[fennecfoxen]

Ooh, what a delightfully aristocratic objection. We can't give the lesser peoples self-rule, they'd rule themselves wrong!!

Have you considered any noblesse oblige-style colonization and rule of third-world nations? Sounds like a good match.

[CamperBob2]

You can be as snarky as you want, but the fact is, I don't want the average dumbass on the street to have that much power over my life, and neither, I suspect, do you.

There has to be something resembling meritocracy in any functioning organization, and that includes a government.

[rjaco31]

The hard part is finding incentives not to get corrupted once you're in place.

[Aissen]

I'm aware of the ethical implications, and I haven't made my mind on the matter (probably never will). I just said that it's not a silver bullet, and presented cases where it could go wrong.

[jodrellblank]

That looks like the author is not saying "they'd rule themselves wrong", they're saying "they'd rule me against my wishes by voting conservative reactionary and ineffective laws into my life"

[fennecfoxen]

The feeling is probably mutual, for what that's worth -- as evidenced by the first amendment and a wave of religious-freedom restoration acts.

Postscript. You'd think a little geographic diversity and a federal system would let people let each other live in peace but instead we have national culture wars.

[yellowapple]

> We can't give the lesser peoples self-rule, they'd rule themselves wrong!!

I'd normally take your side on this, but then there's the fact that the Southern United States still exists and is a major reason why U.S. law borders on jingoistic theocracy.

[easytiger]

So you are saying uninformed populist opinions should be made policy