[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This whole argument rests on the premise that one believe that “some people do not know what is best for them”. Even if this were true does it imply that the elite would know what is best for them?
There have already been examples made: I go to a plumber to fix my pipes and a doctor when I am sick. There are inherent qualities in us all that make us suited to specific tasks whether that task is merely a broom-pusher or as complicated as a computer programmer. We all rely on the division of labor because which has proven the most efficient means of production.
I think governing, by definition, cannot have done by some superlative class because it must imply that there is a best method and outcome. I liken it to investment but with one noted and all important missing detail – profit.
Because entrepreneurs are always seeking to maximize profits they can direct resources where they think there will be a profit – if it succeeds there is a profit motive to continue. This is not the case in governing. There is no feedback mechanism to even measure any results.
Government also implies one monolithic solution to any problem. The market offers many solutions. What happens in each example, if the decisions made aren’t elite enough?[/quote]
well, the premise seems reasonable. i can think of many counterexamples. for instance, do children know what is best for them? do the mentally ill? how about criminals? do they know what is best for them? how about emotionally distraught victims? do they always know whats best for them?
these are clear cut cases where clearly the person does not always know whats best for them. so, the premise is sound. the question then becomes are mentally competent and emotional well people always the best judge of what is best for them? clearly, no one believes this either. i’ll give you an example. in this country we have democrats and republicans. currently the democrats are rallying around a cry for universal health care, because they KNOW that this will be best for everyone. The republicans on the other hand are rallying against universal health care, because they KNOW that this will be best for everyone. Clearly, one or both sides are wrong. in either case, there are many people who think they know whats best for them, but don’t.
so, i don’t see how anyone could argue with the premise.
Your next claim is that the job of ruling is different from that of other professions. Your premise seems to be that there need not be one best method to governing, nor even one ideal outcome.
i agree whole hardily, and in fact i think this is much of what is wrong with current politics and economics. people seem to have this idea that there is some IDEAL governmental structure and state and economy, and that if only we could get there, things would be perfect and we would never have to worry again (in some ways, this was the goal of the founding fathers). Given our limited knowledge as humans, and our limited and disastrous experience with government (we’ve only been doing this a few thousand years, which isn’t that long in the grand scheme of things), this idea seems silly. Also, what is “best” for one person is not “best” for everyone else. Thus, it seems even in principle that what is best for everyone isn’t one thing.
BUT… even though i grant this premise, i do not believe that it follows that “elitism”, as described here, must fail. After all, despite the fact that there is no one best method, or one ideal outcome, are there not some methods which work better then others? are their not some outcomes are better? For example, clearly the methods employed by the US government over the last 100 years have been better then those employed by stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China. Further, does it not also seem to follow that given the complexity involved in governing, and given the need for understanding and diversity found in the premise, is this not all the more reason for wanting the best qualified to rule?
surely we do not want to leave such a difficult and important job to just anyone who can sway the masses by telling them they’ll give them more candy (which is what recent elections in the USA seem like).