Just How Stupid Are We?

[Ad Orientem]

Very according to this guy...

http://youtu.be/ob1f0OtEB9E

My political views which have been semi-libertarian for a long time are increasingly shifting towards neo-reaction. More and more I am coming to the view that Democracy and the whole Whig theory of government is bankrupt.

[Kshartle]

Very according to this guy...

http://youtu.be/ob1f0OtEB9E

My political views which have been semi-libertarian for a long time are increasingly shifting towards neo-reaction. More and more I am coming to the view that Democracy and the whole Whig theory of government is bankrupt.

What do you mean by "Whig theory of government"?

[Ad Orientem]

Very according to this guy...

http://youtu.be/ob1f0OtEB9E

My political views which have been semi-libertarian for a long time are increasingly shifting towards neo-reaction. More and more I am coming to the view that Democracy and the whole Whig theory of government is bankrupt.

What do you mean by "Whig theory of government"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiggishness

[Gumby]

Very according to this guy...

http://youtu.be/ob1f0OtEB9E

My political views which have been semi-libertarian for a long time are increasingly shifting towards neo-reaction. More and more I am coming to the view that Democracy and the whole Whig theory of government is bankrupt.

What do you mean by "Whig theory of government"?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Whig+theory+of+government

[moda0306]

Very according to this guy...

http://youtu.be/ob1f0OtEB9E

My political views which have been semi-libertarian for a long time are increasingly shifting towards neo-reaction. More and more I am coming to the view that Democracy and the whole Whig theory of government is bankrupt.

What do you mean by "Whig theory of government"?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Whig+theory+of+government

This is effing hilarious.

Though I think some of us get research fitigue and just want to banter, and get answers from our piers.

[Kshartle]

I was hoping he could maybe summarize in a sentence or two what he meant for me and everyone who read his post rather than have everyone guess at the meaning or research it.

I guess not.

Thanks for the google link.

[Ad Orientem]

I was hoping he could maybe summarize in a sentence or two what he meant for me and everyone who read his post rather than have everyone guess at the meaning or research it.

I guess not.

Thanks for the google link.

From the article I linked...

Whig history (or Whig Historiography) is the approach to historiography which presents the past as an inevitable progression towards ever greater liberty and enlightenment, culminating in modern forms of liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy. In general, Whig historians emphasize the rise of constitutional government, personal freedoms and scientific progress. The term is often applied generally (and pejoratively) to histories that present the past as the inexorable march of progress toward enlightenment. The term is also used extensively in the history of science for historiography that focuses on the successful chain of theories and experiments that led to present-day science, while ignoring failed theories and dead ends.[1] It is claimed that Whig history has many similarities with the Marxist-Leninist theory of history, which presupposes that humanity is moving (through historical stages) to the classless, egalitarian society of communism.[2][3]

[Kshartle]

I was hoping he could maybe summarize in a sentence or two what he meant for me and everyone who read his post rather than have everyone guess at the meaning or research it.

I guess not.

Thanks for the google link.

From the article I linked...

Whig history (or Whig Historiography) is the approach to historiography which presents the past as an inevitable progression towards ever greater liberty and enlightenment, culminating in modern forms of liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy. In general, Whig historians emphasize the rise of constitutional government, personal freedoms and scientific progress. The term is often applied generally (and pejoratively) to histories that present the past as the inexorable march of progress toward enlightenment. The term is also used extensively in the history of science for historiography that focuses on the successful chain of theories and experiments that led to present-day science, while ignoring failed theories and dead ends.[1] It is claimed that Whig history has many similarities with the Marxist-Leninist theory of history, which presupposes that humanity is moving (through historical stages) to the classless, egalitarian society of communism.[2][3]

I actually clicked on Gumby's rude link and thought it was yours. My apologies.

[Gumby]

I actually clicked on Gumby's rude link and thought it was yours. My apologies.

I'm not the first person to use that link here, btw. Most people like it and find it helpful:

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/go ... /#msg39687

and..

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... /#msg22091

[PVolt]

Good link.  Some venting follows:

What puzzles me is how people identify themselves with labels such as "liberal", "conservative", "libertarian", etc. and very willingly take on all the baggage that comes with those labels.  Rick mentioning about Republicans believing that Saddam was involved in 9/11 is a good example of this.

Why do people subscribe to pre-packaged ideas instead of taking positions based on individual issues?  For example, if I am a conservative, I insist on small govt, but I also want the govt to force my religion down everyone's throats, I don't believe in global warming, etc.  If I am a liberal, I believe in private property, but I want to spend tax payer's money providing welfare to "undocumented" workers, in the name of equality I want to defend and justify dangerous "religions" which are out to destroy civilization, etc.

I don't see what's the common factor across the ideas within each of those packages.  What Rick says about it makes a lot sense - that the media polarized the nation.  But I keep wondering if it is that simple or if there's something more to it.

Most people have their own opinions about why societies and mankind are facing so many problems.  Here is my opinion :-) : The Confirmation Bias ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias ) is the biggest problem plaguing mankind.  It's not global warming, it's not religion, it's not economy or environment (those are all symptoms of a more fundamental issue).  People go to information sources which confirm what the people already believe in.  So some people are bound to believe that they can commit heinous acts and go to heaven to enjoy the company of virgins.  Some are bound to believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11.  Some are compelled to label dangerous ideologies as religions and justify their existence.

[Benko]

"has many similarities with the Marxist-Leninist theory of history, which presupposes that humanity is moving (through historical stages) to the classless, egalitarian society of communism."

The next sentence after the one you quoted:
"Whig history is a form of liberalism, that puts its faith in the power of human reason to reshape society for the better,
regardless of past history and tradition. It proposes the inevitable progress of mankind."

"and more I am coming to the view that Democracy and the whole Whig theory of government is bankrupt."

Sounds like you're saying liberalism doesn't work.  Am I missing something? What is different between Whig theory and liberalism?

NB: Adams (anyone know any good books on him?) knew the fate of democracies:

Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.


"Neoreactionaries believe that while technology and capitalism have advanced humanity over the past couple centuries, democracy has actually done more harm than good. They propose a return to old-fashioned gender roles, social order and monarchy.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/

"They propose a return to old-fashioned gender roles, social order"
I don't see how this can happen short of civilization collapsing and starting over.

"and monarchy"
Well a benevolent monarch would probably be better than we have now.  OTOH would you want to live under e.g. Obama as dictator?

[Benko]

Why do people subscribe to pre-packaged ideas instead of taking positions based on individual issues?  For example, if I am a conservative, I insist on small govt, but I also want the govt to force my religion down everyone's throats,

Sorry but a lot of us don't.

The Confirmation Bias ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias ) is the biggest problem plaguing mankind.

IMHO one of the biggest problems facing this country and others is people sitting in a room and believing they can think i.e. use their mind to solve [insert problem name here] through "rational thought" without interacting with the real world.  Subsequently when confronted with aspects of the real world that contradict their theory they refuse to accept it. For example the ship full of global warming scientists stuck in the ice that recently made the news.  This is why Buckley said:

"I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University. "

Because the Harvard professors would govern by "wonderful ideas" which don't work in the real world. 

[PVolt]

Subsequently when confronted with aspects of the real world that contradict their theory they refuse to accept it. For example the ship full of global warming scientists stuck in the ice that recently made the news.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.  What theory does that real world news item contradict?

[RuralEngineer]

That youtube video is bullshit and I could tell from the first minute or two in which he said "I don't what to argue that the American people are stupid...that would be stupid.  ....  The problem is that they don't know very much."

The problem is that THIS guy is stupid.

I'm sorry but the problem is EXACTLY that the average American voter is stupid.  He nailed it exactly on the head, the average American voter is an idiot that pays more attention to trivial details than key issues, knows little, and can't be bothered to get informed.  Our failed democracy is the product of idiocy and this man is too much of a coward to say it.

[PVolt]

Our failed democracy is the product of idiocy and this man is too much of a coward to say it.

He can't alienate his customer base.  At the end of the day he needs those stupid people to buy his book 

But, more seriously I agree with you.  He was a bit too diplomatic at the beginning of the talk.

[ns2]

I remember the day my daughter called me up and asked if I'd heard they had captured Osama Bin Laden. I turned on the TV and got the news it was Saddam Hussein. No difference in her mind.

I told her I couldn't vote for McCain because of his cute little tune sung to the tune of the Beach Boy's song Barbara Ann, "Bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran". She told me she thought that was neat because we SHOULD bomb Iran. I asked her why, and she said because of 9/11.

If people like her are allowed to vote there is no hope for the Republic.

[Pointedstick]

At its core, the problem with voting is that it asks people to make difficult judgements about complicated subjects that only indirectly affect them, if at all. Most humans are simply not set up very well to judge the merits and drawbacks of things far removed from their personal lives. As a result, voting becomes social ("I vote the same way as the people I'm friends with") or emotional ("I vote for whoever makes me feel good"). These were probably reasonable decision-making strategies when we lived in small nomadic tribes where small-group social cohesion was important and things that made you feel good probably were good. But in a modern civilization, these evolutionarily-ingrained habits become liabilities, just like the negative effects of gorging on sugary and carbohydrate-rich food.

[Kshartle]

Our failed democracy is the product of idiocy and this man is too much of a coward to say it.

Democracy will always fail because it is tyranny, the tyranny of the majority. The concept of government is nothing more than the belief that some humans have the right to murder, kidnap, imprison, and steal from others. TennPa, Moda, and Benko all know that it's wrong for them to do this against others (ok maybe not Moda  ). Somehow though if they vote and Benko and Moda agree that RuralEngineer should rule over them they insist that TennPa must accept it and be subjected to violence, threats of violence and theft from RE.

America didn't become the wealthiest land and people in the history of the world because it was a democracy but rather in spite of it. It was the smallest government yet conceived and the most economic freedom (though far from perfect of course). Now that's it's full on democracy unconstrained by a constitution with a basically lawless society where everything is up for grabs.......well the decline is as inevitable as it is predictable. And tragic.

[Ad Orientem]

I'm sorry but the problem is EXACTLY that the average American voter is stupid.  He nailed it exactly on the head, the average American voter is an idiot that pays more attention to trivial details than key issues, knows little, and can't be bothered to get informed.  Our failed democracy is the product of idiocy and this man is too much of a coward to say it.

+1

[Boltleg]

I remember the day my daughter called me up and asked if I'd heard they had captured Osama Bin Laden. I turned on the TV and got the news it was Saddam Hussein. No difference in her mind.

I told her I couldn't vote for McCain because of his cute little tune sung to the tune of the Beach Boy's song Barbara Ann, "Bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran". She told me she thought that was neat because we SHOULD bomb Iran. I asked her why, and she said because of 9/11.

If people like her are allowed to vote there is no hope for the Republic.

I hope you realize that you're somewhat to blame on this one.

[Tortoise]

Sounds like some of you would enjoy reading H. L. Mencken's book Notes On Democracy.

[WildAboutHarry]

I think Barack Obama's bowling score IS the most important political issue of our day.

Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.

[MediumTex]

I think that ignorant is probably a better word than stupid to describe a lot of people.

By the end of the day, they just want to be entertained, they don't want to do any more mental work.

The majority of people are never going to be anything more than members of the herd, content to move in more or less the same direction as everyone else, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.  If people are content with their lives, who am I to tell them that they should think more just because that's how I like to live?

It's amusing to me to hear people bemoan the state of our education system because the typical student can't speak two languages and perform calculus.  Consider that through 99% of recorded history, the majority of people were illiterate.  The fact that today in the U.S. most people in even the lowest classes can read, write, play video games, operate smart phones and maintain a Facebook page is very impressive to me. 

When I see how incredibly clever prisoners can be in hatching escape plans, it always encourages me about the state of our education system.  I imagine going into the worst high school in America in some inner city war zone and seeing a picture in the trophy case of a kid covered in tattoos who dropped out in the tenth grade and underneath the photo there would be the following engraved caption:

Sid Romero (aka "Sticky Digits") - Attended 1997-1998.  Defeated $80 million state penitentiary security system in daring escape and eluded law enforcement for 17 days before being recaptured.

[Kshartle]

If people are content with their lives, who am I to tell them that they should think more just because that's how I like to live?

It's amusing to me to hear people bemoan the state of our education system because the typical student can't speak two languages and perform calculus. 

The problem to me MT is I don't think your first statement is the way it is. Too many Americans aren't content to live their lives. Instead they fancy themselves a little genius dictator who knows what and who is best and they participate in the farce of democracy. They insist that the leaders and rules they want for themselves be enforced on everyone else.

Democracy is the most immoral form of government and I think corrupts the people more than any other. If it were an outright monarchy or dictatorship at least then the immorality of government would be obvious to everyone. Instead they run around thinking they have the right to pick which thief or tyrant they want in office and who he/she should steal from and bomb and threaten. The majority of the population is complicit in the violence and theft.

The crappy education is a product of this. Maybe it's better than it was in the 1800s....then again maybe not. Either way this is not a very good yardstick to measure against. This "free" education is supposed to benefit the poor and thereby everyone else. Instead it's actually ridiculously expensive, can hardly be called an education and holds the poor back. Instead of learning skills, it's just a holding pen for the poor and shrinking middle class to sit until they're 18 and then maybe borrow 40k and waste another 4 years after that. They almost emerge from either with barely any skills and if they do have skills they likely didn't learn them in school.

If you don't think that's true, next time you're at the bar or a restaurant ask the bartender/waiter what their major was. While a total free market might result in a tiny tiny fraction of the kids not getting traditional education they would probably still be better off. I doubt any would go uneducated though unless the parents choose it. The way to get rich with the free market is to make things cheaper and better and sell to the poor (walmart). Technology can bring superior teachers and content right into the home. The money funneled into education isn't helping the kids, it's helping piss-poor teachers and principles and other administrators earn way more than the free market would pay them.

[moda0306]

Democracy is the most immoral form of government?

Wow.

Says who?  Coercion is coercion... And many people have a lot of fondness and feelings of legitimacy for their dictator governments. At least with a democracy you can be relatively sure that you can vote with your feet and won't be detained without due process or drafted.

I'm not saying democracy is perfect, but at least with tyranny of the majority you have the burden of proving to 51% of the population that what you're doing is a good idea.