People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

If this were true, corporations and rich individuals would own everything. They don't. Also, if it were true, nobody but corporations and rich individuals would be able to buy anything. Are you having trouble buying groceries because corporations and rich individuals have snapped them all up?

The correct definition of "customer" is "anyone who pays any price for what you are selling, that you are willing to sell it for". As long as the item is worth less to you and more to the customer than a price you can both agree on, the transaction is a mutual gain for both of you.

In a true free market, if there are no such customers--because what you're selling isn't worth enough to any of them to pay a price you are willing to accept--then you go out of business. Since in such a market you can't force anyone to buy your product--they only will if it's worth more to them than what they pay--you can only stay in business by providing mutual gain. That principle would apply just as well to services like law enforcement, if they were provided in a true free market.

You can't just include global warming with something like evolution. Global warming (isn't it Global climate change now ;-)) may be happening, but I'm still not convinced it's as man-made as supports would like us to believe. Especially when there is so much money involved in it (many scientists will lose government funding if they don't support it) and all of those emails that came out that were immediately denied were just too suspicious to discount completely. Oh, and if you look at the climate of earth for many thousands of years, there are patterns of cooling and warming periods.

Global warming for the most part has all been about punishing people by forcing them to pay enormous amounts of money in taxes.

If there was evidence that it was not man-made, I can't see any of the supports (including governments) ever supporting it. Mostly because it would cut their funding. It reminds me of religious nuts. If you could prove that Jesus didn't exist, they would continue to deny this evidence.

"I could start a debate by multiplying examples of widespread misconception on both sides"

Oh? Then why did it seem like your rant was for the sole purpose of Republican bashing.

"That person might run the country very well, but will never, ever be selected by a democratic process."

My problem is that "smart" people want to force their views on the rest of us, even if it's only an opinion. I want someone who has not only is intelligent, but has good people smarts. This most likely won't be someone with a very high IQ..it will be someone above average.

If you look at how hard governance is, and how badly most countries do it, it's actually a pretty great system. Baroque, complex, inefficient, sure, but there is little to suggest that any system of governance for 300 million people would be anything other than those things.

Could it be that a new form of government needs to emerge in this model? One where policy on a specific subject area is handled by those better equipped to understand it and, more importantly, with a good degree of isolation from others?

Wouldn't it be better if, say, education policy was crafted in total isolation from the political goals of any party, special interest group or unions? Or how about energy policy?

I firmly believe the basic premise of the article to be true: Most voters don't understand what the hell they are voting on. They are easily swayed by a barrage of numbers and pretend-facts and probably vote on what sounds good or believable far more so than what might have merit based on facts.

Take the arguments on manufacturing, for example. Everyone from the President on down to Congress and GOP candidates are talking about bringing manufacturing back. Both parties at all level do it. Now, there are two possibilities here: One, they know the truth and realize that the masses might not be able to handle the truth. Or, they actually don't understand what's going on.

Manufacturing, folks, isn't coming back to the US or Europe in massive numbers any time soon, if ever. The standard of living of the average manufacturing worker would have to be reduced to revolution-inspiring levels for this to happen. Environmental and worker safety laws would have to trashed by the thousands. Virtually all labor unions would have to be dissolved. And more. The loss of manufacturing jobs has taken place over sixty years of making the wrong decisions. This did not happen overnight. And this cannot be fixed overnight, if ever. Just try to manufacture a consumer good in the US and see how far you get. Sure, there are outliers that might buck the trend, but, for the most part, its a done deal: Mass manufacturing of consumer goods in the US is dead.

Anyhow, I believe that voters do tend to vote people into office for entirely the wrong reasons. From religious groups to unions and special interest sectors. All seek to place puppets in office that will protect and further their interests. Virtually none --due to the nature of their egocentric focus-- act with the long term interest of the country in mind.

Not an easy problem to solve as it would require a nearly complete change in the form of government we have known for so long. The problem is that the US Constitution does not provide for a mechanism through which these kinds of changes could be made. The only way is for a massive and very disruptive revolution to take place. This is unlikely to happen unless things get so bad that people are compelled to "take up arms against their oppressor". And, this is highly undesirable as well because it would probably result in half a century of uncertainty and turmoil before reaching a new stable state.

And this takes us full circle to an inevitable conclusion: As much as we might hate the fact that the lunatics are running the asylum, it is probably the best option we have. The job, then, is to try to be as creative as possible in bringing issues to the masses in order to make it easy to understand what can sometimes be very complex.

The day we elect politicians that, for example, laugh at the idea of rejecting something like the theory of evolution will be the day that we'll know that we are on the right path. That's because you'll have people in office that will be smart enough to consider evidence rather than indoctrinated ideological drones.

This is a big topic.

Cuba may or may not be as bad as you claim--go look at their life expectancies and number of doctors.

The Soviet Union really seemed to run into issues when they'd integrated enough other nations to create a non-unified block; today Russia has the same issues with Chechnya. So, that underlines my point: uniform culture promotes strength.

North Korea is a shitshow, but that has little to do with unification and more to do with abominable management.

Nazi Germany... well, that's an interesting datapoint, right? Their government was most effective and popular support greatest when dissenting factions had been integrated. Germany is doing quite well nowadays, whereas when you look at the broader amalgamation of the EU you see strife and disagreement.

From the standpoint of government, and democracy, it is a lot easier to govern/be governed by a homogeneous group than it is to handle dissenting views in an acceptable fashion.

The fact that the US has done as well as it has--or the UK for that matter--without devolving to purges is quite impressive.