Article: Interview with Richard Carrier

RC: To an extent--so, too, the college education requirement--but the excluded groups would be precisely the ones who shouldn't be there, while everyone who believes they should have a shot, will have a shot (they just have to get a degree and volunteer). The point is that the result would be far more representative than the system we have now, and would be rid entirely of all the current inequities and legalized corruption (i.e. the monetary and media manipulation requirements of electability). And it would become increasingly more representative the more educational opportunity becomes normalized and the more citizens start caring about participating in government, two outcomes the new congress could actually create initiatives to advance. But even without that progress, implementing the system I suggest even now, at this very moment, would give us a superior congress, by every conceivable measure. I can think of no rational reason to oppose it. It's important to emphasize that the system we have now is vastly less equitable and representative, and always will be. It is engineered to have no other result. So whatever faults the new system would have, they are trivial in comparison with the faults in our present system.

BD: How long would the terms be?

RC: I think they should be either four or six years, enough time for term-sitters to gain experience--I would lean toward six, but four would be acceptable. Anything less would only maintain an inexperienced congress, anything more would amplify random deviations in selection for office (i.e. you need more rotation to ensure fair and equitable opportunities for representation).

BD: Would the average college graduate know how to fulfill such a role?

RC: Have you watched CSPAN lately? There are some appalling ignoramuses and morons writing law on the Hill. Some of those people are stupider and more bigoted and irrational than anyone I've ever met. So yes, I certainly have far more faith in randomly selected college graduates. Congress is like any other institution: all the real skill you need, you learn in service (so overlapping the terms would allow outgoing classes to train the incoming, pretty much as it is now). Everything else can be allocated according to the available skill set, which will be better than presently, by far. In any random collection of 535 college graduates, you will have plenty of consummately skilled lawyers and judges to write law, plenty of doctors and physicists to advise on medical and scientific issues, plenty of superb economists to educate the remainder on economic issues, even philosophers to keep everyone else honest. Just about any important knowledge or skill will have an expert representative in every congressional session, and what they don't have, they can hire in as advisors--just as the present congress does. The fact is, we don't need 500 lawyers writing law. You only need a few. Indeed, you can't even make use of the skills of 500 lawyers.3 But a congress peopled with mechanics, ecologists, doctors, engineers, chefs, factory managers, accountants, policemen, firemen, housekeepers, veterinarians, pilots, soldiers, etc., etc., just think of the knowledge pool that body would possess. Just a few in each area would be enough to educate and advise the rest.

BD: Would they receive training?

RC: They would create and enact whatever training they need, just as the present congress does.

BD: If so, would it be feasible to train a new wave every x many years?

RC: Yes. It would be identical to the current situation.

In reality, all you need is 100 hours of hands-on training to master any skill. You can still get better, but at that mark you will be a full professional, in anything. But the real knowledge that will matter the most will come from the backgrounds of the selected--it's the knowledge they bring to congress that will make them superior congressmen to any we have now, more than any particular skills they need learn as legislators. The rest will come from older classmen, who will train up the younger classmen. And of course, obviously, if you want an even better congress, just improve the national education system, so college graduates have more and better skills to serve (e.g. stronger focus on economics and international affairs in the general requirements), and even high school graduates could be better prepared to be good congressmen should one day they be selected (better geography and world studies coverage, replace the trigonometry requirement with practical statistics, add a serious standardized focus on constitutional law, etc.). A people's congress might actually have the wisdom and gumption to enact exactly that kind of initiative.

BD: Since, as you say yourself, it seems unlikely that any government will take up such a system any time soon, are there any other types of organizations that you think might benefit from such a model?

RC: Few are large enough for it to work, and those that are, are then by nature too big to change so radically--for the same reasons our government won't change (or at least won't likely do--change is still possible, it just won't happen soon). Moreover, most other institutions are bureaucracies, not legislatures, i.e. they are hierarchical systems that depend on specialized divisions of labor to work, e.g. the post office can't be run by just any random person, you need people in each specific position who have specific and extensive skills in that area of responsibility (e.g. a professional and experienced accountant must serve as CFO, an experienced field-worker would make the best operations manager, etc.). A legislature, by contrast, just has to represent the people with its votes. It can delegate skill-specific tasks as needed (lawyers write laws, doctors advise on medical policy, foreign service workers can advise on diplomatic matters, etc.), but it is precisely the randomizing function that would ensure a broad base of skills to draw on, and even then, as I said, they could just hire in whoever else they need. In fact, they can call together any group of experts they want and consult them for advice. As is the case right now: congress wouldn't actually be running anything--they just hire people to run everything.

Notes:

1. BD: In providing a list of modern "philosophers" that support these "old fallacious, refuted arguments" William Lane Craig is taking a page from the Creationists, who are known for assembling lists of "scientists" who disagree with evolution. The National Center for Science Education provided a humorous response to this called "Project Steve." So what do you think gang, should we put together a "Project Ben" or "Project Richard" or whatever, for philosophers and "proofs" for God?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

2. BD: I contacted the Rational Response Squad to see if they would make Episode 27, "What's Gone Wrong with Philosophy," available. So far they haven't gotten back to me, but I'll either update this note or place a link to the episode in a comment for this article if they do soon. Failing that, the episodes that are available can be found on the link below, so Episode 27 may appear there at some point if they agree to provide it:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/rrs_free_shows

3. RC: I should clarify: for voting. In actual practice now, we have thousands of lawyers writing law, it's just that none of them are elected--they are all lobbyists and staff of congressmen. That's how we can generate several hundred thousand pages of new law every year. You can bet congressmen don't actually write, or indeed even read, more than the tiniest fraction of that. Maybe we shouldn't be writing so much law to begin with, but that's for a wiser congress to decide.

Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).