(09-06-2016 06:18 PM)ESSSS Wrote: Quote:By the way, I'd rank you the smartest person on this board ESSS.
If there were a grain of truth to this, people who visit and read this board have NO hope.
Quote:Well I score 99th percentile on standardized tests. I can do linear programming. I scored 100% on my 500 level calculus final, the prof said that was a first. But I'm more suited to practical stuff. If we were stranded in a survivor situation you'd be happy I was there.
I TRUELY believe you.
Which leads (me) to the following question.
In a society that (some believe) claims to hold individual freedom as it's highest priority, and that (some believe) claims to assign equal worth (under the law) to each individual, how can it be moral to believe things like this:
Quote:It would be better to have a few hundred thousand nicely smart and educated people make most of the decisions.
Richard Dawkins (famed new atheist) has promoted the term "bright" as a noun to be used to describe the community of people who ascribe to his worldview and belief system. "People of reason". The "enlightened ones". The implication naturally being that those who disagree with his worldview are dim (witted).
Your statement above seems rather close to this in content and tone.
One rather obscure author called this belief "The Fatal Conceit".
Let me try to make a point my asking you a couple of questions:
1. Are you willing/ready to surrender your autonomy to a group of others who are "nicely smart and educated"?
2. Assuming you (or I) are one of the "nicely smart and educated", what moral premise gives us the right to dictate how others MUST live?
It's not that elaborate a premise in the real world. In our smart intellectual towers, we can debate the ultimate questions. But out there in the real world I contend reality raises its ugly head. There are the good guys cops and the bad guy criminals. The good guys don't reflect too much on the intricacies of the criminals lives, they just book them.
Similar, left to their devices, like I said, people sell and do drugs, commit massive damage to their children, try to skip car titles, get pregnant, fail to do their school work, etc. They make very bad decisions.
I'm saying yeah, we need (government based out of what is the alternative) based nice smart concerned people to look after some of the basics. MSU guys doing research on better farming methods, somebody to watch out for emissions problems and ground water pollution, social people to intervene and try to protect children and victims.
Not to mention all the routine stuff. Roads, bridges, elevators, pharmaceutical standards.
I really don't see this intrusion into peoples freedom as a bad thing. I'd like to see more of it, done by some nice smart people. Or whatever. I don't know how they select prison guards for instance. Nice and smart might not cut it.
As far as my personal autonomy, I don't fight the system. I send in my taxes, pay my bills, get my license renewed on time. I don't see those processes as control, although they are. I just accept some stuff needs to be done.
I don't feel bound though,ultimately. I trust in the god of my choosing. If I need to do some private thing that doesn't meet the letter, I wouldn't feel bad about just doing it. Or avoiding. Or obstructing.
Back in the 60's, a bunch of us went down to Washington and levitated the Pentagon. If you don't believe that, look it up. It visibly raised up in the shimmery light and vibrated for a minute or two before it settled back to Earth.
![[Image: wilford-brimley-absence-of-malice-1981-BP7H6P.jpg]](http://c8.alamy.com/comp/BP7H6P/wilford-brimley-absence-of-malice-1981-BP7H6P.jpg)
![[Image: 13450928_1485212611583667_38316982714636...e=58771140]](https://scontent.fash1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13450928_1485212611583667_3831698271463630025_n.jpg?oh=6bd17dc8cf23fa573c30805682b0e894&oe=58771140)
