A bridge?

[Scheavo]

It occurred to me today that there's one social aspect that is very important for libertarians and liberal democratic theory: a smart, well informed, and active populace. It also occurred to me, that if we actually had a smart, well informed, and active populace, there might not be much tension between liberals and libertarians. One common complaint I see raised by libertarians is basically how corrupt government is, or how prone it is to corruption; and a corrupt government is one where peoples freedoms and rights get lost. But this need not happen under proper democratic governance, cause the populace can vote out the corrupt persons and restore working order, and resist stupid idea's. I think this almost mirrors a common problem I have about the free-market; for while I think it's ideally possible for a populace to exert control on the market, I don't think many people consume in such thought-out measures as libertarians want. A dumb populace in a free-market leads to a plutocracy by the power players in the economy, and a restrictino of freedom.

So here's my question: if there was a smart, well informed, and active populace, would there be grounds for disagreement between liberals and libertarians, or would such a populace inherently solve many of the problems that liberals and libertarians disagree on? Is it possible to have such a populace, and if so, how?

[MasterShakezula]

Hmm, with a smart, well-informed, and active populace, I doubt liberals and libertarians would see exactly eye-to-eye, though I bet they'd be on closer terms than now.  This sounds rather utopian, though, because to put it frankly, people just aren't that smart.  The average IQ of US-ians is 98, which is healthy, but far from smart.  Also, considering the weak level of public, gov-funded education, mass media that promotes anti-intellectualism, and the average person's not giving too much of a thought to the big picture, and you have a long ways to go to get to the sort of miracle populace that you're proposing. 

[j]

I think the OP is right, it works both ways.  A dumb populace perpetuates both corruption in government AND the oft-cited problems with a *true* "free market".  It's just that liberals choose to trust the government over the market and libertarians choose the opposite.  Interesting thought.

-J

[Sigz]

The average IQ of US-ians is 98, which is healthy, but far from smart. 

I was under the impression that by definition the average IQ of a population is 100.

[Scheavo]

I think the OP is right, it works both ways.  A dumb populace perpetuates both corruption in government AND the oft-cited problems with a *true* "free market".  It's just that liberals choose to trust the government over the market and libertarians choose the opposite.  Interesting thought.

-J

And, if there's agreement on the problem, it seems like the solution would run into rather immediate problems...

[hefdaddy42]

The average IQ of US-ians is 98, which is healthy, but far from smart. 

I was under the impression that by definition the average IQ of a population is 100.

Why?

And...Us-ians?

[Sigz]

The average IQ of US-ians is 98, which is healthy, but far from smart. 

I was under the impression that by definition the average IQ of a population is 100.

Why?

When modern IQ tests are constructed the median score is set to 100

[Jamesman42]

median =! average

[Sigz]

It's supposed to be a normal distribution though, so aren't they equal? IDK, my knowledge of statistics is severely limited.

[Ħ]

It's supposed to be a normal distribution though, so aren't they equal? IDK, my knowledge of statistics is severely limited.

That's true, but I dunno if it's a normal distribution.

[MasterShakezula]

And...Us-ians?

Yes.  Citizens of the US.

American is the common term, but America =/= the US.

America = North and South America

American = Resident of North or South America

All US-ers are Americans, but not all Americans are US-ers. 

If I was a non US-er and someone told me they were American, how would I be able to tell where they are from, when, using that term, they could be from Colorado, Canada, or Chile?

[Sigz]

If I was a non US-er and someone told me they were American, how would I be able to tell where they are from, when, using that term, they could be from Colorado, Canada, or Chile?

Because someone from Canada would say they're Canadian, and someone from Chile would say their Chilean.

[MasterShakezula]

Touche.

Still, why do US-ers refer to themselves by the name of the landmass composed of N. and S. America?

It sounds way cooler when you say, "I'm from the States."

[ClairvoyantCat]

Still, why do US-ers refer to themselves by the name of the landmass composed of N. and S. America?

Because it's easier and sounds better.

[Adami]

Touche.

Still, why do US-ers refer to themselves by the name of the landmass composed of N. and S. America?

It sounds way cooler when you say, "I'm from the States."

Because no other country in the Americas has the word America in it.

[XJDenton]

median =! average

The median is a type of average.

[rumborak]

The reason why the average US citizen can have an IQ of 98 is because the US is sub population of the world's population. So, the world population will have an average IQ of 100 exactly, but the US population can deviate from that. It's the same reason why the statement "blacks have, on average, a lower IQ than whites" shouldn't raise many eyebrows, because there's a 50:50 chance of this outcome anyway. The statement "blacks and whites have exactly the same IQ" should however raise eyebrows.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

median =! average

The median is a type of average.

It's the median becuase this gives a standard deviation. 20 points is set to one standard deviation, I believe.

What were we talking about again? Oh right...

[MasterShakezula]

Your utopian dream of an intelligent, well-informed, and righteous-minded populace solving bipartisanship in the government?

That would happen, but the US, or any nation for that matter, does not have any such miracle populace. 

The majority of people are just not that good. 

[Scheavo]

I'm not saying this is entirely possible, I'm pointing to a practical difference that I think causes the rift between liberals and libertarians - because fundamentally, both sides adhere to the same fundamental principles.

Either way though, seeing as how we're both alive, wouldn't you agree, utopian or not, that it's better to try and reach that goal, than not try at all? There's studies which show the IQ of a city is highly correlated with that cities quality of life; so, for the sake of my quality of life, and yours, shouldn't public education be a primary goal?

[MasterShakezula]

Definitely.  I am all for having gov doing all that is possible to promote an intelligent populace.

However, I do not think that it will be a miracle policy.  No matter how good the education system can be made, there will be many cretins who refuse to put forth the effort to become educated, and as a result, they will be that lower class in society.  Though I imagine that if the gov cared about the education system and worked to improve it, there would definitely be long term improvements in term of quality of life. 

[MetalMike06]

They've been doing a lot to "promote an intelligent populace" for decades now and it's just gotten way worse.

Anywho, I don't think such a populace is forseeable or very possible. People are just going to be people. It's much of why I'm pretty cynical nowadays, and find political discussions useless to participate in. Things are just gonna suck, no matter how much I think about this or that issue or promote a certain view. I can try to be "informed" but there's millions out there who just aren't, never will be, and will still go to the ballot box and vote for their favorite face from the TV.

[Scheavo]

They've been doing a lot to "promote an intelligent populace" for decades now and it's just gotten way worse.

Anywho, I don't think such a populace is forseeable or very possible. People are just going to be people. It's much of why I'm pretty cynical nowadays, and find political discussions useless to participate in. Things are just gonna suck, no matter how much I think about this or that issue or promote a certain view. I can try to be "informed" but there's millions out there who just aren't, never will be, and will still go to the ballot box and vote for their favorite face from the TV.

In the US perhaps, but the rest of the globe isn't experiencing quite the dumbing down as America.

The same goes for voter participation and voter intelligence. Yes, no place is ideal around the world (nor can be), but we seriously can't use America as a benchmark, and think that what's possible in America right now is what's possible period.

[MasterShakezula]

They've been doing a lot to "promote an intelligent populace" for decades now and it's just gotten way worse.

Anywho, I don't think such a populace is forseeable or very possible. People are just going to be people. It's much of why I'm pretty cynical nowadays, and find political discussions useless to participate in. Things are just gonna suck, no matter how much I think about this or that issue or promote a certain view. I can try to be "informed" but there's millions out there who just aren't, never will be, and will still go to the ballot box and vote for their favorite face from the TV.

In the US perhaps, but the rest of the globe isn't experiencing quite the dumbing down as America.

The same goes for voter participation and voter intelligence. Yes, no place is ideal around the world (nor can be), but we seriously can't use America as a benchmark, and think that what's possible in America right now is what's possible period.

That is a solid thought.  I admit, I thought your initial post and such was centered upon the US, due to it's being very infamous for it's dumbass populace and horrendous bipartisan in government. 

I bet your ideas would be plausible to a degree in more educated nations, such as many countries in northern Europe, though, I can't really discuss that with any sort of clue, as I am not educated about the culture and politics of other nations, aside from obvious things, like continental Europe's being more liberal and having more government involvement in social services, compared to the very capitalist and private enterprise-based US. 

I do wonder, what was the major turning point that made the US become a breeding ground for dumbassery, and the turning point that made much of continental Europe much more disciplined/cultured/educated/superior?  (This post isn't even coming from a foreigner; I am a US citizen and have never left the US.)

[Scheavo]

I do wonder, what was the major turning point that made the US become a breeding ground for dumbassery, and the turning point that made much of continental Europe much more disciplined/cultured/educated/superior?  (This post isn't even coming from a foreigner; I am a US citizen and have never left the US.)

Now that a question worth having an answer to. I'm sure it's complicated, and I'm willing to bet a good portion of it is the sense of superiority in the American people. At least when I grew up, America was number 1, no matter what. We got too secure in being great, that we forgot to maintain being great.

Politically, I'm also willing to bet the Cold War, and the ensunig propaganda, helped people stop questioning their government and it's motives. Especially Reagan. He's loved for "defeating" the USSR, whilst during his Presidency, the government became much more corrupt, and much much worse. Always easier to make people blindly follow and believe in you when there's some "enemy" that needs confronting.

[MasterShakezula]

I've heard many (including members here) say that Ronnie and his cabinet and the congress from 81-89 is responsible for many of the mistakes that have made America a weakened and struggling nation now.  And from the basic stuff I know about politics and modern American history, I wouldn't be surprised.