The Means to an End and The End of Democracy

A bit of political blasphemy has been growing in me for some time now and, finally, I have convinced myself of its validity. Democracy is no longer an appropriate political system. The notion of equal say, under certain circumstances, is plainly foolish. Every person is born equal; Unfortunately, we don't stay that way very long.

Things have gotten a bit more complicated since the dawn of democracy some two millenia ago. Some might argue that this is regrettable and I will not waste time on that point here. What I intend to express is that the common citizen no longer has so much as a fading grasp on anything relevant in a modern democracy. We can examine a brief list of issues that are currently paramount, if not a little forward looking: Nano-technology, Space, Population Control, Disease Control, Environment, Nuclear Energy, and the infinitely taboo Biotechnology just to name a few. Understanding these subjects requires not only intimate knowledge of the specific subject matter, but a solid background in scientific concepts, an understanding of how scientific systems function, experience in interperetation, and, eventually, a little intuition. You can not be reasonably expected to build a house with no prior understanding of how hammers, saws, and drills operate. Whether or not the common citizen can be reasonably expected to have this level of competency in scientific principles will be dealt with later; For now it is sufficient just to realize that he/she does not.

According to the most recent national literacy survey, 15% of the American population "may be unable to determine the correct amount of medicine to give a child based on the information printed on the package." If this is extrapolated any further than our sixth grade reading level newspapers the figures get ugly in a hurry. Yet, these people have the right to decide what research can and cannot be funded. I can think of no other setting where such blatantly unqualified opinions are even considered, let alone taken as final. I suppose it's to all of our benefit that these people don't decide directly, but merely select the official that looks most competent. But here is another interesting principle: democratic selection strictly favors policy makers that appear to be the most qualified. In other words, those who appeal most to the generally ignorant public. I doesn't seem a terrible idea to me to have some sort of competency examination for those that wish to parent the species, but then I'm not necessarily providing alternatives as of yet. As a side note to those who are slightly appalled by my denouncing democracy, what currently prevails is a feint. We won't be falling far.

So what has gone wrong here? I don't really believe that everyone, regardless of incompetence, shouldn't have a say in the circumstances they are subjected to. Of course they should. However, somewhere along the line we've confused ends with means. What conditions we should live in are strictly matters of opinion; How to achieve such conditions are anything but. Someone with a great deal of my respect voted for George W. Bush last November under the belief that another term of Bush would reciprocate a stronger liberal vote next time around. I took a more direct path and voted to the contrary. The point here is that our ends were similar, but our means were starkly different. That I have good reason to believe his means were the result of higher qualifications is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we both voted for the means to an end rather than for the end itself. One of us was, at least in some degree more than the other, wrong. Ends are matters of opinion. Means are the property of sophisticated predictive relations.

Assume for a moment that you would like some cake, or rather, that a group of individuals decides that they would all enjoy some cake. You happen to be highly skilled in the culinary arts and, if you do say so yourself, make a moist and delicious cake. Now imagine that as you begin to prepare said cake, you are immediately contested and, after some argument, it is decided that the method of preparing the cake will go to a vote, or, as a slightly more accurate analogy, a series of votes that converge on some compromise. The resulting cake, though better for your professional input, is sub par at best. Had you been allowed to prepare the dish yourself, everyone involved would have benefited as they enjoyed your moist, delicious cake. Now imagine that the better part of your company have never seen an egg and have no concept of the function of an oven. Now we are at a point something like modern democracy, and the cake tastes like shit. It should be noted that if your party had genuinely disagreed on exactly what type of cake is most delicious, than this decision would have been well put to a vote. After all, your favorite dessert is a matter of opinion. The proper way to prepare a cake, generally speaking, is well established fact.

Another flawed bit of logic modern democracy tends to ignore is the issue of unattainable states. In this situation, whether or not the means are flawed, the desired ends are simply not a possibility. This time we're baking bread and the argument concerns how long the doe should be left to rise before baking. After all the votes are tallied, a few give correct times, many give wrong times, and altogether too many have surmised that if the doe is left long enough it will grow so large that they will get a whole loaf to themselves. Again, optimum rise time is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. But more importantly, the amount of bread is determinate. What we are left with is a lot of irritated people that had to wait too long to eat, and another group still demanding that they get the whole loaf. Clearly, if your ends are unattainable, your vote is pure detriment.

In essence, democracy is only logical when we are dealing with pure matters of opinion. The problem is that pure matters of opinion simply don't exist. Nor, of course, do pure matters of fact. However, just because a matter is not completely understood does not imply that it should be blindly guessed at. To be sure, there is a matter of credentials; All guesses are not equal.

As I stated before, I am not attempting to propose a solution presently, but there are a few comments that outline the general form of the solution. First, concidering current progress, or rather the rate of current progress, I do believe it to be unreasonable to expect that everyone have a competent opinion on every issue. This is precisely why democracy must be left behind. Specialization is becoming quite pronounced and it is only in its infancy. I can't imagine that the concept of general education as we know it survives but a few more generations. Humanity works now, and will continue to in successively more efficient stages, as one complex organism (if only by capitalistic means). It will soon become illogical to expect that any one part of the organism be able to do the job of another, or even have any useful input as to its operation. It may seem initially that this type of operation involves a great deal of unwarranted trust. It must be understood, however, that there is often mutual benefit to cooperation and this problem will likely not be resolved through human ingenuity, but rather, unavoidably, as a matter of equilibrium. Whatever the solution may be, it will be a system in constant flux. Things have gotten a bit more complicated since the dawn of democracy some two millenia ago.

One last consideration: where do those who wish to remain blissfully ignorant fit into such a system? Do they retain the right to make that decision, however unfathomable it may seem to some of us? This is touchy, however, someone who does not actively contribute to society does not deserve to fully benefit from it. You can be a janitor and receive tangible goods for your tangible work. But no intellectual contribution means no abstract payoff. If you do not influence direction, than you should not necessarily benefit from progress. More specifically, society should foster what your contribution is. Only when your contribution is influence should society foster that influence by allowing you a say. If your contribution is mere manual labor, society owes you nothing more than the right to life.