General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsProfessor at Koch-funded university department calls for ‘less democracy’
Not really too shocking, but worthy of discussion.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/professor-at-koch-funded-university-department-calls-for-less-democracy/
Dr. Garett Jones, professor of Economics and BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, gave a lecture on the aforementioned topic, taking aim at some of the core values this country is founded upon. Heres a summary from Fourth Estate, a GMU student paper:
Jones says that less democracy and more epistocracy could lead to better governance. Democracy leaves power to the majority while epistocracy allocates power to the knowledgeable. Jones did not imply that democracy should be eliminated, but lessened by 10% for the sake of long term economic growth.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)This IS the capitalist answer to democracy. Capitalism is antithetical to democracy. Whereas democracy says "one person, one vote", capitalism says "one dollar, one vote". Anti-democracy is intrinsic in the system.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)government, they are going to install Scott Walker as president with the help of many here at DU.
The ONLY way to stop them is to work on voting rights, protect the right to vote.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/with-voting-rights-act-out-states-push-voter-id-laws/
Many more since this report...to patriots, this would be an act of war.
no_hypocrisy
(46,114 posts)More fascism
Snarkoleptic
(5,997 posts)Right next to this thread is one from Babylonsister entitled-
In Selma, GOP Lawmakers Explain Why They Dont Support John Lewis Bill To Restore Voting Rights Act
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026331247
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Which is why in places where the argument is popular the sentiment is the "land-owners" should have the right to vote, and their renters should not.
I first ran into this argument while working a "mid" in a com-center in Vietnam. The guy was really serious. He was also racist as anyone in the unit.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)In fact, to anyone familiar with OUR history.
The code word "Constitutional" is referring to the way things were done when this country was founded, and votes were in the hands of the rich.
Snarkoleptic
(5,997 posts)in order to advance the cause.
rogerashton
(3,920 posts)is "stuff people know that ain't so." For example, "technocratic" politicians in Europe "know" that economic austerity will lead to a rapid recovery from the Great Recession. But the facts are opposite to what they "know." Those who are put forward as "knowledgeable" will be the ones who agree with the errors made by those who select them.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Brother Buzz
(36,434 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Every economics professor there -- and likely every business professor, as well -- is thoroughly vetted by the Koch organization. And this is a state university, we're talking about. Billionaires taking over state university economics departments.
I remember one article penned by a GMU econ professor from a couple years ago, gist of which is that the rich and their offspring (and their offspring) are justifiably rich because, according to this professor (citing some sort of study), the rich have higher IQs than everyone else, and thereby pass their smart genes onto their children.
But wait, it's gets better.
Therefore, the professor says, education is mostly wasted on most of society, which, according to this Koch-tool, is genetically inferior to the wealthy.
This is what passes for economics at GMU.
moondust
(19,982 posts)Kissing the ring pleases sugar daddy.
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)All law-makers should be democratically elected.
But the American practice of electing prosecutors, sherrifs and even judges strikes me as a very bad one - I think that the way that we do it here in the UK, where all those involved in the enforcement of the law are appointed rather than elected, is better.
The main reason is that our legal process is less likely to be swayed by the desire for reelection; I suspect we also benefit from the fact that people promoted on merit rather than popularity will be more competent.
Even here, though, politicians still have too much input into the legal process. I think that the only way an elected official should be able to influence the outcome of the legal process is by changing the law, not by deciding who to investigate / prosecute / sentence / pardon / etc, or how to brief a jury (the idea of coming up for trial before a judge who is facing reelection and knows that my acquittal would be unpopular is a worrying one).
Snarkoleptic
(5,997 posts)Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was removed from office in 2003 for ignoring a federal judge's ruling that he must remove a massive stone 10 commandments sculpture from the courthouse. The locals elected him again and now he's ignoring federal rulings on marriage equality.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)have stated they don't think much of Democracy.