Yes, but what if it we're given to the intellectuals who percieve the rampant exploitation of belief of the masses ongoing already? Would there be no moral justification then?

The practised and trained surgeon, of course, Socrates. And if I need a government I'd prefer one that has the consent (at least) of the population rather than one that is risking revolution by ignoring the views of large numbers of its people, whatever their level of education. Now what?

Determining what is good for everyone is not "knowledge" it is process.

The United States initially restricted voting to the 6% of the population who were white property-owning males. It took a long time for non-property-owning white males, black males, and women to gain voting rights. Did the 6% manage things all that well?

Who, better than the masses, knows what the masses need and want?

Intellectuals--or the most highly trained and or educated people--do not necessarily know what is good for themselves, let alone everyone else. Determining the best practice, best policy, best law, best tax system, best regulation, etc. is just plain difficult and freighted with all sorts of competing interests, even among a limited elite. Taking everyone's interests into account is that much more complex.

Working out what is good for the people is the peoples' business, and it tends to be a messy process (because of competing interests), and perhaps it is the messiness of politics to which the epistocracists object.

Yes, assuming the masses cannot decide for themselves what are their sincere beliefs and what is mere brainwashing of people who are easily misled. But that is the very assumption that I am questioning. Perhaps people, even uneducated ones, may have some notion of the interests of themselves and their communities. And even educated people can be misled. Knowledge is distinct from wisdom.

The views I mean are just those we express by voting - 'Yes' to this candidate and 'No' to the others. Yes, it matters whether views are justified. And just as you are justified in voting for A so I am equally justified in voting for B. The fact that I vote for B and you think that only stupid people do that is not a justification for giving you more votes. Yes, Governments can be corrupt. That is why we have constitutions that are not voted upon but are fixed regardless of the Government. Yes, elected governments can also lead to revolution and fail to represent the views of masses of the people. But epistocratically elected governments, although they may not lead to revolution, are guaranteed not to represent the views of the less educated, because that is the voting system in question.

Can elected governments not lead to revolution also? Can they not become corrupt? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

They can, do, and did. Elected governments led to the second American revolution of southern succession, for instance. Elected governments also crushed that revolution.

"Corruption" is a problematic term. In the US, insider trading is considered corrupt. In some other leading industrial nations it is not. Corruption, meaning official-rule violating, may be the most effective way to achieve good results. If environmentalists had enough money, we could bribe congress to pass laws favorable to the environment and in accord with stringent carbon emissions reduction. That would save many people from dying.

Epistemocracy (nice word!) no. Voter qualification, yes! I buy arguments 1, 2, and 3 above, but they're not arguments against qualification. In the U.S., people are required to qualify for all kinds of things before they're free to do them; why not voting? It could easily be a part of basic education.

"But," you ask, "isn't public education (in the U.S.) already everything anyone would need to exercise their voting franchise in an informed and responsible manner?" Short answer: no!

The idea is that the qualification would consist in passing a test. One-time for all time. For most people doable in high school. Not a guarantee of an informed and qualified electorate, but a foundation.

The election of 2016 poses some problems, not yet solved. That of discerning truth from lies. The problem itself isn't new, but modern media manipulation makes sorting out the lies difficult to the point of being as a practical matter beyond most folks. There are at present two solutions. First is through adversarial advocacy. This, as campaigning, is what we're all more-or-less accustomed to. The second I've only seen at the state level: the production by neutral parties of handbooks on the issues, the various sides presented by their respective advocates in a brief and tightly controlled format. (League of Women Voters, in Massachusetts.) These handbooks widely distributed, and free.

Perhaps people, even uneducated ones, may have some notion of the interests of themselves and their communities. And even educated people can be misled. Knowledge is distinct from wisdom. — Cuthbert

Well, this is just Plato 101; but, you would know that Plato held the ignorant and uneducated in contempt. At least at the time, many ignorant and uneducated people we're in government in his view. Nowadays, we seem to have adopted Plato's attitude towards all matters regarding statecraft. Yeah, sometimes we get the demagogues and populists in power; but, on average it seems like branches of government weed out the incorrigible and uneducated.

"But," you ask, "isn't public education (in the U.S.) already everything anyone would need to exercise their voting franchise in an informed and responsible manner?" Short answer: no! — tim wood

I was in Walgreens to get some first aid supplies for our first aid kit. A Walgreens clerk happened to be restocking that area. I asked him where the bandage was. "What is that?" he said. I said, "You're working in a drug store restocking the first aid shelves and you don't know what bandage is?" "No" he said. "How did you get this far in life without ever hearing the word "bandage". "What does it look like?" he asked. "It's gauze -- have you heard of gauze?" "Oh sure, it's right over there."

As it happened, next to the bandage.

The second argument is that giving groups of people lesser voting rights is a provocative political act likely to lead to the kind of violence I hint at in the first para above. If we limit people's access to peaceful democratic decision-making then they will be liable to resort to unpeaceful and undemocratic means of redress. From the serfs of Russia to the suffragettes we can see this process. Shut me up, I will kick. And I will be justified in doing so because I have been given lesser rights to object by more peaceful means. — Cuthbert

I AGREE with what you said, but what was undemocratic and unpeaceful about the way the suffragettes sought the vote? The temperance movement involved more destruction (taking axes to saloons) and social disruption.

Regarding argument one: while knowledge does not necessarily make you wiser, it does make it more likely that you are. In most cases knowledge will also make the innately wise person even wiser. A group of more educated people may not be 100% free of people voting for the wrong things and for the wrong reasons, but it significantly reduces the total number thereof.

Regarding argument two: in order to revolt, the people would have to have a certain amount of political knowledge. Would it be enough that we consider them eligible to vote anyway and thus making the revolt moot?

Another argument against an epistemocracy is an ethical one concerning the rights of autonomous adults. Any adult has the right to be as stupid as he or she wishes to be and to make as many poor choices as he or she wants--provided, of course, these choices do not harm others. So, do we allow stupid people to vote because they should be allowed to ruin their own lives? Or do we say that their stupid voting choices are negatively affecting others and as such should be more controlled?

The solution, of course, is fairly simple: a democracy that ensures the education of all of it's people and that values learning/knowledge more than, say, the Super Bowl. Easier said than done perhaps, but also the only truly ethical way out of the mess.

The only contestion I have with Plato's sentiment being swept around here is the authoritarian tone it gave governments to meddle and get involved in their lives. We've seen how that ended with totalitarian Germany and Soviet Russia. But, then there's China that has to leave someone scratching their head. Is it possible for an elite to be able to manage (in this case central management) the welfare of a billion plus people? It would surprisingly seem so, and lends to the stronger readings of Plato's Republic. It's also the most efficient form of governance possible, in that Platonic perfectionist sense.

The suffragettes - like the serfs in Russia and Black people in South Africa - used undemocratic means simply because they had no access to democratic means. I'm talking about violence, law-breaking, street protests, civil insurrection, revolution. These things are excusable, even justifiable and sometimes praiseworthy, when you have a good cause and are excluded from any other way of promoting it. Of course, if you don't have a good cause then they are not. You could argue temperance either way in the circumstances of the time.

Yes, and I'm anti-Plato 101. I think Plato held that wisdom was a higher kind of knowledge. When you truly know what are goodness and justice then you will be good and just and capable of governing yourself and potentially others. When we do wrong it is because we have not yet grasped the true nature of goodness and are still in thrall to the ever-changing illusions presented by our desires and our everyday lives. Democracy is the political expression of these illusions, the following of whims and desires without real knowledge. I don't agree with him. Aristotle struggled with the Platonic legacy, having observed that people can know all kinds of things about the right way of behaving and still behave the wrong way. Knowledge is not the same as good judgement and wrong-doing is not a species of forgetting.

I'm not arguing that we should tolerate ill-informed people in executive branches of government. Only that the ill-informed should have the same rights to vote.

Is there a difference between epistocracy and voter qualification by a test of intellectual capacity? I thought they were the same thing. The more you score, the more votes you get.

The difficulty of distinguishing truth from lies is an old one as you say. But even when you can distinguish them it will only get you part of the way to sound judgement. I can get my PhD in international politics and still believe that capitalism is a great system for benefiting everyone (lie or truth?) or that socialism is a great way of freeing the oppressed from their shackles (truth or lie?). Knowledge will not help me all the way in these matters.

Ok, point granted, if we agree to turn a blind eye to harvesting organs from the Falun Gong and believe all the Chinese say and all that we would like to believe of them. Once we take away people's civil rights, e.g. by degrading their rights to vote, then it's so much easier to act as if they don't count for as much and from thence we can proceed to act as if they don't exist. Compare South Africa - and contrast, of course, there's a lot to learn from China as you say.

"Regarding argument one: while knowledge does not necessarily make you wiser, it does make it more likely that you are."

To test this hypothesis - "Higher levels of wisdom amongst educated than uneducated" - you would have to know (a) levels of education and (b) levels of wisdom. Measuring (a) is easy. But how do you measure (b)? Let's suppose that a person who votes Democrat is stupider than a person who votes Republican just because (as anyone but a fool can judge) the Republicans are wiser and better than the Democrats. Or it may be the other way round. I'm saying that your claim begs the question. If we already knew what was wisest and best then we wouldn't need votes for anyone at all because we would all agree.

"In most cases knowledge will also make the innately wise person even wiser. A group of more educated people may not be 100% free of people voting for the wrong things and for the wrong reasons, but it significantly reduces the total number thereof."

Education is a great thing. I'm arguing against degrading the civil rights of those who don't have it. I think your point is a good argument for giving everyone at least a basic level of education.

I've raised this issue elsewhere recently, so I'm not sure if you will have encountered them, apologies for the repeat if you have, but surely we already have an epistocracy? Why else are children not allowed to vote? If anything @tim wood's idea is more fair, as a particularly well informed and educated 14 year old could vote, whereas at the moment we have a system where it is simply presumed that they're too stupid to make a rational choice. The result is we have a democracy obsessed with house prices and tax at the expense of securing our children a future.

I don't think that recognizing someone's intellect or wisdom goes hand in hand with agreeing with their every sentiment. It would be pretty silly to dispute the intellect of a man like Einstein, but that does not necessarily mean he was right in all of his theories. Same for wisdom: Plato was a very wise man, but not always correct in his theories. However, both Einstein and Plato were closer to any sort of truth about science and philosophy, because they were highly intelligent and educated persons. The point is not that uneducated or unknowledgeable people can't be wise, but that education and knowledge increase the wisdom of most, though admittedly not all, individuals. Knowledge expands your horizons. It moves you from group-think and cliche's to more global perspectives and the ability to grasp the big picture. Just like any other skill or ability, practice and knowledge makes you better. I may have a natural talent for the piano, but only practice and classes are going to make me better at it. And if I never had talent at the piano, only practice and classes are going to make me even passable at playing. (And again, I can recognize the musical talent of many artists without thinking that they sound very good or that they always have very good ideas while playing.)

As to the civil rights of the individual without education: I agree that this is the main problem with the whole concept of keeping democracy in the hands of those who are educated. However, I do not think the ethical dilemma can be dismissed so easily out of hand. If the majority of uneducated people are voting in favor of racists and those who would intentionally harm certain populations, then their individual rights may be at odds with the rights of others.

The only thing my position presupposes to work well is an education that emphasizes critical thinking over indoctrination. But I would argue that even the most indoctrinating education is better than none, because it is always giving you more tools with which you might be able to see through the propaganda. You can see China struggling with this tension throughout it's regime's history and today--they want to have educated people, and to have a boast-worthy system of higher education, but it's hard to maintain their rigid system of propaganda at the same time.

Yes, that's a good point, Pseudonym. Why am I not in favour of 8 year olds having a vote? Their interests matter as much as anyone's and a bright and well-adjusted 8 year old is as likely (by my own argument) to make a good choice of candidate as any adult. But I'm not in favour of it. It would be absurd. Over to me to say exactly why and it's definitely a weakness in my position on this thread.

"If the majority of uneducated people are voting in favor of racists and those who would intentionally harm certain populations, then their individual rights may be at odds with the rights of others."

That's an argument for taking the vote away from racists - not from people who happen to belong to a group the majority of whom are (let's grant for sake of argument) racists. There is a big difference. Suppose I'm uneducated and as well as being uneducated I go on anti-racist marches and throw myself in front of racist demonstrators who are attacking black people. Suppose I am an uneducated black person doing those things. And you'd take away my vote because there are other, equally uneducated people, who are racist and attacking me? Does not seem just to me.

That leaves aside whether we should take the vote away from racists. I'm rather against it, as it happens because of the implications of how such a policy would be implemented. To get your vote you have to take an anti-racist test. What's in the test? People would disagree about what was racist and what was not, what was just and what was not. And to settle the matter we'd have to have a vote on it. Back to where we started. Very tricky.

It would be absurd. Over to me to say exactly why and it's definitely a weakness in my position on this thread. — Cuthbert

Well I'd be interested to hear if you come up with anything. Personally I think it's a crime at the heart of democracy and goes straight to the hypocrisy of such systems. Either there's some criteria for who can vote (in which case we might as well be proactive about it, rather than arbitrary), or everyone with an interest has that right (in which case we can't go excluding whole swathes of the population on the grounds that they'd probably vote for the 'wrong' reasons).

A threshold of understanding seems to be the only justifiable line, and in that case (and that case alone) I can see some argument for an age limit as a purely pragmatic way of indicating the passing of that threshold. But in order for such a threshold to have a claim to moral authority, it would have to be set such that only a few very rare exceptions existed. As it is, I can think of whole swathes of the adult population who have less understanding of the political issues than equally large swathes of the 14 year old population.

Consequently I'm in favour of reducing the voting age to at least 14, possibly 12.

Consequently I'm in favour of reducing the voting age to at least 14, possibly 12. — Pseudonym

Interesting. In addition to extending the "blessings" of (legal) adulthood, would you also expose younger people to the burdens of being an adult at an earlier age?

In the United States, for instance, it falls on adults to provide for the material existence of children until they reach the age of eighteen.

Those younger than eighteen are also typically tried as children for crimes committed, and the punishments meted out take consideration of their age as a mitigating factor.

There are also child labor laws which prevent kids under sixteen (maybe it's fifteen) from working, that limit the number of hours those between the ages of sixteen and eighteen can work per day and per week, etc.

As in the other thread where we talked about raising children, I like where you're going with this, but when I think through some possible consequences I become a little more cautious.

Absolutely agree with you about the main points of contention. Personally I see them as indicators of a systemic failure that they do not seem to be resolvable without arbitrary unfairness (if that's not a tautology).

I don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll answer your points briefly.

With regards to providing the means of existence, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool 'from each according to their ability to each according to their needs' kind of person, so the issue of some age-specific cut off point at which one is/is not responsible for the material needs of others does not arise. Mostly adults have the greater ability, so should do the greater part of provision, but it's ability, not age that's being judged.

I don't believe in punishment for crime. It has been demonstrated, certainly on my reading of the evidence, that punishment does not work to deter crime. The correct response to crime is to do whatever is most effective to prevent it from happening again. If the crime was committed as a result of immaturity, then action should be taken to raise the child's maturity, if committed out of callousness or sociopathy, then therapy treatment might be appropriate. Either way, the age still is not the determining factor.

With regards to labour laws, there should be no job which is so onerous that we would not want a child to do it (presuming they are willing, keen, and capable, as above). I find the idea of making an adult sit at a desk for 35 hours a week (despite the full knowledge that such restrictions on movement are often fatal in the long term) to be quite repulsive enough without even considering inflicting it on a child. We should have extremely robust labour laws which prevent the exploitation of children and adults alike.

Obviously, many of these issues are an all-or-nothing case (as I believe were some of the issues in our other discussion). Removing child labour laws without changing anything else would be a disaster for children, allowing them to be treated as adults in court without changing our punitive system would be cruel. But I do think some changes are possible within the society we have. Allowing children to vote is one such change, allowing them to work in very strictly controlled types of job is another I would be in favour of, for example.

Certainly not a hi-jack as far as I'm concerned. Curiously, yesterday BBC Radio 4 broadcast a couple of interviews with 10 - 11 year olds about Brexit. Their views were not original or particularly insightful but they seemed to be sincerely held and they expressed them more cogently than average. The arguments against votes-for-children that I can think of are echoes of the same arguments used against votes for women, Black people in South Africa etc - that is, they are not fully independent thinkers, too liable to manipulation and to voting in order to please those in power over them such as their parents. Because of those echoes I am not very inclined to put such arguments forward with any great enthusiasm.

The arguments against votes-for-children that I can think of are echoes of the same arguments used against votes for women, Black people in South Africa etc — Cuthbert

Absolutely. One day (soon I hope) we will look back at the way we treated children with the same baffled abhorrence as we now have for the way we treated other races, women, homosexuals etc. I have no issue with transgender individuals, but it does make me sick to hear all the furore that is being made (quite righly) about their rights to wear whatever they feel comfortable in, and (rather more arguably) have their own pronoun, whilst in the same states we hear of children detained against their will for having the wrong haircut and no-one cares. It's a disgrace.

Obviously, many of these issues are an all-or-nothing case (as I believe were some of the issues in our other discussion). Removing child labour laws without changing anything else would be a disaster for children, allowing them to be treated as adults in court without changing our punitive system would be cruel. But I do think some changes are possible within the society we have. Allowing children to vote is one such change, allowing them to work in very strictly controlled types of job is another I would be in favour of, for example. — Pseudonym

I share your disgust with the system of values, practices, institutions, etc. underlying our modern Western societies. I also think your position on extending rights to younger people - as with your philosophy of child development - seems much more reasonable when combined with a radical shift in these things from where they're at now.

And you're right to point out that extending those rights to kids without a corresponding shift in the larger social, political and cultural context would be a huge mistake. It's an admirable goal for sure, but one that has to work against deeply ingrained prejudices. I guess that's true of all significant social change.

1. Democracy has a purely instrumental value- that is, democracy is good only so far as it protects the basic rights and promotes the general welfare of the populace.

2. Democracy appears to behave problematically.

3. Epistocracy, a system in there is unequal political power between people based on knowledge, may lead to better outcomes.

4. If epistocracy does lead to better outcomes than democracy, then we ought to favor epistocracy over democracy.

5. We ought to, if we can, experiment or find ways to test epistocracy to see how outcomes go.

That's all the argument really is. A large part of the argument is based on the idea that we tend to idolize democracy. We treat democracy as if it is above reproach. All that is required for epistocracy to gain ground is the idea that political liberties (namely the right to vote) are not basic liberties (freedom of speech, right to life) and that we can justify discriminating against certain people based upon some standard of knowledge.

Brennan has some issues. Some of arguments he makes are weak and need to be fleshed out more, and it feels like he spent a lot of time on one argument and needed to cut out sections of other arguments for editing and page length. He does gloss over some of the issues the author of the article brings up. But the book's thesis seems less about progressing epistocracy directly on consequentialist grounds and more about attacking democracy on non-conseqeuntialist grounds, while also attacking some common arguments put forward for the positive effects of democracy.

The objections raised in the OP are less objections to epistocracy proper without some empirical backing and more considerations that need to be considered.

Yes, some people who are educated are not exactly wise. But it seems odd to argue that somehow that the uneducated are able to properly make decisions (and by uneducated, I refer to general level of intelligence, not by official education). It doesn't matter how good-intentioned you are; if you lack basic knowledge about politics (or anything relevant to the issue at hand), it becomes hard to see how you can put your wisdom to use.

Yes, there is the potential for violence if people take issue with a political inequality. But, that is a potential. There is a possibility for violence because of real political inequality within a democracy. There is potential for violence simply for a major disagreement in a political democracy. What matters is if a non-democratic system can have the same actual results of violence. That said, I do think a variation that this particular question is probably one of the strongest objection to Brennan. One of the potential strong benefits of a democracy is that it handles shifts in power relatively well compared to other systems. Democracies can undergo change much better and will not break down into violent revolution everytime a paradigm shift happens to society. However, I am not sure if and how we could test this, or whether an epistocracy with an emphasis on avoiding discrimination (or a plural voting system in which some people get more votes) would solve this issue.

Lastly, I think the technical and specific aspects and issues on how to frame a form a government is no different than what one might face when trying to do it with an epistocracy or a democracy. So, I don't really see the objection.

OK let's give it a whirl. Before we go ahead, how do I explain to my next door neighbour that he gets only one vote and I get three when he is as good as me and as much a citizen as I am, only without the honors degree? I suppose I could persuade him that I know best. But I'd like some back-up. He's a gentle guy and I'll need the rational debating kind of back-up. But there are others, more prone to frustration, who will see the degrading of the value of their votes as a provocation. And, in the absence of an effective ballot, they may make their feeling known by less gentle means. Heck, even without that worry, I'm with them, no matter how many votes Brennan allows me. I'm not putting up with this divisive and patronising nonsense for a minute.

"So, I don't really see the objection." - as above.

"We treat democracy as if it is above reproach."

I agree with Churchill that democracy is the worst imaginable system of government aside from every other system that has ever been tried.

Regarding minors voting, Brennan actually makes use of minors in an intuiton pump. He asks why six year-olds can't vote and points out that we, in large part, deny the right to vote to six year-olds because they lack the mental capacity and knowledge required to make political decisions. We wouldn't accept the verdict of a six year-old on a jury, and we would not accept a six year-old making political decisions for us.

We can then go up the age until we get to the teenage years, like 16 and 17 year-olds. I mean, it is odd that someone who is 17 can't vote but is in the same peer group and shares the same general lifestyles of an 18 year-old who can vote. But this seems odd. I mean, we could give them a chance to vote through some type of test, but then why do we allow everyone to vote without the test? We already acknowledge that certain people are not rational or capable, so why do we do things by age?