Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:31 UTC
Permalink for comment 545873
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-04-18
That, of course, is largely why meritocratic systems haven't been implemented - it's hard to find a good standard for that and agree to use it ("intelligence" is no easily quantifiable metric).
He criticised regulating hazardous substance use, such as alcohol/tobacco consumption - sounds pretty hard-line libertarian from my point of view, especially when you consider that we know, unambiguously, that these substances can cause significant harm, they regularly do, and that regulation has lowered the incident rate.
Fundamentally, I'm not arguing for anything else, but I am arguing in placing trust in qualified people vs. just the grey masses. This becomes especially clear when dealing with matters where tolerance for error is very small, e.g. medical doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. We do not elect them by popular vote, they earn our trust on track record. All I'm asking for is that we use the same principle in the judicial process as well (the "track record" being composed of accurate judgements, not on how many people they incarcerate - a common misconception of justice in the US).