Geniocracy

I'm going to start by presenting my own constructive case, then going on to refute some of what my opponent has said in their case. -----Contention One: Our greatest leaders have had high intelligence. By looking at examples of James Madison, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, we can conclude that our best leaders have had high intelligence, while looking at examples of Andrew Johnson, (George W. Bush), Woodrow Wilson and Warren Harding, we can see that the worst of our presidents have been those that are not gifted with high intellect. As a nation, we want to excel in the role of being the world's greatest superpower, but if we have someone that is not qualified for the position of being a leader, then we are not doing what is best in the name of the nation. We have had one of our best presidents, Woodrow Wilson, come to the Presidency with a PhD, while we have had one of our worst, Andrew Johnson, had absolutely none. I am not saying that education is directly associated with higher education, but I believe that it is a good indicator of it. Contention Two: Those who are intelligent ought to have more power in decisions. This is a pretty simple point, but it's so monumentally important that I believe that it deserves its own contention. We should not have the public, who is not informed on matters of international fishing laws, vote on something that directly pertains to fishing laws. In response to this, I believe that my opponent would say something along the lines of "well, the intelligent people won't either", and that's only a little bit true. Having intelligence would mean that you are more inclined to study and care and wonder about the things that are going on around you, so I would counter with the fact that more intelligent people would have higher incidences of being informed on these kinds of policies. (And this point isn't just about international voting laws, it could really be about anything). Contention Three: It is logical to allow those who are more intelligent to have more power in governmental policies. P1: Majority doesn't want a specific changeP2: This specific change would benefit societyC1: Majority does not want to benefit society, mostly due to lack of understanding, intelligence, or conflict of interests. C2: Change would be good, so we must break the majority's opinion by allowing those who are intelligent to enact this change. -----Rebuttals:"The system is a completely unproven one in practice"True, but at one point in history, democracy was an unproven system, which you are advocating for. Just because it is not proven in practice does not mean that it, in theory, does not work. ". .. geniocracy appears to favour potential intelligence, rather than acquired knowledge. .. "How exactly is that a bad thing? "Rael, the leader of the International Raelian Movement who first proposed this system of government appears not to have had a thorough understanding of human history. If he had he may have seen that transitioning an alien system of government upon another race of humanoids would have dire consequences. "This argument against Geniocracy isn't valid. Just because the person who introduced it is not well versed in history does not mean that his ideas and teachings are invalid. You say that it would have dire consequences, yet this is not a debate on whether the execution of geniocracy is a good one, but rather if it is good in theory. ". .. a variety of different measures have been used to determine the "value" of individual"s contribution or worth such as [and then a list of measures]. .. "I'm not saying that those measures were good, at all, but I'm saying that letting those who are intelligent have more power in government than those who are not is a good political system and would lead to good things. " It can become quite hazardous to the health of the ruling class and has been known to cause an onset of acute - though not long lasting - neck pain"Errr, what? This isn't an argument that is against the theory of geniocracy. .. or anything even relating to the theory of geniocracy. That's more about execution, which we are not debating, so that is not valid. "When one considers that outcomes from any such intelligence or personality tests will be heavily influenced by the education attained, the cultural background and the socio-economic standing of individuals there is a significant potential for highly intelligent people to be omitted from "selection""Thanks for bringing up this point. As you said earlier, the theory of Geniocracy relies more on the ability to acquire knowledge, as opposed to knowledge that has been obtained. You say that intelligence tests rely on the socio-economic standing of individuals, but tests would be given by the government itself, so it would not have to be paid for by the people receiving these tests. In modern culture, this may be true, but if geniocracy was to appear in the U. S. , then it would no longer be that way. "Just like we see today, the wealthy (let"s assume they are intelligent) do not like to vote for someone that is going to raise progressive taxes. In a geniocratic society where so much value is placed on intelligence, those same people will have potentially a lot more to lose personally if policies were put forward that would limit their social or economic standing. "People already, in a mostly democratic society, vote against policies that would hurt their social or economic standing. You cannot say that all of the rich people of the world are intelligent (just look at Alfonse Capone! ), because that is not the case. 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. "Highly intelligent individuals currently operate in governments that span the entire political spectrum of views, be they conservative or liberal. Removing the less intelligent amongst them will still leave a wide range of leanings that will be potentially even more difficult to bridge through consensus as the respective sides will be even more abstinent in their views. Each one is a state verified genius, voted into office by thousands of intelligent individuals, how could their perspectives be possibly wrong? "Yes, it would still leave a wide range of opinions that would differ widely, but you can expect to see that in any sample group. I don't believe that you are correct in saying that these views would be more difficult to bridge, since having fewer people in the sample size would be much easier to bridge the differing opinions than having 316,000,000 people with differing opinions. Their perspectives can't be wrong, since opinions cannot be wrong or right, but I believe that the intelligent have a moral obligation to vote in the way that would benefit society, as opposed to themselves. "Finally do we really want all the most intelligent people wasting their gifts within the halls of government where the political process stymies their productivity and contribution to society"Political offices are the best way to contribute to society and local communities. Are you implying that it is better to have those with low intelligences to hold office? That's a bold claim. "I will leave the last word in the round to a genius that one would expect to be on "the list""We're not judging people's intelligence by their ability to run laps around the state capitol, we're just making sure that they are informed enough to make good decisions that would positively impact themselves and society. I'd also like to point out the lack of sources on my opponent's end, although this is a very hard subject to source. -----Sources:"Brainz. " The 15 Smartest and Dumbest Presidents of the United States. N. p. , n. d. Web. 29 Dec. 2014. "America's Most Wanted: The Hunt For Al Capone. " NPR. NPR, n. d. Web. 29 Dec. 2014. "Geniocracy. " Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n. d. Web. 29 Dec. 2014.