Imagine a country where only rich males of a specific race are allowed to vote. Then imagine those votes could be accepted or discarded at a whim by people who form some sort of elective assembly. It really sounds more like an aristocracy than a democracy. Yet it is exactly how the US was designed when it was founded.
Contrary to popular belief, not one person in his right mind at the end of the 18th century thought it was a wise idea to allow every single person's opinion to equally matter. Today, we are beginning to see why.
Back when they were founded, the only citizens of the USA who were allowed to vote were white male landowners. And even when they voted, the "nobles" of the electoral college had the prerogative to accept their opinion or ignore it entirely and vote for another candidate. It was actually an ingeniously designed system. Why? Let's take it apart piece by piece.
First, let's talk about the most important parameter, and that is land ownership. Yes, times have changed so now you can be pretty rich without owning any land at all, so let's assume a more liberal version of the idea which would be to have a decent amount of wealth at hand. This is actually quite a reasonable heuristic to separate smart people from idiots. Smart people will have money. They'll know how to make it, how to keep it, and what to do with it. Idiots won't, and that's why they're poor. Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule, but this heuristic will eliminate from the voting process most people whose votes will likely be as irrational as their personal decisions are. Because, really, if you can't take care of your own personal budget, your opinion shouldn't be considered at all in a much more complicated issue of how to take care of a national budget.
Second is the race limitation. While this heuristic may be less accurate than the one based on wealth when it comes to making intelligent decisions, its goals are somewhat different as well. It's basically a crude way to secure that a country created by a group of people continues to be ruled by those same people.
Finally, we have the sex limitation. This is really an issue that could be done away with, although it was the last one to be removed. Even though average woman's preferences of a presidential candidate are pretty much completely based on how the guy looks, I believe the former two limitations would filter out stupid women and leave only the ones who are capable of making a more or less rational decision. Even if you think an average female is less rational than an average male, the fact that they make up a minority of rich people will likely be pretty good at canceling that effect. Smart rational women are rare beings, almost like mythical unicorns, but on a rare occasion, they do happen to be born.
So when we look at what made America great, it's really not democracy in the current sense. Its original version of democracy was a much more elitist and aristocratic system, one where welfare queens would be unimaginable and spiraling public debt would be seen for what it is - a fast track to national ruin. Even then, the US really didn't do that much better than monarchies of the Old World. Most of its relative growth came from the fact that it had huge areas of empty fertile land, and the fact that European countries pretty much destroyed each other in two world wars. Those fertile lands were kept American by immigration quotas, through which population structure and rate of immigration could be maintained at optimal levels. If it were founded as it is designed now, where third world diversity is welcomed with open hands and where every idiot's opinion is not just accepted but revered in direct correlation with its lunacy, it is unlikely it would survive turn of the 19th century.
Contrary to popular belief, not one person in his right mind at the end of the 18th century thought it was a wise idea to allow every single person's opinion to equally matter. Today, we are beginning to see why.
Back when they were founded, the only citizens of the USA who were allowed to vote were white male landowners. And even when they voted, the "nobles" of the electoral college had the prerogative to accept their opinion or ignore it entirely and vote for another candidate. It was actually an ingeniously designed system. Why? Let's take it apart piece by piece.
First, let's talk about the most important parameter, and that is land ownership. Yes, times have changed so now you can be pretty rich without owning any land at all, so let's assume a more liberal version of the idea which would be to have a decent amount of wealth at hand. This is actually quite a reasonable heuristic to separate smart people from idiots. Smart people will have money. They'll know how to make it, how to keep it, and what to do with it. Idiots won't, and that's why they're poor. Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule, but this heuristic will eliminate from the voting process most people whose votes will likely be as irrational as their personal decisions are. Because, really, if you can't take care of your own personal budget, your opinion shouldn't be considered at all in a much more complicated issue of how to take care of a national budget.
Second is the race limitation. While this heuristic may be less accurate than the one based on wealth when it comes to making intelligent decisions, its goals are somewhat different as well. It's basically a crude way to secure that a country created by a group of people continues to be ruled by those same people.
Finally, we have the sex limitation. This is really an issue that could be done away with, although it was the last one to be removed. Even though average woman's preferences of a presidential candidate are pretty much completely based on how the guy looks, I believe the former two limitations would filter out stupid women and leave only the ones who are capable of making a more or less rational decision. Even if you think an average female is less rational than an average male, the fact that they make up a minority of rich people will likely be pretty good at canceling that effect. Smart rational women are rare beings, almost like mythical unicorns, but on a rare occasion, they do happen to be born.
So when we look at what made America great, it's really not democracy in the current sense. Its original version of democracy was a much more elitist and aristocratic system, one where welfare queens would be unimaginable and spiraling public debt would be seen for what it is - a fast track to national ruin. Even then, the US really didn't do that much better than monarchies of the Old World. Most of its relative growth came from the fact that it had huge areas of empty fertile land, and the fact that European countries pretty much destroyed each other in two world wars. Those fertile lands were kept American by immigration quotas, through which population structure and rate of immigration could be maintained at optimal levels. If it were founded as it is designed now, where third world diversity is welcomed with open hands and where every idiot's opinion is not just accepted but revered in direct correlation with its lunacy, it is unlikely it would survive turn of the 19th century.
No comments:
Post a Comment