For instance, it is quite possible, given our technological savvy to weigh each vote in accordance with educational achievement. This would enrage the majority and I am not proposing that I am behind this idea. I am merely pointing out that such options are available to us and there is currently no place within intellectual culture for parsing the benefits or consequences of such changes. And this relates to the other question on everybody’s minds. We are moving toward a unified world citizenry, and we are headed toward the absolute need for global governance, and it is mind-boggling to me that the philosophical discussions are not more common, as to how such a state ‘should’ operate.
I think there is possibly no better time to engage in the kind of philosophy that addresses the deepest notions of the human experience. Personally, I am not too happy about the dominance of ‘majority rule’ and I would like to see a healthy discussion of alternatives. We live in this paradoxical world where so much hinges upon educational achievement and we are so restrained from demanding consistency across class lines.
globatronMarch 19, 2010
Amen brother. How would passion be judged? And what about IQ versus education sense there are so many intelligent folks who only have a high school degree. Bill Gates, etc.
I’d be willing to allow my vote to not count as much as someone with a masters degree. It would only encourage me to get the highest degree possible so my voice/vote would mean more.
I do think IQ would be a better measure though.
I do feel this idea of a global citizenry is one that needs to be discussed openly and not used for fear mongering as conspiracy theorists often do. There are many benefits for a global nation making quick decisions that affect the entire world such as on global warming.