains that enable this kind of thinking.
Unless power is wielded without an eye to self-interest, popularity/acclaim, and instant gratification in results; mankind will never follow an intelligent and humane course as a species.
Until power resides exclusively in the hands of geniuses, mankind will never be free of tyranny. The Common People are incapable of choosing rulers who will not either abuse power or make foolish/pandering decisions. Tyranny is avoided not by giving the people a voice; it is avoided by giving them a government that actually serves their interests. Giving a voice to the people harms their own interests because they (as a whole group) do not possess the intelligence to properly choose their government or monitor its behavior. Their ‘freedom’ and ‘voice’ is quickly overcome by the propaganda of those who seek to take advantage of their lack of intelligence.
If you let children choose what they will eat everyday without adult oversight they will grow up malnourished and fat. They do not possess the total view of the situation that would enable them to make wise food choices. This is the exact same thing as letting the masses govern themselves. In like manner, just because we don’t let our kids pick their own diet does not mean that we ‘hate’ them or are ‘abusing’ them by controlling them. It is for their own happiness and welfare that we control them. The exact parallel applies to rule of the masses. By their own innate characteristics (just like kids) they need oversight and control to prosper and thrive.
My ideas are centrally focused upon the nature of intelligence and the degree of variability of it among humans. Most people do not understand the enormous power found in comprehension, and so intelligence is relegated to a curiosity – not a vital and admirable force. Also, most people think that intelligence varies among humans far less than it truly does. Those among us with genius intelligence are so utterly different in their mental and emotional capacity from average people as to be almost rightly considered a totally different species. There is such a difference in their functional capacity and in their natural behavior as to validate this view.
As such, it is essential that if I am to communicate my ideas that I discuss intelligence and IQ in a frank, unabashed manner. Most of us have learned a measure of modesty about our intelligence both out of decorum and also to deflect attention away from ourselves. Highly intelligent people are often very private people who do not seek the acclaim of other people. This is often a defense mechanism so that we neither draw moronic abuse to ourselves nor become a public spectacle to people who really have no comprehension of what they are viewing.
But as I have said, I must discuss this private and often ‘rude’ subject totally openly because it lies at the very heart of the conclusions I have reached and the changes I suggest.
One of the first tasks I seek to accomplish is to have others like myself come to a clearer and thoroughly thought out assessment of themselves and also of the average people around them. Most highly intelligent people do not really evaluate this subject, and sometimes gloss-over it to such a degree that they fail to understand hugely important facts which are needed to understand if we are to hope to improve human society. They know they are ‘bright’ but fail to analyze what that actually means and all the ramifications thereof. They also fail to consider what it means if we then consider the great mass of humanity ‘not as bright’ and how this would effect world history and the proper formation of systems of government. Their focus tends to be on how they can best fit into and thrive in the society created by the others. And it is dangerous to truly plumb the depths of the issue of intelligence because it leads to logical conclusions which tend to overturn this whole structure. It also creates friction between them and the average people, who are truly fearful of visible manifestations of high-intelligence. If you think about this carefully, you can see that the average people view the full glory of a genius doing genius things much as they view a god who possesses powers they neither have nor comprehend. This causes both awe and primal fear within them. And as soon as they also discover that this ‘god’ is still totally mortal, and often far less brutal than themselves; they then proceed to pick up their ‘club’ and bash this god in the head until it stops doing these scary things – or until it goes away or dies.
And so, often because of the echoes of childhood fears and subtle societal intimidation, the highly-intelligent tend to avoid open discussion and frank appraisals of intelligence because it opens a whole can of worms whose logical outcome is a conclusion that SOCIETY IS BACKWARDS. The geniuses should lead everything, for the benefit of all; not serve as unempowered specialists/advisors (geek scientists/helpers) to those in power who are not innately equipped to know what to do for the benefit of all. The geniuses create all the new means of wielding power, and then give these very abilities to people who neither know how to invent them nor have the wisdom to use them for the benefit of all.
Other than my angry outbursts to you, I have always addressed the issue of intelligence according to these parameters. My comments about my own IQ are necessary because it is biologically impossible to truly understand these concepts without having a certain critical mass of intelligence. And so I am not seeking to brag about anything. Rather I am just indicating that I have the basic equipment that makes it possible to comprehend the subject I speak of. I know what my intelligence is and what it means. I am just validating to you the possibility that my conclusions might be right, even though you may presently think differently.
Also, is it not logical to say “Hello there. I am a genius, so could you please give my ideas a little more thought and benefit of the doubt than you would for somebody else?” Unless we are so squeamish and prudish about intelligence, what is the harm in that? If Michael Jordan tells you something about basketball, do you not give his ideas more credence because he is a basketball genius? Even if they are ‘controversial’ ideas? Would it be ‘immodest’ of him to point out that you might want to listen to him because of his unique and superlative abilities? Is it in any way demeaning to you for him to do so?
I am a genius, by any standard that term is defined, past or present. My IQ is far above any of the numbers we have so far mentioned. And I hope, quite honestly, that you are also a genius. When I tell you these things, it does not mean “I am the Lord Infallible, for my IQ is so high” nor do I want you to feel inferior and just shut up and believe me. I could be wrong, and have been so many times before. But what I do want is for you to give my ideas additional consideration because they spring from a source that is capable of creating truly good ideas far more often than most. It is a matter of simple probability. It is just far more probable that a weird idea from me will, upon further review, be found to have merit that those weird ideas emanating from others.
As for whether you believe me or not, it is of no consequence to me. I hope to find others like myself who can join me in constructive dialog. If you are not one of them, I will regret this loss but certainly it won’t affect my self-image one iota. I am seeking a community of peers, not cheering fans to boost my ego.
Regarding mockery; I love it if it is truly apropos. Monty Python & The Holy Grail is a classic. My nature is one that tends to biting sly sarcasm. But I have felt that your use of it before was becoming tedious by overshadowing the actual communication factor in our debate and just created an unprofitably hostile climate. Also, you tended to automatically lump me into groups of creeps who say and believe things that I do not. And so your mockery of them was just wasting time and showing how little you understood me. You are so taken with your own wit, that you often don’t LISTEN and simply just look for an opportunity to make a smartass comment – even if it actually is a non sequitur.
You must decide: Do you want to have a discussion, or do you want to find a target for your scorn.
“My view is instead of hamstringing every leader that comes along, making them either useless or retaliatory, why don’t we just use a better selection process for choosing whom we would empower?” — Bingo! I also think accountability should be a factor, preventing the opportunity for a powerful elite to become evil and wipe out the other elites who would oppose him. I’m sorry if that sounds like the plot of an X-Men comic, but I used to read an awful lot of those.
I am glad we have agreement here. I am constructing a new form of government that does precisely what you indicate. We must make it very hard, almost impossible, for one of the ruling elite to get out of line and harm the people. My new government has safeguards that prevent any one leader from ever amassing enough power as to become a threat. Also, the leaders serve for a randomly-decided, completely unknown duration. Every six months, some of these leaders will be randomly retired and others will have their job responsibilities shifted. Hand-picking successors become impossible. Dynasties become impossible. Hereditary succession is impossible. Murder as a tool of political ascendancy becomes impossible. I have details for all of this we can discuss at another time.
‘What you’ve put forth sounds awfully close to tyranny. By shutting commoners out of the decision-making process, you ensure that elites remain distant, paternal, insular, beholden to themselves and no one else.’
Let us review: Tyranny exists when the government does not serve the interests of the people. It is not dependant upon whether they participate in the government or not. The outcome determines tyranny, not the process.
The people, by contributing in their own government, always cause tyranny to befall themselves. Popular participation in government never prevents tyranny. Just because tyranny can also exist without their participation does nothing to change the equation. In those instances where democracy exists and tyranny is not overwhelmingly visible, it is only because those who secretly hold all the power are to a great extent using this power for the common good. And the greater the influence of the people, that harder it is for these ‘good tyrants’ to hold sway over the desires of demagogues who would use the mass stupidity to empower their more menacing degree of tyranny.
‘In a population of 6.6 billion, is it responsible for one-tenth of that to just shut themselves off from the rest, claim the lions’ share of the resources that the masses themselves play a significant part in producing?’
This depends upon whether you consider your brain to be a parasite in your body or whether it is the ‘god’ of your body. Physical force and capacity to work is utterly useless without an organizing, directing, and leading force to make this all work together for a worthwhile aim. Therefore, who really ‘produced’ these resources? The labor is useless without the leadership. The leadership is useless without the labor. You need to stop thinking of the brain a a parasite – it is actually a symbiotic partner to the brawn.
Also, this example above reflects a class system which is closer to the current situation than it applies to my proposals. In my government, those who rule do not live in opulance, nor are there very many of them. In fact, my government prohibits the accumulation of material wealth beyond a standard, constitutionally-mandated level of basic abundance and security for all its members. Wealthy in a kind of bland and austere manner, like a monk who has perhaps $500,000 – $1,000,000 in assets to last him his whole life without any means of earning more is what I envision. And, they cannot violate these principles once they leave office. And, there are fewer than 1,000 people worldwide who would ever receive such support at one time.
And your theme of an insular leadership is not accurate either. My view of leadership is one of a battlefield general leading his troops from the front. Not some wuss ‘commander’ miles behind the lines, totally oblivious to the realities of the battle and the condition of the men under his command. Shared struggle and shared glory, but with totally different jobs to do and stations in life. Symbiosis.
‘Sure, elites may claim to espouse the highest ethics, but if the ethics originate with them, then they’re creating the standards by which they are judged, in which case all their social philosophy would be skewed against dissenting claims and standards because they have no checks and balances.’
Elites are the only people who can possibly construct moral codes of any kind. Excluding the masses from this process would not diminish the diversity of thought about proper ethics. The elites are full of people from every corner of the ethical spectrum because these are the only origins of every such mode of thought now and into the past. The masses have never created any philosophy or ethical perspective. So as for checks and balances, these are in no way diminished by excluding the masses.
Believe me, in a world where the masses are silent, there will still be plenty of people like you and me who would loudly protest anybody’s plan to run roughshod over their rights and their humanity. Would you just shut up because your own self-interest would better be served by staying mum? Of course not! And so why do you imagine the elites as being so monolithical in thought? A Jefferson would be there to argue for the rights of even the lowest of men.
Also, you are forgetting who the elite truly are. They are not the RICH! They are scientists and artists, and highly intelligent people of all kinds. These people are far more likely to care about overstepping their bounds than even the common man. The truly elite would be hard pressed to find a majority of their number who sought advantage by persecution just because they could get away with it.
Remember our definition of ELITE, and try to disconnect this word from Plutocracy which I do not support. It is causing you to mix your arguments up a bit.
‘ In such a world, the slightest display of mockery becomes an expression of true courage.’
Actually, I bet the truly elite all really like Monty Python. At least most of us do…
‘The elites need those masses. Without their labor, there would be no society at all.’
As I have indicated, the proper relationship between the leadership and the masses is symbiosis. Just like the Brain and the Brawn. This can be accomplished if each contributes their unique abilities so that they may reach their combined goal. Prosperity and peace is this goal. The biceps has no business yelling at the brain saying ‘that lazy bastard never does any work’ and the brain has no business using the biceps on any tasks that don’t benefit the whole body.
‘ How is it possible to manage them without being able to walk among them freely, unthreatened by the surging fury of the underclass, perhaps because you are one of them?’
If you were led by a man who made changes in your nation that helped everybody become more prosperous, and made you feel the country was improving and your lives were becoming better; would you still have this ‘surging fury’? I doubt it. Most people would admire or adore this good leader. Remember that the point of government is to organize everybody so that we ALL move forward. As long as the leader is doing his job, whence cometh the anger?
If you put a genius in charge, he will execute plans that others have not done (because they aren’t as smart). This will cause REAL IMPROVEMENT for the nation and its people. This is all the people want. They want to see that the rulers care about them and are using their exalted position to get things done to help their lives.
‘And how else to motivate them, to get more labor and better labor out of them, except with the promise that with enough hard work or education or whatever it is society needs, one of the commoners can actually transcend his stratum and move into society’s elite echelons, refine himself, enjoy the fruits of prosperity and the responsibilities of leadership, and even strike down run-on sentences like this one? This mobility keeps all levels of society fresh, keeps ideas and knowledge and art and skill flowing continuously from top to bottom so that everyone has a chance to specialize and excel and contribute.’
OK remember the definition of elite. With my definition, ANYBODY can be elite by either 1) doing something that only an elite does (art/science) or 2) showing that their intelligence is high enough to enable them to do such things if they had the time/money. There is no exclusion of the poor just because they are poor. If you got the goods, you are welcome to the top. There is no value in excluding anybody who has anything valid to contribute.
Also, you should understand that the rule of the elite would improve the lot of people without working them harder because:
1) Their labors will not go in such a high proportion to the gluttony of the rich
2) They will be led more efficiently, so that less redundancy occurs, creating better surpluses for all to draw from.
“Thus far, it seems as though your plan is to persist in an unshakable cynicism, and do everything possible to undercut the power of WHOMEVER may be the leader.” — The only way to make sure things get done is to hold people accountable. It’s a dirty job, but someone’s gotta do it, and it’s even better if it can be done with style and grace. To me, that the elites would resent this is the surest evidence of its necessity.’
1) The elites don’t resent this. You are once again confusing terms. Plutocrats are not elites.
2) The problem here is not one of resentment, but of inefficiency. Let us suppose that the world were a blank slate and you and I and some others got together to decide how the government would work. Let us suppose that we all unanimously agreed on a basic form, and we also agreed on who should hold what particular offices and wield what powers.
In this situation, of what value is it if you then say
‘Ok the government looks fair and workable. But I am going to impede and undercut the power of the leaders with my constant cynical badgering’.
Everybody else would say ‘What for?’
You reply ‘because they hold power and they need to be undercut’.
‘But we just put these people into power to protect everybody. Why do you want to undercut them?’
‘Well they have power, so they could harm the people’
‘But you yourself just empowered these leaders! We have to empower the leaders or they cannot do their job to protect the people!’
‘But they hold power so they must be undercut…’
I hope you won’t take offense here, but this is what you seem like. Don’t you see that if we simply put the RIGHT PEOPLE into power that you don’t need to undercut anything, and that doing so is counterproductive and stupid?
Instead of constantly throwing spit-wads at the dumb/evil king, why don’t we just pick a better king who would work for our interests? And if we pick this better king, what’s with you continuing with the spit-wads? What’s the point? Are you fighting the Good Fight – or just fighting for the sake of fighting?
OK.
Enjoy the weekend and check out ‘The Fountain’ when you can.
March 30, 2008 at 12:04 am
Well-reasoned and well-done, sir! I think we are finally in 100% agreement here. I would, however, like to raise one more point:
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
How’s your weekend going?
March 30, 2008 at 8:06 am
To elaborate:
One thing I find interesting is that the type of elite you value — the musician, the scientist — this man has absolutely no desire whatsoever to govern anyone. What does the scientist want more than anything? To discover the absolute Truth of Everything! What does the musician (or any artist) want above all else? To discover the absolute Beauty of Everything! What does that mean? What are Truth and Beauty? Who knows? What matters most of all is that these men of learning, artist, scientist, and visionary, who are “of imagination all compact” (Theseus, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, final act, first scene, I think) undertake the journey and enlighten us all! Only with the rise of the the politician – the sophist par excellence, do we begin to see the sort of specious self-indulgence in which I have undertaken.
Nietzsche: The “virtues belonging among non-equals, devised by the superior, the individual; they are the virtues of bearing the sense: ‘I am sufficiently powerful to put up with a palpable loss, this is a proof of my power. ” Later on: “What are my parasites to me? May they live and prosper: I am strong enough for that!'” The mark of a strong society!
There is more in the passage therein that may well invoke more debate among us – you of genius intellect, and I of substandard analytical capacity – but let us agree on his point, at least until all my gin (forgive me, it was delicious; so sweet, and so cold*) runs its course.
I will go check out ‘The Fountain,’ but not any time soon; where I live now, I have no TV and the nearest rental place is a hike away.
*I’m kind of a literary bastard. Check out William Carlos Williams, if you don’t recognize the reference.
The Interpretation of Dreams 
March 13, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Virtually all of your ‘facts’ and opinions are false. They are simply the standard mantra of Socialist Propaganda.
The world is finite. You seem to imagine that we live on a magically infinite planet that never runs out of food, water, or energy no matter how many people it has to support.
We are presently running out of all of these things. Scarcity is the result of a finite supply – it is not artificial.
The reason why half of the world’s people live on under $2 per day is simply that we do not have enough resources to support 6.6+ Billion people above 3rd World poverty levels. It is not ‘inefficiency’, which is just a code-word for a non-socialist wealth distribution. Even if we were to equally spread around everything, perfectly ‘efficiently’, all this would do is plunge the whole of humanity into poverty. Yes, even taking away all the Millionaires’ and Billionaires’ money and spreading it around to all would still not be enough. There are SO many people on this planet that even these assets would spread out into nothingness when forced to expand to cover all the many billions of us who live here. Even a Trillion dollars, shared evenly, would only add up to <$200 per person. Think about it.
You fail to understand the magnitude of the problem we face. There are unimaginably huge hoardes of destitute people all over our world – people who have zero chance of a decent life because the Earth has natural limits on its ability to provide resources. World Grain Production per person has been declining since the mid 1980’s, as has World Irrigated Area per person. Aquifers, lakes, and rivers all over the globe are dying up (look at the Aral Sea and Lake Chad). Oil production has peaked and is declining in America since 1971, and in the North Sea since 1999. The middle east is approaching its peak, and should reach it within 5 years. When this happens, oil production will decline FOREVER. Because modern agriculture is very energy-intensive, world food production will decline as well. Permanent famine. And also permanent war to secure dwindling oil supplies.
And no, solar cells, windmills, and ethanol won’t solve this problem. Oil energy ALONE does 300 man-hours of labor for every person on this planet EVERY DAY. No other source of energy comes close. The only long term answer that has the potential to provide this much energy is Nuclear Fusion, but we are decades away from achieving that.
Too many people consuming too much stuff too quickly – that is the problem. The common solution to all the world’s problems is population reduction to sustainable levels. It is also the only hope for our environment. All true environmentalists must support human population reduction, for there is no way that nature can survive for long with so many of us on her back. And Global Climate Change? How does reducing carbon emissions (per person) help us if we keep making extra people? Like going up the down escalator – we never actually get anywhere. The only way to safeguard our climate is to reduce our population.
There are 200,000 more people born each day than die. That is a whole New York City worth of people every couple of months or so. How can we possibly feed, house, and provide energy for a whole new mega-city every 2 months; and do it again and again and again? And even if we could, why would we want to do so? This would consume all of mankind’s labor – just keeping up with our new numbers. Don’t we have higher goals for our species than just feeding and housing billions and billions of our kind? Isn’t that what a virus worries about – expansion only? Shall we exist as noble beings, or as vermin?
None of this should be misconstrued like you Socialists do. I am not advocating murder, genocide, eugenics, euthenasia, etc. We can simply start to govern ourselves as a noble species instead of as undisiciplined animals who cannot control their breeding. Leadership is the key, and financial incentives can be established that benefit those who underbreed. If we put wise people into the leadership instead of charismatic demagogues, real solutions would follow. But with you socialists constantly beating the drum of class-war, and with conservatives spewing their usual farcicle crap; the quiet voice of wisdom goes unheard in such an environment of moronic noise.
Human rights and freedom are progessively eroded as population increases, because of increasing competition for resources and increased needs for government to more closely control the population. If you really cared about the common people, you would support population control/reduction because it is the only long-term course of action that actually benefits them. High population benefits CAPITALISTS, because land values go up, wages go down, and prices for goods & services go up.
But we know the truth. Socialists only pretend to help the people. Their power is derived from a large mass of greatly-suffering people. They will neither reduce the size of the masses nor remove their suffering; for this would undercut their own power. At least the capitalists are honest about their intentions to use the people.
If you care about the people, learn to transcend your own faction’s propaganda. It truly owns you.