Dumb Democracy

If democracy requires a literate populace and the populace is arguably illiterate (not dumb necessarily), what can be done to rectify this?

Tests? Different classes of citizens (those demonstrating competence for how the system works have more of a say, like in Robert Heinlein), better education? Something else entirely?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Different classes of citizens depending on intellectual capacity. Only a certain level would be allowed to vote, those above a specific intellectual requirement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't see how that would be any more legitimate. Having classes of citizens would only mean an even smaller group exerting control over a bigger group. No matter how you slice it, it's still a group controlling another group with the backing of government.

I'm not sure what the solution is though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The solution is capitalism, but people don't like freedom, so we'll play along with democracy and be in the ruling class.

 

Capitalism is necessary, but it's not the complete solution. There needs to be a government separate from that (one that doesn't have it's hand in economic activity at all). The problem is, how do the people manage their government without the problems of democracy?

The problem with democracy is that 51% of the people can exert force on 49%, just by being part of that group. Just because the smaller group is outnumbered does not legitimize the actions of the larger group.

I think the only solution is to have smaller local governments rather than a huge federal government. There are still problems because in any group of people there will always be the odd-man-out, but it's less bad if it affects a smaller number of people. It's not ok to violate anyone's rights, but there is no perfect alternative. I don't subscribe to the collectivist ideal of the "greater good for the greater number" but what alternative is there, besides anarchy?

 

Anarchy!

 

If you've ever Alastair Reynolds, there was a system, where a group of people's votes were given more weight because they had displayed a historical capability for good judgement, say, 1 of their votes equals 1.5 of the baseline vote, and other degrees for individuals who are better off/better judges of character.

However, therein leads the possibilty of class division, and a group dictatorship.

The only way to smarten democracy is through the compulsory teaching of CT in schools. Critical Thinking will endow all with better judgement.

 

Compulsary? Nope, it's out of the question then.

 

Merely your silly opinion based on emotion.

 

That's a tad bit hypocritical of you..

 

No it isn't. Everything I was suggesting in my other thread isn't actually what I want, it's from the perspective of what is for the greater good.

But as I said, to hell with the greater good: the individual is all that matters. And compulsary is illegitimate.

 

Except when it's dying that is compulsory then ?

 

I didn't say we should do that; only if our focus is solely the greater good.

 

No, you did. You say one can do anything to others if one has the strength to do it.

 

Yes, that's the reality though. I mean, what's the alternative? Although we can defend ideals, ideals won't protect you from being mugged in an alleyway

And that's what I meant; and it is true, for the most part. It's what the reality is, although in terms of ideals and philosophy, the individual is all that matters. And so we co operate on this notion and establish systems like capitalism.

Democracy violates the individual.

 

I suggest you read your posts here again in a few years time.

 

Get a better education system working so that all citizens can recieve a good education thus having a "literate" society in which to live.

 

What of compulsory service (not necessarily military) for a year or two during or after high school? I think the problem is apathy, not necessarily intelligence (at least I don't want to address that topic here). People don't see that they have any sort of responsibility even though they live in a society predicated on the idea that each individual is involved.

 

First, why do you think democracy requires a literate populace? People can learn about many things without having to read it in a book or paper.

No, I think you're wrong ...democracy does NOT require a literate populace. I think it does, however, require a moderately intelligent populace ...but even more, it requires a populace that actually gives a shit about it's own government! Apathy is the problem with democracy, not literacy.

Baron Max

 

Yes indeed...tests of aptitude as a requirement for voting rights.

All elected representatives should have as many votes in the house as they received in the election.