Easykill said:
There's nothing wrong with eugenics. I decided not to have kids because I'd probably pass my bad hearing on to my kid and I see no reason why a kid needs to be genetically similar to me for it to be mine.
Do you even know what eugenics is? It basically posits that you can breed humans for "traits" the way you can breed, say, dogs. Unfortunetly for you, the scientific evidence for this view is just about null. The vast majority of diseases are partly genetics and partly actual behavior, which varies highly from person to person. The more scientific research on this subject comes out, the more it has become clear that it is the circumstances of how one is raised and one lives that determine most things, rather than heredity.
So we've established it's not scientific. Additionally, its a favorite view among racists.
That should answer the "what is wrong?" question sufficiently.
On a larger level, there's a fundamental problem with the conception that "stupid people" are to blame for our problems, and that having smart people rule would solve them. Human beings, even smart human beings, screw up. History is replete with examples. Read, for example, The Best and the Brightest, a book about how the ruling class of the United States entered and stayed in the imbroglio of Vietnam.
As for any test whatsoever, I do not believe it would work, because it forgets the basic function of democracy. Legitimacy, which means stability. Giving every adult the vote is the only way to achieve that goal on any sort of long term basis. Why should the poor accept any test that disenfranchises them? History and common sense would make clear that they would not. As for a test for "how much you care" assuming you can even test such a thing, there are obvious reasons why the disadvantaged of a society may care less about it.
Universal Sufferage provides a second function when it is allowed to work properly, and that is to *change policy peacefully*. When elites who believes themselves to be intellectually or morally superior are in charge, and when they commit mistakes (which being only partly rational humans, they are prone to do) they will have a hard time seeing the fault in their own policies, since they are invested in being "right" (a natural and unavoidable human flaw). Universal suffrage tends to avoid that problem, it allows experimentation, learning, and swapping of different ruling groups with different priorities to see how they work. Democracy isn't the bets system because it makes the "least" mistakes, but rather because mistakes are more easily recovered from.
To put it more simply, it's the failures of a system that should concern someone, and the historical record is clear that universal democracy more easily and quickly corrects for failures than any other system.
