Re: Re: Heinlein's Homo Novis

July 24, 2005

In a message dated 7/24/2005 7:28:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

Hm. Perhaps you'd like the Raelians' suggestion to only allow those who have over a certain IQ the right to vote? ;-)

Actually Heinlein addressed the IQ issue in Starship troopers. In the history of that world, the earth faced a time of great crisis and many governments collapsed. One of the first to be tried was one lead by scientists and other high IQ people. The problem with that was that they never managed to get anything done but just endlessly debated and fought over their pet theories.

That was when the soldiers took over and set up the federal service system. He didn't go into much detail, like giving a full constitution or anything, but from the structure of society and some other points it was probably very much like that of the US. His point here was that they just needed a system that was honest, fair and worked reasonably well. It couldn't be perfect because people weren't perfect. What he believed was more important than super high IQ was having well educated people who understood the reasoning and logic of the system who were willing to serve it to guide it.

Most of the education was pretty much like we have today, though very high quality. The only difference was a class in civics that one took evrey year. It explained the system very well and addressed ethics and so on. To enter federal service one had to pass that class. This minimal requirement for the bote would be a good idea. After all, if people understood the economics and social aspects of a society, they would be much better qualified to help guide it than someone who doesn't. You don't pass the class, you don't get the vote (or serve in office, the military, or most government positions).

In other words, IQ has little to do with it, rather education and a sense of duty are more important. I would have to agree, to an extent.

July 26, 2005

Ah but and Inger,

Those traits you talk are probably more useful than someone with just a high IQ, but the combination of all facets can be truly awesome.

Shaun.Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote:

:

> It is true he was no fan of ultra-open democracy, but he has good points. In Starship Troopers (and excellent novel, worlds better than those pitiful movies based on them) people have to serve 2 years in federal service before they get the right to vote.

Hm. Perhaps you'd like the Raelians' suggestion to only allow those who have over a certain IQ the right to vote? ;-) http://www.rael.org/download.php?view.6

They are much into cloning too. http://www.rael.org/download.php?view.2

(Besides waiting for "Jehova" & crew to come back in their space ship.) :-))

Inger

for Mobile Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

July 26, 2005

In a message dated 7/26/2005 9:44:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, scwmachinations@... writes:

Ah but and Inger,

Those traits you talk are probably more useful than someone with just a high IQ, but the combination of all facets can be truly awesome.

Shaun.

Shaun,

You are right. The point I was making was that high IQ alone is not sufficient grounds for the franchise.

A quick rundown on how I view this.

The two houses of the US Congress should be for different levels of voters, much like the Houses of Commons and Lords used to be in England.

To vote for candidate or hold office in the Senate, one would have to be in the top 20% income and assets range, have graduated college, have a clean criminal record and pay taxes and, of course, be a citizen. This would be like the house of lords except that it is possible to earn one's way in and one can fall out as well.

The House of Representatives would be more open. To qualify one would only have to be a taxpaying citizen with a clean criminal record.

There would also be an underlying qualifier: one would have to pass a special civics class. This class would meet for one period each day through one's whole scholastic career (meaning 1st through 12th grades). This course would teach about the system and how it works including: Economics, personal finance, the laws of the land, history of the country and the ethical basis and views of the system. This would ensure that all voters had the same basic understanding of how the system works and what it is about,thus making them more qualified to effectively help manage the country.

There would also be some qualifiers there as well.

Regardless of the above qualifications, if someone is living on government money (excluding employees, military, etc.) then their franchise is suspended but not revoked. There could be lenience for a period of say one year to allow for people who fall on hard times. However, the current crop of welfare voters would not have the franchise.

If one's income falls, as might be the case with the elderly: if one had been a citizen in good standing all their life, they could continue to vote in the lower house.

Voting rights for the upper house could be awarded for certain achievements in the sciences or academics, rather like the Nobel Prize but not so restrictive in number. Business and economic success is already rewarded.

The franchise could also be stripped from a person because of: Felony conviction, multiple misdemeanor convictions, association with illegal groups (the mafia, drug gangs, groups whose purpose is to violate nation law like many illegal immigrant lobbying groups, etc.). Other matters like treason, sedition, etc. already count as felonies and carry the loss of franchise.

Just a rough outline.

There would also be changes to government, but that is for another time.

July 26, 2005

In a message dated 7/26/2005 5:05:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, scwmachinations@... writes:

, why bother even having parties at all.

This is my simplistic take.

Have a council of decision makers all based on their intellectual prowess.

eg, one hundred and fifty representatives, 3 from each state.

All issues are debated in open forum then put to the test by a vote.

Shaun

Shaun,

I wasn't talking about parties, but rather division of power. The two house system prevents one body from becoming all powerful. By clearly dividing the houses between the powerful and the rest, we can more clearly see how who favors what kind of legislation and why.

A single house may be more efficient, but it has its dangers as well. It is more autocratic and has no checks against its power, kind of like the Supreme Court has becomein the US.

Sorry, lost my train of thought. Has another bunch of kids up around the house again, probably running recon for the burglars like last time.

July 26, 2005

In a message dated 7/26/2005 6:30:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

And being able to pass an IQ test in no way guarantees that one will make a *wise* choice when it comes to voting. Some of the deepest thinkers I know are dyslexic and had problems just passing high school, but they are still able to see through much of the illusions that even the most educated may still be dazzled by. In fact, what is education if not one long indoctrination process for one particular way of looking at the world, to the exclusion of other, more open-minded and inclusive ways?

I agree to a point. Wisdom is important in making correct decisions. Heinlein addresses this in an indirect way in his novel "The Glory Road". The world of that novel was multidimensional, that is to say there were many different dimensions where people lived and each had slightly different rules (magic worked in some places and firearms did not in one). Since there were links to all these dimensions a governing body of sorts was needed.

That body came in the form of the Wisdom. The Wisdom was selected by a special agency that picked a number of candidates. These candidates were groomed to replace the current Wisdom when they died. The best of the lot got the job. The training consisted of having the memories of past Wisdoms added to their minds. The idea being that they would not only have the history of the decisions made by the Wisdoms but also their thinking as to how they arrived at the decision.

The Wisdom had no real power, however. Rather, people brought their problems to the Wisdom as kind of a last resort. The Wisgom heard the case and their arguments then gave a ruling. The ruling was then taken as law, even though the Wisdom had no real enforcement power.

Education is necessary. We can see how lack of education, whether formal of self-study, affects people. Those with the least education typically fill the lowest ranks of society and are pretty much stuck there. We live in a society that requires education. That's the way it is.

We also have nations. In order for a nation to survive, the people need to understand how the nation works and its history and values. Without that, people no longer care about their nation and it will decay and collapse.

The goal of education should be to prepare good citizens and teach people to think. Teaching people to think is useless without knowledge to work with, however. Sombine these and people will be able to think for themselves, just that hopefully they will have a sense of patriotism in them. This is lacking today, at least in America, where people use the very rights and priviledges that they would have in few other countries to tar the US and try to bring it down. I was going to post an article about the Newsies in Sudan who complained that they were hassled by the police and Soldiers: they actually seemed to be amazed that there was no freedom of the press! Yet these same Newsies are the same ones that use their freedoms offered by the US to Bash the US unmercifully.

Just because people get a standard education does not qarauntee they will retain that point of view all their lives. Just look at the US in the 1960's. Those kids had a good standard education and look how they turned out.

July 26, 2005

, why bother even having parties at all.

This is my simplistic take.

Have a council of decision makers all based on their intellectual prowess.

eg, one hundred and fifty representatives, 3 from each state.

All issues are debated in open forum then put to the test by a vote.

ShaunVISIGOTH@... wrote:

In a message dated 7/26/2005 9:44:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, scwmachinations@... writes:

Ah but and Inger,

Those traits you talk are probably more useful than someone with just a high IQ, but the combination of all facets can be truly awesome.

Shaun.

Shaun,

You are right. The point I was making was that high IQ alone is not sufficient grounds for the franchise.

A quick rundown on how I view this.

The two houses of the US Congress should be for different levels of voters, much like the Houses of Commons and Lords used to be in England.

To vote for candidate or hold office in the Senate, one would have to be in the top 20% income and assets range, have graduated college, have a clean criminal record and pay taxes and, of course, be a citizen. This would be like the house of lords except that it is possible to earn one's way in and one can fall out as well.

The House of Representatives would be more open. To qualify one would only have to be a taxpaying citizen with a clean criminal record.

There would also be an underlying qualifier: one would have to pass a special civics class. This class would meet for one period each day through one's whole scholastic career (meaning 1st through 12th grades). This course would teach about the system and how it works including: Economics, personal finance, the laws of the land, history of the country and the ethical basis and views of the system. This would ensure that all voters had the same basic understanding of how the system works and what it is about,thus making them more qualified to effectively help manage the country.

There would also be some qualifiers there as well.

Regardless of the above qualifications, if someone is living on government money (excluding employees, military, etc.) then their franchise is suspended but not revoked. There could be lenience for a period of say one year to allow for people who fall on hard times. However, the current crop of welfare voters would not have the franchise.

If one's income falls, as might be the case with the elderly: if one had been a citizen in good standing all their life, they could continue to vote in the lower house.

Voting rights for the upper house could be awarded for certain achievements in the sciences or academics, rather like the Nobel Prize but not so restrictive in number. Business and economic success is already rewarded.

The franchise could also be stripped from a person because of: Felony conviction, multiple misdemeanor convictions, association with illegal groups (the mafia, drug gangs, groups whose purpose is to violate nation law like many illegal immigrant lobbying groups, etc.). Other matters like treason, sedition, etc. already count as felonies and carry the loss of franchise.

Just a rough outline.

There would also be changes to government, but that is for another time.

__________________________________________________

July 27, 2005

In a message dated 7/26/2005 7:40:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

Why patriotism? Isn't that what's causing all the terrorism at the moment? If we started thinking in more global terms and realized that we are all in the same boat here on this planet, I think we'd be a lot better off. I want Arabs and Africans and Chinese to be happy too. If everyone was satisfied they wouldn't go around killing other people, would they?

I think they are annoyed with the US because it doesn't mind its own business and show other cultures proper respect.

Patriotism is not the current problem, rather corrupted religious fanaticism. The Islamic terrorists are not loyal to any nation particularly, but to their twisted brand of Islam. I do not think people are ready to think globally. The EU is close to falling apart because many nations rightly to not want to give up their sovereignty to unaccountable bureacrats. If Europe can't get along then what chance do even more diverse cultures?

It will be impossible to satisfy everyone and make everyone happy. The only way to do that would be to make everyone the same economically, intellectually and socially. If everyone wsa so the same there would be no room for jealousy or unhappiness, unless of course people remembered the before time and thought it better. So, it would take a massive reworking of humanity to a certain, probably low common denomoinator and a freezing of technological advancement, especially regarding comsumer goods and services.

I do not think Islam is currently deserving of our respect. They attacked the West for decades killing thousands of people. Their leaders and clerics call for more and more war against us including the use of weapons of mass destruction. Their people and leaders do nothing to reign those terrorists in. If they actually did, and by that I mean began turning the terrorists in and swore off the jihad, them maybe those few would be worth respecting. As it is, looking at Islam and the countries ruled by its principles, all I see is a system worthy of being resisted.

July 27, 2005

All due respect Inger, pish posh.

Why not ask the shia or kurd iraqi if they are glad the USA toppled Saddam?

You know, the kin that were consistantly massacred by Saddam and his Sunni tribe.

Your very premise Inger I feel incorrect.

Democracy isnt a Western thing and the Western worlds policy is not to make a country westernized.

It is however the goal of making the M.E. a democracy conducting "rule of law".

I believe any religious law that descriminates against other religions and also women is just plain out of contempory times.

No one suggested that these cultures adopt western sensibilities like nudity. To these people that would be like a westerner accepting the practice of cutting someones head off.

Shaun. Inger Lorelei <inglori@...> wrote:

:

> Patriotism is not the current problem, rather corrupted religious fanaticism. The Islamic terrorists are not loyal to any nation particularly, but to their twisted brand of Islam.

Have you ever considered the possibility that *US* patriotism might be adding to the problem? I'm no fan of religious fanaticism, but the West IS also provoking them by forcing commercialism, nudity, alcohol and democracy on countries that really don't want it. And why? Because the American/Western way of life is considered the only valid on the planet, which every other nation should emulate.

That the Islamic culture has other traditions and values is really not respected by the West.

1. There - if I'm not mistaken; I'm really no expert on this - an economy based on interest is considered usury (which it is). Interest is like a leech sucking about 30% of the cost on EVERYTHING you buy, even though it also does stimulate the economy. But it also over-stimulates it so that we are FORCED to produce and consume more and more just to pay the interest.

2. Alcohol is not permitted, which I think is excellent (even though I'm not fond of the punishments for drinking).

3. It is considered that what you do in the privacy of your own home is your own affair, but public places are not to be sullied by commercials or obscenity. I think this is a rather good policy. I would love to be able to walk around town or take a bus or train without being bombarded by commercials. (On Dutch trains they have reproductions of art instead). I'd also like to be able to turn on my cable TV after midnight and not risk having to see someone getging a BJ or worse (unless I was particularly in such a mood, of course). I still value having the option if I want to, as oppression and am not fond extremeties such as not being able to display an ankle or stand of hair for risk of arousing someone.

4. We take for granted that our version of "democracy" is better than dictatorship. But as I wrote yesterday, I think it leaves much to be desired. In a dictatorship, the few dominate the many, but in a democracy, the many dominate the few. I don't like domination at all.

If we took a step back and admitted that our Western way of life may have some flaws too and not force it on everyone else against their will, perhaps they wouldn't become so desperate?

> I do not think people are ready to think globally.

Quite a few of us already do...

> The EU is close to falling apart because many nations rightly to not want to give up their sovereignty to unaccountable bureacrats. If Europe can't get along then what chance do even more diverse cultures?

Did I say that I wanted a one-world government? I am rather for even smaller independent regions than nations. Which could then cooperate on an international level. I'm very much against the EU for the precise reason you state. The idea is to give up our sovereignty to their dictatorship, which is based mainly on economics rather than politics. They want us to give up our restrictive Swedish alcohol policy that has been very successful and also our law against commercials for children, because this is seen as causing obstacles to free trade which is valued a lot higher than people's health. It's rather bizarre really. The EU also then tries to become a Superpower internationally, protecting European economical interests against the rest of the world. That is not the global policy of mutual respect and fair trade that some of us have been hoping for.

> It will be impossible to satisfy everyone and make everyone happy.

Does that mean we shouldn't even try?

> The only way to do that would be to make everyone the same economically, intellectually and socially. If everyone was so the same there would be no room for jealousy or unhappiness, unless of course people remembered the before time and thought it better. So, it would take a massive reworking of humanity to a certain, probably low common denomoinator and a freezing of technological advancement, especially regarding comsumer goods and services.

Reasonable equality and justice does not mean you have to make everyone the same and I really don't think it necessary for everyone to have the exact equal amount of everything to be happy. I only need so much and when I have that I couldn't give a rat's ass if someone has more. Some people need more than others, have different tastes, values etc. I'd like to see a world where everyone had at least their basic human needs satisfied, then some can have more if they choose to work harder and assume more responsibility. So I'm a hopeless idealist; sue me.

> I do not think Islam is currently deserving of our respect. They attacked the West for decades killing thousands of people.

Just as we have attacked them since the middle ages (though we now mainly do so with Mcs and MTV). :-)

> Their leaders and clerics call for more and more war against us including the use of weapons of mass destruction. Their people and leaders do nothing to reign those terrorists in.

Some do. You can't have missed the recent talks between the leaders of Pakistan and Blair?

There are also many in their own countres who don't approve of their actions. Islam is not comprised of only extremists; the majority are probably peaceful hardworking people just like any of us who just worship God 5 times a day and mind their own business.

And we too have our extremists, many of whom are perfectly willing to take to arms. What makes us all that different?

> If they actually did, and by that I mean began turning the terrorists in and swore off the jihad, them maybe those few would be worth respecting. As it is, looking at Islam and the countries ruled by its principles, all I see is a system worthy of being resisted.

See, this is EXACTLY what they think when they look at us. They think we have all fallen prey to dark forces who have seduced us into blind obedience to sex, money, shopping, gambling, drinking and overeating; they see the rapid splitting of families just for lust or convenience, they see music videos and cable channels with nothing but sex. Some then see it as their duty to take a stand against this 'evil' development, and try to free the world from it, since we seem incapable or unwilling to do so ourselves.

Sorf of like we see as our moral duty to free them from dictatorship under an 'evil' leader, and their women from being oppressed.

Funny that, isn't it? ;-)

Inger - still wondering why the West is so quick to intervene in SOME countries but not, for example, in Burma or Tibet.

__________________________________________________

July 27, 2005

Hello Inger,

Your points are very interesting and most of them I agree with. Only wish I could formulate it as well as you did.

Lida