I think you get what I'm trying to say here, it's just that we seem to see the same thing through different color shades, same destination; different paths traveled. You mentioned the inventor of the combustion engine dropped out of high school, and? Does that mean he's stupid? Einstein was not exactly a good student in high school, and the way this current system is set up, there's a good chance that there's the next Einstein working at your grocery store, bagging your groceries, it's just that most likely they were born into middle class or poverty, and the decks already stacked against the less privileged.
Now we pick our President through the electoral college, which kind of is a result of the majority of votes from the average citizen. People's votes' ONLY have a helpful effect at solving dilemmas when there is an equality of awareness and intellect at the voting booth. If about 70% of Americans are below average intelligence, and 30% are above average intellect, and out of that 70, 40% of them vote- that still is enough to tip the scale of any election to their favor. So the 40%, signify the countries dumb, decide the futures of the mentally equipped 30%. That's part of the example I gave, if when cars were invented, we dished out opinion polls to gauge whether we would even bother using them, the majority would surely vote "no", so in turn we would still to this day be riding around in horse drawn carriages. My point is the majority isn't always right, if I'm not mistaken wasn't Hitler elected the Chancellor of Germany from the votes of the majority, how'd that turn out?
Your last paragraph sums my point up nicely. Henry Ford NEEDED people to labor for him, or else we wouldn't even know his name. Of course being intelligent doesn't entail incorruptible, as no one's perfect and we all have faults, but does that mean that we should just continue letting dumb people decide our futures, just because intelligent people aren't perfect? Our country is paralyzed by profit-driven individuals, and what really ticks me off is that we hold the idea of a mentally decrepit person with alot of money on a high pillar, but at the same time, trash the idea of an intellectually mature person who has thought through the issues, and come to a logical position, only because he lacks wealth.
Now we pick our President through the electoral college, which kind of is a result of the majority of votes from the average citizen. People's votes' ONLY have a helpful effect at solving dilemmas when there is an equality of awareness and intellect at the voting booth. If about 70% of Americans are below average intelligence, and 30% are above average intellect, and out of that 70, 40% of them vote- that still is enough to tip the scale of any election to their favor. So the 40%, signify the countries dumb, decide the futures of the mentally equipped 30%. That's part of the example I gave, if when cars were invented, we dished out opinion polls to gauge whether we would even bother using them, the majority would surely vote "no", so in turn we would still to this day be riding around in horse drawn carriages. My point is the majority isn't always right, if I'm not mistaken wasn't Hitler elected the Chancellor of Germany from the votes of the majority, how'd that turn out?
Your last paragraph sums my point up nicely. Henry Ford NEEDED people to labor for him, or else we wouldn't even know his name. Of course being intelligent doesn't entail incorruptible, as no one's perfect and we all have faults, but does that mean that we should just continue letting dumb people decide our futures, just because intelligent people aren't perfect? Our country is paralyzed by profit-driven individuals, and what really ticks me off is that we hold the idea of a mentally decrepit person with alot of money on a high pillar, but at the same time, trash the idea of an intellectually mature person who has thought through the issues, and come to a logical position, only because he lacks wealth.