tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972120889629675714.post6728603528628877715..comments2024-02-25T05:24:24.948-05:00Comments on Beyond Easy: Possible titles: Dumb-ocracy? Demo-crazy?Patrick Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02410016566636603639noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972120889629675714.post-81184528037446446362011-05-29T09:39:16.765-04:002011-05-29T09:39:16.765-04:00Awesome, another star for my collection.
I defini...Awesome, another star for my collection.<br /><br />I definitely agree with you that building better human beings from the childhood would contribute to a betterment of the society as a whole. Sadly, the modern dismissal of religion has managed to throw away the baby with the proverbial bathwater and people almost back away in disgust whenever they catch themselves doing anything that slightly resembles religious (or communist -the second great horror) behavior, like telling their offspring that sharing, or being kind or forgiving to others is a neat thing to do.Maokunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15459710218366288832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972120889629675714.post-81531249236125397202011-05-27T15:16:29.069-04:002011-05-27T15:16:29.069-04:00Jeff: Whoa! Sorry for not answering sooner; your c...<b>Jeff:</b> Whoa! Sorry for not answering sooner; your comment got marked as spam for some reason. Since I'm typing from da office and I'll see you tomorrow evening anyway, I'll save my longer answer until then. But you and Mr. Maokun both get gold stars.Patrick Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02410016566636603639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972120889629675714.post-80159395986654645372011-05-27T01:29:03.697-04:002011-05-27T01:29:03.697-04:00Addendum to Maokun:
The solution, then, it's ...<b>Addendum to Maokun:</b><br /><br /><i>The solution, then, it's not to restrict the choice to those educated, but rather, to increase the amount of the educated</i><br /><br />More sensible words than this have never appeared on this blog.Patrick Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02410016566636603639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972120889629675714.post-74017446715544573492011-05-27T01:25:55.787-04:002011-05-27T01:25:55.787-04:00Zukonub: I don't think it's fascist, neces...<b>Zukonub:</b> I don't think it's fascist, necessarily -- though it sorta depends which pundits we are talking about, who they are cheering for, how loud they are cheering, and how they respond to the expression of alternative views.<br /><br /><b>Maokun:</b> Yeah, that's something else -- it doesn't have to follow that being educated and informed leads to being scrupulous. We don't just need better-educated people: we need BETTER people, period. (Even though I am an atheist, I will grudgingly admit that an upbringing in which children are catechized to be tolerant, charitable, altruistic, honest, etc. likely leads to better-behaved adults, and that secularism hasn't really stepped up in replacing this facet of the religious lifestyle.)<br /><br /><b>Zade:</b> Oh, there's no need for a debate: I agree that a meritocracy would be a far, far, far better foundation for most any society. But I was writing under the assumption that we're not trying to <i>replace</i> the current system, but just <i>improve</i> it some. Think, though: if we could expect vehement opposition from the capitalists and demagogues toward revising our voting laws (and we very likely can), imagine how much of a fight they would put up if it were seriously suggested that the order in which they enjoy so much power be altogether toppled.Patrick Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02410016566636603639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972120889629675714.post-80859789754854848882011-05-26T15:36:49.407-04:002011-05-26T15:36:49.407-04:00Huh, I take it you didn't like my argument for...Huh, I take it you didn't like my argument for a direct meritocracy? My biggest problem with your system is that it keeps representatives who will obvious keep bundling together issues that needn't be bundled (abortion, with defense, with economics and so on). I argued my ideas to you before and I can't help but feel mine are better. I'm up for a debate if you wanna use an instant messenger.Zadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15503202929776307367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972120889629675714.post-86181835360403000262011-05-23T10:23:33.561-04:002011-05-23T10:23:33.561-04:00I, at first whim, loved your idea. Heck, I even st...I, at first whim, loved your idea. Heck, I even started thinking how to popularize it, making it viral, improving its chances of being tried somewhere. <br /><br />However, while doing so, and calculating how the idea would be heatly opposed by the very people more likely to fail at such test -rednecks, soccer moms, self-entitled "barely legal" youths, etc.- I stumbled with one very real and very damaging objection to the whole thing:<br /><br />Well educated, wordly and intellectually able individuals are breed and nurtured mainly in a certain kind of environment, that of the better favored. (I feel the need to state here that I totally acknowledge that there's a percentage of "better favored" that have the same civic responsibility and relevance of a small pebble, while a percentage of the worst favored classes are, in fact, very well informed and full of civic responsibility. However, simple common sense will tell you that these percentages are minorities in their objective groups.)<br /><br />Now, it would be very easy to dismiss this with a "well, too bad for them not to get to participate, but it would be even worse to allow their ignorance to put a crook in the head of government." This, however, would painfully betray naivety on the matter of human nature: If given the chance, a subset of human beings with the power of electing a governance to their best judgement, they will almost invariably choose a system that will favor themselves at the cost of everyone not involved in that choice. It goes without saying that in this case, the ones paying the cost would be the least able to do it, while the ones being indulged would be the ones that least necessitate the indulgence.<br /><br />Note that I'm not trying to equal "well-educated" with "corruptible" or "self-serving," but rather stating 1) the almost unconscious and perhaps instinctual impulse of humans to have their actions benefit mostly themselves and their close of kin and 2) that even the most altruistic or more socially responsible ones are almost by principle, disconnected from those they reckon as worse favored, only knowing about their actual needs and woes from hearsay or well-intended speculation.<br /><br />No, the ones whose lack of education, wordliness, or simply wherewithal make them unable to pass any test that involves knowing stuff beyond that which will hopefully put a very literal bread in a very literal tomorrow, also need to have a say in the way they are represented.<br /><br />The solution, then, it's not to restrict the choice to those educated, but rather, to increase the amount of the educated, at least in certain vital points. The problem is that, as the system works now, the precious time that should be invested in educating the masses on these affairs, are wasted in a media circus that makes of the whole thing a popularity contest, in which misinformation, distracting elements and outright lies are all valid ways of getting a vote. Not unlike your run-of-the-mill reality show.Maokunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15459710218366288832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972120889629675714.post-51289460788618275242011-05-23T07:24:36.521-04:002011-05-23T07:24:36.521-04:00I've thought of this before. I agree, but I d...I've thought of this before. I agree, but I don't think you'll ever see this happen. For starters, the Republicans will remind the public that the liberals have already taken over colleges and high schools, and by posing a high school requirement, they're putting ever house in their favor. Even though that may be true (and says a lot about conservatives' policies and voting base), that statement alone will be enough to convince every red state to vote it down, in fear they will no longer be a red state come next election.<br /><br />In addition to that, it's important to remember that a required test to vote will not keep out the uninformed and keep in the college-educated, idealist voters. It will also include CEOs of companies, wealthy business owners, and all-around sleazy people. In this scenario, there will be wealthy areas of states with mostly voters, and inner cities with almost none. As much as I'd like to have faith in the good-nature of people, I wouldn't be surprised to see politicians elected by the rich making cuts to programs for the poor, most of which have no say in the matter. Say what you what about the unfairness of the Electoral College, but I don't want a country where laws and policies are made for people without even a superficial "say" in the matter, even if this say is come charade of an election. Don't say we didn't warn you.<br /><br />My solution? Education. As it stands now, standardized testing in NJ assesses students for reading, writing, math, and science (but only every few years). Social Studies is not listed at all. Although I do not agree with standardized testing as a means for gathering data (or the introduction of yet more testing), it does send a message. Is it more important we can total shopping bills quickly and write grammatically-correct fan mail to American Idol than it is to understand how our government works and how our world was affected by our past mistakes and failures?<br /><br />In short, being an informed and educated citizen is considered a secondary skill, behind the push for reading, writing, and math. If that could somehow change, you could have a more intelligent voting base, making their votes count in their best interests, without the argument (which, I feel, has some validity) that all citizens should be able to vote, since the result affects all of us.Jeffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02069705623123673560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8972120889629675714.post-41764619930593004962011-05-23T05:21:42.255-04:002011-05-23T05:21:42.255-04:00I've seen the testing subject brought up befor...I've seen the testing subject brought up before. While I personally believe that it would be ultimately beneficial, most of the responses claimed that a test would be fascist. Anti-American. <br /><br />But isn't the uninformed majority just as fascist when they are led by the words of political pundits?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com