Why do we give power to dummies? Shouldn’t laws be made by the professionals who know what the fuck is going on in their field? Why do bitter old dummy bastards tell citezins what to do? It should not be a vote-managed world where the environment, medicine, architecture, sex, science, technology and religion…(um, scrap the religion part). Scientists should make laws regarding emmisions. Architects should make laws regarding heritage and construction. Doctors should control health issues. If I find enough dummies to vote against research, what happens to science? FUCKED UP.
—Jesus Mary Joseph and Mule
This article appears in May 21-27, 2009.
Because we’re in a Democratic society. Voting is NOT useless.
You don’t need science to do research.
What else did you learn in your first year political science class?
LOL nice one NGF.
What do scientists, architects etc know about politics and public policy?
Ha, I wasn’t directing it towards you, SD! lol
The OP strikes me as one of the “Resist Atlantica” kids who say voting is useless (and won’t vote, therefore) and then bash our systems/governments/etc. in the same sentence.
Vote or Die
Very profound indeed.
I hope a scientist makes a law regarding my emmisions.
We all know how well that worked out.
I think you should have to pass an IQ test before being allowed to vote…
…or to run for office for that matter.
OP your world is weird
nevermind… how exactly do you pass an IQ test?
do you have to study beforehand?
I’ve got a urine test coming up… I suppose I should study for that one too.
People with really high IQs designed the financial instruments that just sent the global economy into the toilet.
People with really low IQ’s were the one’s who followed their investment advice.
Good point zZz. Should have said “score above whatever”
NGF: I figure if you don’t vote(hell even just spoil your ballot if you hate everyone on it), you don’t get to bitch about the results.
SD: I hear what you’re saying and its something I’ve discussed with others before. (Also, political science was my minor during undergrad, almost a double major).
The person who chooses not to vote and stays home (or doesn’t even register) has already decided that they want nothing to do with the voting process. They have decided to wave a right. I find that these folks tend to be the most vocal (and just steretypically critical) of our government, our systems and processes.
The person who has chosen to spoil a ballot by, say, voting for Che Gueverra instead did make a choice to go and exercise their right to vote. In a way, I cannot ‘criticize’ these folks; I look at the fact that they made the effort to go and ‘vote’ (or not). Plus, if they decide to spoil their ballot, that is none of my business 😉
Whenever the voter enters the booth, does their thing and then returns the ballot to the election agents – they are exercising their right. They’re free to decide who they want to vote for (or not).
I once told a friend who hated the system and didn’t vote because they “disagreed” with it this: “Apathy does not make you correct and never has.”
This is an interesting post. I’m not sure this post is about voting. Maybe mis-titled? It seems to suggest that professionals and/or scientists should be responsible for setting certain laws surrounding the environment, cities, medicine etc. I certainly see the value in that, especially science related topics.
I think that the OP wants these professionals to be
appointed, not elected; and control the laws that are
respective to their profession. I don’t like this idea.
If these professionals choose to run and are elected,
then they can have control over those laws. But, how
many of them actually want to be holding political
office, anyhow? Plus, you don’t need to specialize in
science to control science related laws, nor do you
need to be a medical professional to control medically
related laws, etc.
And besides, everybody is free to run for office unless
they’ve served time in prison for five years or more;
and everybody is free to vote for whomever they
wish, regardless of profession. The candidate with the
most votes represents more of the population. He or
she wins. Case closed. People died to save
the freedom to vote, because voting is not useless. It
gives you a chance to voice how you want to be
governed.
Miles– not really. I won’t open the whole debate about IQ testing, even though I should, but in general, people who wouldn’t test well on IQ tests never much invested much in stocks. It was “smart,” high IQ testing people who figured out (or followed their investment advisor’s suggestions) how to dump their money into stocks, or (in the US anyway, and some of Canada) to put money in the real estate bubble.
Additionally, “smart” people who managed government, union, and corporate pensions followed that advice as well.
Bottom line, the “smart” money followed the genius people, right into the toilet.
Same thing, really, with foreign policy. Really, really smart people thought the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures were a great idea, and now, well, we have what we have.
My point isn’t necessarily that smart people are stupid— it’s that the interests of smart people aren’t the interests of regular people. Smart connected people think ridiculously formatted financial instruments are a great idea, because they’ll make a lot of money. Smart connected people with foreign policy knowledge and such think things like the Iraq war are a great idea because their companies (Haliburton, etc.) stand to make a lot of money, and their kids (Bush twins, that ridiculous Liz Cheney creature) won’t have to actually go fight those wars.
Points well taken Tim. I was mostly just goofin’ with that comment anyway.
As for the other discussion here about whether or not experts should be making laws and policy, I don’t really think that’s a good idea. The experts should certainly ADVISE policy makers and I think more policy makers should come from “expert” backgrounds. Ultimately though, a politician can’t be a one trick pony. Their job is to listen to ALL of their advisors and decide on a course of action that brings the most benefit to society.
I think the current government showed how uninterested in this approach though when the prime minister fired his science advisor and proposed a budget that may very well see Canada lose it’s lead in stem cell research and may cripple Canadian research for many years to come. But that’s another rant.
Overall, I don’t know if I would trust an expert to make the best political decisions, even though they may offer the best advice.
Of course following the OPs “logic”, then those serving on juries should be law enforcement personnel, lawyers, and others in the legal field, since they are the experts. How does that grab you?
If Professionals were to make policies and laws, they would manipulate them to suit their needs and to gain profit while not give much if anything back to the people who could actually benefit from them.
Just like our government is doing now.
if you dont vote.. then you have no right to bitch.. so buh bye! 🙂