With a litany of different worldviews, opinions and stances on countless issues, any person of above average intellect would have to take into account all of these (controlling for blatant stupidity, yes it’s rampant) before taking an informed stance. Once that initial decision has been made we tend to look at things through the eyeglass of our decision. For the less intelligent, or what I will refer to as the first group of political intelligence, fewer opinions are taken into account, gullibility is increased, and suggestion to other ideas is heavily influenced by their opinion of the person providing the ideas as opposed to the ideas themselves. These people tend not to read about their chosen (or chosen for them) ideology outside of dumbed down, Buzzfeed-style articles that merely cater to the biases they already have; that sense of agreement with another is most often a confirmation that they’re right and everyone else is wrong. A person we could place into the first group might be confronted with a novel issue and conjure an opinion based on feeling and not philosophy. They will then have this pointed out to them and they might ask a question or two, act confused and then move on. The next day these people will typically continue on with the ideology they initially chose and go on about their lives willfully ignorant and wildly opinionated. It is in this group we find the Democrats and the Republicans, two schools of “thought” that have only manifested because of the state. They think within the confines of what is presented to them on an “official” level. Any other school of thought is easily categorized into one of the two political parties by these people.

For the person of average intellect, the second group, there is a general knowledge of most of the common opinions. These people are able to refer to prior knowledge and apply it to newly acquired information. For example, a conservative could have read about all of the conservative theory behind the hot button issues like abortion, gay marriage and intervention abroad and then be presented with an issue like cryptocurrency and would be able to have an opinion that would align with typically conservative principles. As you could have implied, this is where we see the conservatives and the liberals with a sprinkling of libertarians. On the higher end of this particular group’s spectrum we will begin to see socialism as well. They understand the basic philosophy behind the opinions, however, most of them they still think within the confines of the government they live under. This is the system they know and any attempt to think outside of that seems misplaced and utopian.

Now we have those of above average political intellect, the third group. These are the ones whom actually think about their own conclusions and not the conclusions of others. These people tend to be much more willing to listen to opinions outside of their own and will be willing to admit what they do not know. They will often disagree on some smaller issues with those they generally agree with. They also take previous knowledge and build upon it; different concepts are compounded upon one another instead of looked at as separate. These people may even disagree with the greatest thinkers on some issues and on reasonable grounds. A new and interesting opinion will not be met with immediate dissent, but curiosity. Most often this is where people break out of the false political dichotomies provided by the government (Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative) and begin to see the gray area. Ideas such as Marxism (socialism), real libertarianism, anarchism (do I repeat myself?), and the economic theories of Austrian Economics and Keynesianism are in this third group. These are the people that see outside of what is officially presented. Traditional thought is often completely rejected or radicalized. They will see the illogical thought processes of those in the first and second group and be able to articulate them quite well. Oddly enough, many of the conflicting ideologies within this group will agree on some basic fundamentals such as the illegitimacy of the state or the fact that the current system, whatever it may be, must be thrown out or at least radically altered in order to advance as a society.

For the sake of brevity, I’m going to group together those of elite political intelligence into one. These people will represent those of the top 5%. These are the masters of their field: the economists, the historians, the theorists. Not only do all of the characteristics of the group below them apply, but they tend to pave the way for the people that follow the same ideology. These people are the reason we have so many conflicting opinions, they are ground zero for ideological creation. They see the world in its nuanced reality and are able to articulate their thoughts in a way that is accessible to those in the camp right behind them. As a result, we have a sort of trickle down effect of ideas. The 5% creates these ideas for those in the third group (who will be able to expand upon them), the third group tries to make it accessible for the second (which typically involves relating back to the current government), and the second finds its place in sounding smart to the dumb. Throughout this process the ideas are dumbed down and over simplified. Given those in the first and second group are much more likely to think based on emotion, the more emotionally driven of the ideas tend to become much more prevalent among those in the first and second group who also make up a majority of the population.

To demonstrate this, let’s take Karl Marx’s “A Communist Manifesto”. For the sake of this post we are going to consider Karl Marx to be among the top 5%. His book will be read and dismissed by most of his fellow 5 percenters because of its economic fallacies while a few will agree. Those in the third group will also read his book and many will also dismiss it because of its economic fallacies. A small portion of these third groupers will take a different stance, they will read about the ten planks of Communism and the oppressive nature of capitalism and really see something great. These people will write and debate its merits with some people of similar intelligence and will only see a distorted, Marxist view of markets. They will then look to the second group to advance their own ideology, the only difference is they cannot frame these ideas as communism, but more as socialism. Socialism will then be described as having the most concern for the environment, the poor, and the homeless. The solutions to these issues, in the eyes of the socialists, is through government intervention. While the ideas of a government controlled economy on a grand scale may not appeal to all of those in the second group, there is a general consensus that the “altruistic” tendencies of the socialists should be incorporated into their own ideology, thus statism is born.

Just to clarify a bit, I do want to say that a person’s political philosophy is not necessarily an indicator of their innate intelligence. Intelligence has not been clearly defined so it would be completely unfair of me to make a sweeping assumption about politics and intellect being inextricably linked. More or less I’m saying those who find politics or their abolition as important to their own self-concept can be categorized into the aforementioned groups. I would also like to note these groups exist on more of a spectrum and are not absolute, some characteristics I describe might manifest in some more than others.

In short, I tend to believe the only ideologies worth pursuing or noting at all are the ones who recognize the state as a general hindrance, these ideologies also tend to be the ones followed by those of the greatest intelligence. The reason for this lies in the fact that these people tend to account for the most variables and see the long term effects as opposed to the immediate. Given the tendency of those with lesser intelligence to think on the basis of emotion, the seemingly altruistic ideas presented by the 5% that appeal to the masses are the ones we see permeate through most of the different groups.

Without an intellectual shift, we will forever argue over the proper government solution to an issue created by government in the context of government. Once these cyclical thought processes have been disbanded, then and only then will progress be made. Whether or not this can be achieved on a grand scale and without relocation I don’t know (I don’t have a great deal of hope). Stupid people, not government itself, are the source of oppression. While this may not have been the case in the past, in the Information Age it is absolutely true that stupidity is what allows the government to thrive. Our potential success in achieving a free society regrettably relies solely on whether or not we’re dealing with actual stupidity or willful ignorance. For our sake, it had better be the latter. If we want actual progress, we had better hope that the ignorant among us have a desire to traverse the world of political aptitude free from emotional reasoning. Until then, the oligarchy will remain.

-Jon Quill