Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Snarkoleptic

(5,997 posts)
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 10:25 AM Mar 2015

Professor 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/

This week, a GMU professor gave a speech on a topic that could’ve come right out of the Kochs’ ideology – why we need “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. Here’s 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.
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
1. No, this is not shocking or even surprising..........
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 10:28 AM
Mar 2015

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)
2. The Koch Brothers, like climate change, are inevitable. They have already bought most of the
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 10:28 AM
Mar 2015

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/



Within 24 hours of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the law requiring nine states to submit voting law changes to the federal government for pre-clearance, five* are already moving ahead with voter ID laws, some of which had already been rejected as discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act.


Many more since this report...to patriots, this would be an act of war.

Snarkoleptic

(5,997 posts)
7. There is an interesting juxtaposition in "Greatest Threads (sorted by time)"
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 11:09 AM
Mar 2015

Right next to this thread is one from Babylonsister entitled-
In Selma, GOP Lawmakers Explain Why They Don’t Support John Lewis’ Bill To Restore Voting Rights Act

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026331247

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
4. As this argument goes, controlling wealth is the clearest evidence of knowledge
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 10:33 AM
Mar 2015

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)
5. It is a totally familiar concept to any one even mildly versed in history.
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 10:59 AM
Mar 2015

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.

rogerashton

(3,920 posts)
8. The problem with "epistocracy" or technocracy
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 11:25 AM
Mar 2015

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.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
11. GMU econ department is the epicenter of Koch propaganda
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 12:55 PM
Mar 2015

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.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
14. There are places where America should have less democracy, law enforcement being the obvious one.
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:39 PM
Mar 2015

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)
15. I can't say I disagree on the election of judges.
Sun Mar 8, 2015, 03:36 PM
Mar 2015

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Professor at Koch-funded ...