Explain to me why this man wasn't right, why shouldn't we give more votes to those who are better educated and more capable of making decisions? Try to avoid cliche arguments void of substance like it preludes civil rights - if the wiser are able to better rule than the less wise than the less wise can rule themselves, then the problem is the ego of the less wise and nothing else.
I think it was Rawls that argued that a democracy is necessary because it justifies the state. So it isn't the most efficient rule but it's a fair rule. If you have a say in it you're helping to shape it and thus becomes part of it. Something like that, haven't read political philosophy in years.
It isn't the most efficient system, it's the safest system.
If you put more political power in the hands of a certain group, that group will only seek to increase its powers and the majority is now at risk of being suppressed.
>>861505
Aka what every mediocre state is.
Let me restate your question, OP.
Explain to me why this man wasn't right, why shouldn't we give more votes to those who are "better educated" and "more capable of making decisions?" Try to avoid "cliche" arguments void of substance like it preludes civil rights - if the "wiser" are able to "better rule" than the "less wise" than the "less wise" can rule themselves, then the problem is the "ego" of the "less wise" and nothing else.
people don't really believe in the idea that some people are 'better' and more valuable than others anymore.
and everyone who is fucking sane would always have been able to immediately work out that assigning a measurable criteria to 'betterness' is an impossibility and almost inevitably a disaster.
>>860968
Read this
>>861505
What if you argued that the lowest common denominator were more likely cause worse outcomes for themselves than those who decided for them? Then it becomes a question of humility rather than injustice.
>>860968
Do we have substantive proof that the voting habits of the intellectual is that much different than that of the average person? This is also a fairly pointless regulation if your nation only has two political parties of any significance.
Also this >>861493
The state is more legitimate if everyone has some say.
Daily reminder that we don't have universal suffrage now. Children (and prisoners) cannot vote.
>b-but children are too immature to vote
I feel that way about pretty much all women and good half of men, but they still have a right to vote for some reason. Pretty much the only requirements are being 18 years old and having a pulse.
>>860968
>why shouldn't we give more votes to those who are better educated and more capable of making decisions?
We already do this by dividing up society into minors and adults. No one ever complains, because by nature the less capable group is, well, less capable and wouldn't know how to effectively protest their position to begin with, and the more capable group sees it as the correct order of things. Yet bizarrely, endless objections come up whenever such a division is suggested to be implemented among adults, despite everyone seeing it as perfectly natural when it's done by age (which is even more of an arbitrary surrogate for wisdom than, say, a psychological evaluation would be).
>>861553
>Abdul from Syria who just got his citizenship is just as likely to make a proper political decision as political scientist Waldorf from Hamburg
Great argument
>>861553
>heh this guy's probably never heard of subjectivity i mean what really is good leadership anyway you can't objectively define it i mean everything's subjective anyway heh got em
>>860968
better educated people often screws up too
>>860968
That's called feudalism.
Because Fallacies That's Why:
1.) Genetic Fallacy
2.) Argument from Authority
3.) False Attribution Bias
4.) Sequential Assumption Bias
5.) Inertia Fallacy
And that's just to start with.
Genetic Fallacies are plentiful in this kind of argumentation.
And no, look it up before you presume it has something to due with actual DNA Genetics, because it doesn't.
It means jumping to conclusions based on relational-arguments.
>>862262
Do*
It's 2:30 am for me. Sorry.
>>862261
You have no idea what feudalism is.
>>860968
>why shouldn't we give more votes to those who are better educated and more capable of making decisions?
those aren't mutually exclusive. Educated people can be really retarded. A guy who's an expert at biology often does not have any idea about politics, economics, and even ethics. Additionally, they'll vote for their own benefit, and drain the lower classes of all of their possible wealth and resources. Just because they can't read doesn't mean they don't deserve basic human services. Historically when the intellectuals retain all political power, they become oppressive and cause revolt, and this scenario has destroyed countless Empires.
>Try to avoid cliche arguments void of substance like it preludes civil rights
So basically
>Try to avoid correct arguments that can be used against me
>>860968
We already do this by not letting people in crappy jobs take time off to vote. If we wanted to have a more fair system, voting day would be a national holiday.
