NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/org/mensa/8889

Text File | 1992-12-21 | 3.6 KB | 82 lines

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!world!rhs
From: [e-mail] (Richard H Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Politics and Intelligence
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:05:14 GMT
Lines: 71

[e-mail] writes:
>If it is generally true that the more "intelligent"
>among us (i.e. university professors, and other
>alleged leaders of the mind) tend to be more liberal
>politically, would it follow that those who are
>considered extremely intelligent would naturally
>be libertarian?

No.  Many who are highly intelligent understand the
value of pragmatic behavior.  Many who are highly
intelligent understand the value of societal rights.
True intelligence will deem success at achieving real
goals to be more important than many ideals.  Given
the importance of the goals of social, political and
economic systems, the ideals of libertarianism must
fall far behind the imperative of pragmatism.

>I would argue yes, that libertarianism, as expressed
>in American documents such as the Declaration of
>Independence and the Constitution as well as works
>by Thomas Jefferson, takes an acute mind to understand
>and appreciate without deteriorating into the old
>emotional arguments used by both liberals and conser-
>vatives when they are forcing the rest of us to do
>things.

I would argue that libertarianism appeals to intelliegent
emotion more than to actual intellect.  By that I mean
that the ideals of libertarianism, especially the
continual harping on the idea that "government = force;
freedom = lack-of-force", appeals to intelligence's
desire to be unrestricted in its pursuit of truth and
knowldege.  But actual intellect will ask "Is this true?
Is a state of unfettered pursuit of truth and knowledge
a reasonable goal for my intellect?  Are these assumptions
true?  Do we even understand the definitions of the terms
through which these ideals have been expressed?"  The
intellect may *want* to be libertarian, but it need not
conclude that libertarianism is in fact intellectually
valid, IMHO of course.

Many who are highly intelligent believe that liber-
tarianism is an intellectually hollow pretender to
the legacy of the great political philosophies that
have formed the basis for successful societies.  As
political philosophy, libertarianism is very weak on
very basic concepts: "power" and "force" are not examined
in a formal fashion.  Instead they are dealt with only
in their emotional contexts.  The result is a philosophy
that would create a society that is vulnerable to
catastrophic breakdown, and which posesses no means of
self-repair.  The only remedy presented is the naive
idealism that removal of force from the domain of government
can remove force from society.  This is patently false.

The parallels between the rights that libertarians claim
for every individual in a society are a striking
parallel with the rights that sovereign nation-state
claim in international society.  The functioning of
international society since the emergence of the "modern"
nation state, with "only a few" catastrophic wars and
apparently successful emergence from the age of the
"balance of nuclear terror", is not something which I
want to see applied in microcosm.

-rich
--
             Richard H. Schwartz, Scheduling Systems Inc.,
            1000 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA  02138
                  [phone]; FAX [phone]
                          [e-mail]