Honestly now: Do you have what it takes? We all like to think we’re smarter than average, but the math is cruel. Half of us are below median intelligence, and some of us are considerably lower. So why should we think that freedom is a good policy for everyone?
I believe freedom is the best policy, but sometimes that is a hard argument to make. A free society presupposes that people are capable of living self-responsibly. That in turn presupposes that they have enough intelligence to do so. And a free democracy presupposes that the majority will consistently make good political decisions. That also presupposes they have enough intelligence to do so.
But a strong claim can be made that it’s naive to think that most people are smart enough. So let’s take up that hard challenge, since only by facing the best arguments on all sides can we be most certain of our own conclusions.
Here’s sobering anecdote, courtesy of columnist Marilyn vos Savant, about just how low the average intelligence can be. vos Savant has the distinction, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, of having the highest score ever on IQ tests.
A reader wrote to vos Savant with a perplexing math problem he had been debating over dinner with his wife and brother-in-law. Suppose that you pour one cup of 100% bran cereal into a bowl, and then you pour one cup of 40% bran cereal into the same bowl. What percentage of bran is now in the bowl?
The reader’s wife said 140% — apparently one should add the two percentages to get the right answer. The brother-in-law disagreed, holding that one should subtract the lower from the higher percentage, so the correct answer is 60%. The reader himself thought that 140% and 60% were both wrong — and that the right answer depends on whether one first pours the 100% bran or the 40% bran into the bowl.
Here we have three individuals who cannot do basic math. What are the chances they have the cognitive skills necessary to make it in our complex, high-tech world? Can they calculate the percentages for, say, good nutrition or the compounding interest rates on their credit cards? One has only to consider how many people out there are obese or have out-of-control debt. Intellectually, they are nearly helpless to navigate the complicated modern world by themselves — and in the name of freedom we leave them to their own devices.
It gets worse. Perhaps you can do basic math. But let’s not forget that the three citizens above can easily outvote you on any public policy issue. What are the chances that their three math-challenged votes will be better than your one math-informed vote — on budgetary calculations — on judging acceptable levels of chemicals in foods — on whether vaccines are a good idea — on the science of climate? So what are the chances that democracy is anything more than a slow suicide of the collectively stupid?
Maybe a managed freedom is best for most people. Of course some of us are smarter than others. So those of us with the brains (that’s you, me, and vos Savant) can do good by making the important decisions for our less intelligent brethren or at least firmly nudging them in the correct direction. Wouldn’t that be better for the unsmart than leaving them to their own precarious intelligence?
So, the argument concludes, let’s be blunt: We should design the political system to give power to the smart. Let us forthrightly take decision-making power away from the less intelligent — for their own good and the good of society as a whole.
In ancient times, Plato argued that we need philosopher-kings. For our modern science-and-technology-intensive society, we can update that: We need philosopher-scientist-kings.
Do you shrink from the dictatorial sound of that? Perhaps we needn’t go to such extremes and can include some democratic elements. We can permit everyone to vote and have the majority of votes determine which candidates will be given the authority to make the important decisions on our behalf. Or to make our choices as voters even easier, let’s have political parties pre-select suitably smart candidates, and we voters will choose the best from among them.
But our representatives, once elected, will soon face a problem. They will realize that the world is very complex and that many, many important decisions must be made – but they themselves don’t always have the necessary knowledge to decide wisely.
So they will create a series of government agencies staffed with intelligent experts — about manufacturing and trade, about banking and finance, about food and drink, about pharmaceuticals and medicine, about transportation, and about the education of our children. Those expert agencies will be empowered to make the necessary decisions on our behalf, and we can live happily knowing that the smart people are in charge of our lives.
I’ve just described something like the current system of the United States and most of the world’s developed nations. Depending how one counts, we live in something that should be called a Doubly-Indirect Paternalist Democracy or a Thrice-Removed Benevolent Aristocracy. We citizens can makes some choices, but within a framework selected and enforced by our intellectual-superiors.
In that system, those of lower intelligence are protected from the consequences of their ignorance in their own lives, and the rest of us are protected from the consequences of their voting in our public lives. Perhaps some tinkering with the system is necessary — but if the logic of the above argument is sound, then we already live in the best of all possible political worlds.
So we have a challenge for those of us who want to live freely. We want to choose the education of our children. We want to decide for ourselves what to eat and drink. We want to make our own plans for our financial futures. We even want to choose our own physicians and insurance plans, and much more. But why should that matter in the light of the above argument for paternalism?
Note that the paternalist argument is driven by fear — fear of the stupid and the uninformed. We need to protect them from themselves because we fear that they can’t make it on their own. And we need to protect ourselves from the stupid and the uninformed, because we fear the consequences of their large-number political power in a democracy.
Those fears are not irrelevant considerations, but they are not the basis for a proper political philosophy. Why not? That is the subject of my next article.
Don’t miss last week’s column: How to Discriminate Properly
Stephen Hicks is the author of Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault and of Nietzsche and the Nazis. He blogs at StephenHicks.org. For future columns on The Good Life, feel welcome to send your philosophical questions and moral dilemmas to him at .
Note: If you follow the retail links in this post and make purchases on the site(s), Defy Media may receive a share of the proceeds from your sale through the retailer’s affiliate program.
Keep up with the best of The Good Life below. Click through the gallery to read more from Stephen Hicks.
ProfitNobody likes to lose money, but profit generates polarized attitudes.
Photo by Melpomenem/Getty Images
Money and booksWhich is more evil - loving money or books?
Photo by Getty Images
Campus PoliticsUniversities are political places, but there’s good politics and bad.
Photo by Getty Images
ImmigrationStephen Hicks discusses the limits to open immigration.
Photo by Jordan Pix/Getty Images
TerrorismStephen Hicks explores how to tame religious terrorists.
Photo by Thierry Chesnot/Getty Images
SchoolingIs education really too expensive?
Photo: monkeybusinessimages / Getty Images
SexbotsLet's discuss the ethics of having sex with robots.
Photo by Jiri Miklo/Getty Images
Comparing North and Latin AmericaStephen Hicks explores why there are such dramatic differences in economic performance between the two Americas?
Photo: Anson_iStock / Getty Images
Free College Tuition Is a Moral IssueMany successful people did not graduate from college and many unsuccessful people have impressive degrees. So who should go to college? And who should pay for it?
Photo: Rawpixel Ltd / Getty Images
HitlerStephen Hicks explores answers to the question, "How smart and well-read was Adolf Hitler?"
MicroaggressionRead Part I and Part II in this series on understanding triggers and microaggression as strategy.
GreeceStephen Hicks weighs in on Greeek debts and doing what's moral.
Free SpeechTimes are changing. Is Free Speech Dead in Universities?
IntelligenceStephen Hicks talks about intelligence, freedom, and who knows what's best for you. Also don't miss his piece entitled, "Are You Smart Enough to Live in a Free Society?
EconomicsHow close is current Keynesian practice to original Keynesian theory? Can we blame Keynes for our current situation?
PhilosophyPhilosophy has a reputation for attracting deep thinkers whose quest for wisdom can serve as a model for all of us. And since politics is a major component of the life well lived, what wisdom can philosophy bring to bear on politics? Are philosophers stupid about politics?
PovertyLet us share with you the most impressive number of our generation: 600 million. That is how many people have been lifted out of extreme poverty in the last 25 years. Read more about the the problem of poverty.
SexControversy has been running high recently over how best to lower the rape rate on campuses. Read Stephen Hicks' piece on Campus Sex and the Anti-Sexiness of the New Authoritarians.
MoneyStephen Hicks weighs in on the economy, deregulation, capitalism and much more.
- Where are All Those Free-Market Economists Who Caused the Financial Crisis?
- Conservatives Against Free-Market Capitalism
- Blamestorming: “Deregulation Caused the Financial Crisis”