Geniocracy

One has to be incredibly intelligent, quick witted, an inspirational orator, a keen negotiator and an effective used car salesman to gain office in a democracy. What I do want to highlight is that the most intelligent are not necessarily the greatest leaders " and that is what one wants in Government, and indeed the highest offices. With such a relatively tiny proportion of the population eligible to gain office there is a very real chance that the most effective leaders would not be "clever" enough to be eligible compared to those that excel via purely intellectual pursuits. James Buchanan, considered by many historians to be one of the worst US presidents graduated with honours, and was a member of the bar. In his time and place he would have been in the small minority of individuals that had obtained such distinguished qualifications. This is a clear example of why education and intellect alone does not give any guarantee of the quality of leadership in the highest office. Contention Two: Those who are intelligent ought to have more power in decisions. As my opponent has mentioned, education is a good indicator of intelligence. One would expect those members of society that had the resources for the best education; both primary, secondary and tertiary would graduate to become part of the ruling class or voting classes in a geniocracy. Those individuals that due to resources or geographical isolation do not have the same opportunities afforded to them would find it much more difficult to attain voting rights. To ensure an equitable society so that everyone can reach their full intelligence potential, such a country would have to supply a full free education to every citizen so they are not unduly disadvantaged by this arbitrary measure. Unfortunately as these measures are relative, even as the population and individuals grew in intelligence you would still not be guaranteed a seat on the bus as everyone is rising along with you. Women also may be unfairly represented as they take time from study to pursue raising a family as their primary goal. But from a purely practical sense, will these decisions be any better under a Geniocracy? The electable officials are still totally dependent on votes from a population whose rated intelligence is at least only ten percent greater than the mean " this will not eventuate in any kind of enlightened result. If they value their office, and had any political sensitivity they may well still pander to this electorate to ensure tenure at the next election. So the question remains, is it "good" to depriving the vast majority of the population"s democratic rights, not because they are totally mentally incompetent, but just because they are only mildly less intellectual than their next door neighbour? I suggest not. Contention Three: It is logical to allow those who are more intelligent to have more power in governmental policies. The concept of affirmative action is hotly contested as some see it as giving individuals an unjust head start just because they are from a minority or disadvantaged group. Geniocracy can be akin to affirmative action on steroids as it gives the most gifted of the population an advantage, when really they should not require any help at all if they are so darn clever. If you are a group of highly intelligent individuals that wish to make positive change in a nation you should already be equipped to formulate solutions, sell them to the voting public (intellectuals and imbeciles alike) and then implement them. If you are unable to do this in the current framework and succeed, blessed with all of your intellect, one has to wonder why you would be any more likely to be successful when given an affirmative action meal ticket to do so. Those that are more intelligent already have more power in government policies and they do this by using their intelligence by lobbying and having input into government policies. It is dumbfounding that the most gifted believe that they need a legislative hand out to make the most positive impact rather than relying on their superior intellect to subdue the morons. Taking my opponents summary, with a slight twist" P1: Majority doesn't want a specific change P2: This specific change would benefit society C1: Majority does believe it will benefit society, mostly due to lack of understanding, intelligence, or conflict of interests. C2: Change would be good, so we must use our superior intellect to attain office, educate, persuade, negotiate and legislate for positive change. Rebuttals of the rebuttals". A number of my opponent"s rebuttals have dismissed one of my main contentions off hand, so I think it is worth repeating. Geniocracy "in theory" involves the removal of the right to self-determination of not just the mentally incapacitated, but of all those citizens with average intellects, and affords most of their electoral muscle to a sample size only marginally more intelligent than the mean. No matter what the good intentions or the justifications of the cleverest ones have for the betterment of society this denial of rights will ultimately be the downfall of this government structure. This can be seen in the south of the United States, it can be seen during the French Revolution and every popular uprising where the government was not representative of the people. Not only is geniocracy unproven in practice, but this type of selective system has proven not to work. If a theory cannot be successfully executed it is not a good theory. ". .. geniocracy appears to favour potential intelligence, rather than acquired knowledge. .. " "How exactly is that a bad thing? " Knowledge and experience are often more valuable than potential. I would much rather be in a plane with a pilot with 10000 hours under his belt than with a gun rookie who is great on the flight simulator. "but tests would be given by the government itself, so it would not have to be paid for by the people receiving these tests" The argument was not related to the costs of taking the test itself, but the even larger cost of a lifetime of education to ensure that individuals were able to obtain and maintain their standing amongst the chosen few. . "The rich would vote their way, the poor/middle class their own. In the end I believe that the poor/middle classes would offset the rich class and would pass progressive reforms on taxes, but who knows. " In a geniocracy where there is such an emphasis on the intelligence of individuals, the "test" would likely become a litmus test of all job interviews, government placements and the like and as a result the intelligent will become the wealthy class and there will be a huge lower class that does not have a political voice. . " Their perspectives can't be wrong, since opinions cannot be wrong or right", If perspectives or opinions cannot be right or wrong, (or more or less beneficial) why do we need highly intelligent individuals to differentiate between the two? "Are you implying that it is better to have those with low intelligences to hold office? That's a bold claim". My claim is that we want the most politically astute individuals in office. There is no point having a rocket scientist in government aiming to increase NASA funding if he or she is incapable of passing the required funding. Such individuals would lead more productive lives in their chosen field than being caught up in a government bureaucracy. Politician"s skills should extend past making the best decision but also having the ability to get them enacted into law. Sources: "Geniocracy. " Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n. d. Web. 29 Dec. 2014. . http://rationalwiki.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...