![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jun. 18th, 2007 10:41 amReading this rather effectively raised my blood pressure this morning:
More educated people think more like economists; in fact, more educated people pretty much have more reasonable views across the board. Furthermore, by a happy coincidence, more educated people are more likely to vote. Once my book gets to policy implications, these facts inspire a number of shocking suggestions:
* Stop trying to “get out the vote” - higher turnout reduces voters’ average competence.
* Give college grads extra votes, as Britain did until 1949.
* Require would-be voters to pass a test of economic literacy.
To which Sadly, No! replies:
When he says that voters should be “economically literate,” of course, he means that they should be literate in the economic ideas that he finds valuable. Ignorant populist filth such as Robert Reich and Joe Stiglitz need not apply.
[...]
Does this sort of thinking make me uncontrollably angry? Yes it most certainly does. I’ve done my share of ranting and raving about how gobshite stupid many American voters are, but never in my life have I ever considered a solution that would involve disenfranchising people based on their lack of education. I mean, my God. That an alleged “libertarian” economist would advocate depriving uneducated people of their ability to have a say in how their government operates is disgusting and repugnant beyond all belief. The sort of “freedom” that Caplan advocates is the freedom for educated upper-class and upper-middle-class people to make decisions on behalf of the uneducated poor who, alas, are simply too stupid to know where their interests really lie.
As an educated person who has taken economics and accounting classes in the past, this sort of idea should actually appeal to me; after all, I would stand to benefit from it, and I would have tremendous sway in voting for policies that would make me very wealthy at the expense of others. But because I have this pesky little thing called a “conscience,” I don’t think I could go for it. Others, most notably “libertarian” economists such as Caplan, don’t have that problem. But as my homey Max says, “THEY TEACH THE CHILDREN OF VIRGINIA.” God help us all.
But you really must read some of the comments on the original post:
Why not a plutocracy? Wealth is correlated with IQ. and wealthy have an interest in raising the country’s wealth.
and:
Our Founding Fathers would be appalled to see a marginal to functionally illiterate person entering the voting booth. A viable democracy may not even be possible if the ignorant can cancel out the vote of a more educated individual. And no, I am not advocating elitism.
One of my favorite comments in response on Sadly, No!:
#
Jake H. said,
Isn’t this book ultimately against VOTING entirely? If you’re going to pre-select the electorate to support a certain set of policies, why go to the trouble and expense of elections? Just implement the policies and tell everyone to be quiet. And run for cover when V bombs Parliament.
Although this one summed it up slightly better:
#
cleek said,
the fucker’s a cockhair away from advocating eugenics.
More educated people think more like economists; in fact, more educated people pretty much have more reasonable views across the board. Furthermore, by a happy coincidence, more educated people are more likely to vote. Once my book gets to policy implications, these facts inspire a number of shocking suggestions:
* Stop trying to “get out the vote” - higher turnout reduces voters’ average competence.
* Give college grads extra votes, as Britain did until 1949.
* Require would-be voters to pass a test of economic literacy.
To which Sadly, No! replies:
When he says that voters should be “economically literate,” of course, he means that they should be literate in the economic ideas that he finds valuable. Ignorant populist filth such as Robert Reich and Joe Stiglitz need not apply.
[...]
Does this sort of thinking make me uncontrollably angry? Yes it most certainly does. I’ve done my share of ranting and raving about how gobshite stupid many American voters are, but never in my life have I ever considered a solution that would involve disenfranchising people based on their lack of education. I mean, my God. That an alleged “libertarian” economist would advocate depriving uneducated people of their ability to have a say in how their government operates is disgusting and repugnant beyond all belief. The sort of “freedom” that Caplan advocates is the freedom for educated upper-class and upper-middle-class people to make decisions on behalf of the uneducated poor who, alas, are simply too stupid to know where their interests really lie.
As an educated person who has taken economics and accounting classes in the past, this sort of idea should actually appeal to me; after all, I would stand to benefit from it, and I would have tremendous sway in voting for policies that would make me very wealthy at the expense of others. But because I have this pesky little thing called a “conscience,” I don’t think I could go for it. Others, most notably “libertarian” economists such as Caplan, don’t have that problem. But as my homey Max says, “THEY TEACH THE CHILDREN OF VIRGINIA.” God help us all.
But you really must read some of the comments on the original post:
Why not a plutocracy? Wealth is correlated with IQ. and wealthy have an interest in raising the country’s wealth.
and:
Our Founding Fathers would be appalled to see a marginal to functionally illiterate person entering the voting booth. A viable democracy may not even be possible if the ignorant can cancel out the vote of a more educated individual. And no, I am not advocating elitism.
One of my favorite comments in response on Sadly, No!:
#
Jake H. said,
Isn’t this book ultimately against VOTING entirely? If you’re going to pre-select the electorate to support a certain set of policies, why go to the trouble and expense of elections? Just implement the policies and tell everyone to be quiet. And run for cover when V bombs Parliament.
Although this one summed it up slightly better:
#
cleek said,
the fucker’s a cockhair away from advocating eugenics.
