Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

Expensive private education is more than sign of class difference. Expensive private education perpetuates class difference by providing an empowering education for the children only of rich people (apart from bursaries which cream off more talented poorer children).

I also need to know if your parents were rich enough to pay expensive private fees for you; or if you got bursaries to expensive schools ; or if you and your brother succeeded despite poor teaching of of two boys with a lot of native intelligence.

I guess you were a misfit in the army where men and even officers are expected to obey their superiors. Army personnel are part of the political Establishment by definition.

With reference to Sy Borg's point about fitness to vote. I agree there should be some level of knowledge. The sort and level of knowledge needed is best decided by professional educationists, I guess.

My siblings and I were clearly working-class kids and my brother and I broke out via the army (in the lower ranks), and through hard work, we overcame the stigma that had been attached to us. We did get a lot of support from people better off, but they were exceptions to the rule. In my case, I actually fled the UK because I saw no perspective and met many ex-pats abroad who had done the same. In fact, after catching up with some classmates, we seem to have been a generation who emigrated in large numbers, with many of my past school friends in Australia.

I don't know whether you have heard of Ken Robinson, but I feel that we need to take his approach to schooling, looking for the "element" in which children thrive and thereby keep the learning curve going up. Those who thrive are more likely to be better informed and grasp the diversity of society better. I did this for my son, and he has thrived, has his own business and is politically well-informed.

It's nice to see people break out of the poverty trap. I like to think that people who do manage it remember the hardship and will always nurse some sympathy for those who don't make it out. And I like to think that this sympathy will inform their political views. But it doesn't always happen that way. Some end up as rich and as nasty as the toffs who oppressed and looked down on them. They become the antithesis of their own beginnings.

Finding a way out of poverty is the exception rather than the rule. Poverty and ignorance generally breed poverty and ignorance. If a breakout occurs, it happens because a poor but bright student manages to get a scholarship, or because a bright kid who leaves school early but who can work hard and is a born geniuses with natural business acumen, does a rags-to-riches, or because, against all odds, as an adults, people are determined enough and are able to work hard enough and make enough money to live whilst funding their own higher education. This latter was my way out and is probably the most common way out these days. I did it when universities were still free to all in Australia. It would be less of a possibility today, especially without free, fairly funded secondary education in government schools.

Democracy depends on a well-educated electorate and therefore government schools should be fairly funded. As mentioned above, governments in Australia must end the over-funding of wealthy private schools at the expense of poor government schools. It's iniquitous and bad for democracy.

[Good_Egg]

...they really need to search their own hearts as adults to decide what choice, conservative or progressive (or something else), would be right at any particular election.

This way of describing it raises a few questions.

What proprtion of the population actually do this ? Think that there is a set of circumstances in which conservatism is the right choice, and a set of circumstances in which progressivism is the right choice, and make a considered judgment as to which of those is the situation that the nation is in right now ?

Rather than identifying with or approving as a lifelong choice one philosophy or the other ?

If you're right about what is needful, I think it follows that vast swathes of the population are unfit to vote...

Secondly, if the system is set up so that there is a progressive party and a conservative party, that seems to preclude a meaningful vote for "something else". If what you care about is a dimension of policy that is orthogonal to the progressive-conservative axis, then maybe democracy doesn't work for you at all ?

at least with democracy there is some hope of peaceful change for the better. Under dictatorship or authoritarianism there is no such hope.

Yes - that's an important reminder. The system we have is not very good. But there's a strong case that anything better would be a different form of democracy.

The idea that an entirely undemocratic system would better is a non-starter.

The problem we have is that those in power at any moment think the system we have is great. Because it elected them... So there's too little serious discussion of how to improve it.

[Sy Borg]

The system we have is not very good. But there's a strong case that anything better would be a different form of democracy.

The idea that an entirely undemocratic system would better is a non-starter.

Yes, our democracies are terribly flawed in so many ways. However, all other systems are worse.

One group who don't tend to complain about democracy are those who migrated from dictatorships.

[Sculptor1]

Go to Youtube and search for this...
Speaking Truth to Trump | Former Head of Trump’s Communications, Anthony Scaramucci

This is the smartest and most honest analysis of Trump I have heard.
It's the best hour of entertainment of the week, if you have the attention span!!

[Lagayascienza]

That was a good, interview, Sculptor1. Thanks. I hope the mooch is right.

[mrlefty0706]

Hi qwerty123, I received your response regarding the decline of democracy, "Destocracy of sinan tayar" and I cannot find this book on Amazon. Where can I find it? @Mrlefty0706

[Mo_reese]

When reviewing this thread I notice that a lot of the discussion is on whether a democracy is better than other government systems. I think we need to discuss whether or not the US has a functioning constitutionally controlled democratic republic. Recent studies have indicated that in fact the US does not have such.

Looking at the basis for such a system I have to agree. Let's consider the Constitution. It's being ignored more and more. For example at the beginning of the Iraq invasion Bush had Jose Padilla arrested without warrant for plotting terrorism in the US. Padilla is an American citizen and should have been afforded rights granted by the Constitution. Instead he was whisked away to a secret location with no contact allowed from his family or a lawyer. After years of isolation torture his case went before the SCOTUS to determine if his rights were violated. The court said there was a procedural error and dismissed the case. Since then, there have been more violations of the Constitution that the courts have ignored.

[Lagayascienza]

The idea that a country with a two party system can be a fully functional democracy is only slightly sillier than the idea that a country with a one party system can be a fully functional democracy. Both the DEMS and the GOP are in bed with the billionaires. The very notion of left and right in the US is a joke.

But before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, we need to consider that the US and NATO is all that is standing between the West and an even worse world ran by the dictators Putin and Xi. American democracy, such as it is, needs to find a new way forward. It needs to find a true left and, most importantly, a middle of the road party, instead of the hegemony of the two current right-wing parties. America needs a fairer tax system and needs to protect its workers and, in doing so, grow and consolidate it's society and economy.

Otherwise, folks will continue to struggle on $8 an hour while all the jobs go east, the billionaires become trillionaires, and while whatever the government squeezes form taxing the poor gets spent on foreign wars. The US needs to to become truly democratic, and make itself powerful again by looking after its masses. But, unfortunately, the masses just keep taking the red or blue pills and can't see a way forward. It may already be too late for American democracy and a fair deal for all.

[LuckyR]

The idea that a country with a two party system can be a fully functional democracy is only slightly sillier than the idea that a country with a one party system can be a fully functional democracy. Both the DEMS and the GOP are in bed with the billionaires. The very notion of left and right in the US is a joke.

But before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, we need to consider that the US and NATO is all that is standing between the West and an even worse world ran by the dictators Putin and Xi. American democracy, such as it is, needs to find a new way forward. It needs to find a true left and, most importantly, a middle of the road party, instead of the hegemony of the two current right-wing parties. America needs a fairer tax system and needs to protect its workers and, in doing so, grow and consolidate it's society and economy.

Otherwise, folks will continue to struggle on $8 an hour while all the jobs go east, the billionaires become trillionaires, and while whatever the government squeezes form taxing the poor gets spent on foreign wars. The US needs to to become truly democratic, and make itself powerful again by looking after its masses. But, unfortunately, the masses just keep taking the red or blue pills and can't see a way forward. It may already be too late for American democracy and a fair deal for all.

I don't disagree that a third party might break the current stalemate in DC, though European style multiple party coalitions don't seem to get the job done any better, perhaps worse than the two party system.

To me, the two party system in the US before Gingrich implemented hyperpartisanship and what we have now, are two entirely different functioning entities.

[Mo_reese]

I don't disagree that a third party might break the current stalemate in DC, though European style multiple party coalitions don't seem to get the job done any better, perhaps worse than the two party system.

To me, the two party system in the US before Gingrich implemented hyperpartisanship and what we have now, are two entirely different functioning entities.

I agree that the current two party system is a total sham. We used to have checks and balances between the two but now "bipartisanship" is the word and it means that we've lost the checks and balances.

A third party can act as a spoiler but the system is geared to stop a third party from gaining power. Besides if billionaires can buy both the Dem and Repub parties, they can also buy a third party.

As far as the bad Russians and Chinese, I think that the US is currently the worlds biggest bully with the rest of the west tagging along.

The US does not have a functioning democracy and it's getting worse and I don't see any turn-around in sight.

[Sy Borg]

The world has many nations, and they are all competing, jostling for power. This has been the case for millennia.

Individual humans are vulnerable. They are forced to band together so they can compete against other groups. Sometimes this group gains dominance, sometimes that group. The idea of a nation being a bully is ridiculous - all nations are, by their very nature, bullies.

Given the recent spate of territorial disputes based on history, Mongolia's leadership quipped that they are not making claims over their former Mongol Empire because they are peaceful. It looks like Mongolia gave up bullying and became a peaceable nation but, in truth, how much bullying can you do when surrounded - China, India and Russia?

When it comes to nations, I expect that being flanked by superpowers explains Mongolia's modern humility.

As for the US's democracy, it's always been a western outlier. How do you reason with someone who objects to abortion due to the sanctity of life but would kill you in a heartbeat if you tried to take their guns from them? Carefully ... hence the current mess in the US. I think you guys need to elect Kennedy rather than elderly men who have accumulated too much dirt in their long careers to govern effectively. Can't see it happening, though.

In the end, we are simply overpopulated, which creates virtually ungovernable complexity in societies. No one knows what to do - certainly not the politicians - but their jobs rely on them pretending that they know what they are doing. The desire to bring some order into the chaos with authoritarianism is understandable.

The old Benjamin Franklin saying, "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety", is a common counter, but Ben Franklin never had to deal with El Salvador's gang violence before Bukele declared himself as a dictator and suspended civil liberties to reduce barriers to arresting gang members.

Thing is, freedom stops being freedom when gangs are free to harass the public. Government tyranny is at least usually better than gang tyranny.

On the other hand, dictators tend towards totalitarianism as they play whack-a-mole with any sign of chaos or dissent poking through their "perfect" society. You can see this happening in real time in China, with Xi chasing around any chaos that he notices like a cat chasing a ball of string.

[Phantum]

"In the end, we are simply overpopulated" - yes, and that will lead to our end.

Please note, the USA was established as a Republic, not a Democracy.

The people that wrote and signed the documents creating this nation were very weary of democracy, where 51% of the people can take away "rights" of the other 49%. This is why marijuana is still illegal in some states.

Nostradamus was cool. Jefferson predicted a lot of what happened to America. See quotes below.

Why can't we all just get along and be civil? Why does the US have as many aircraft carriers as all other nations combined? A standing army placed around the world? Why does the US budget use more than 50% of the funds for the military?

Mankind will never see an end of trouble until... lovers of wisdom come to hold political power, or the holders of power... become lovers of wisdom. ~Plato, The Republic

When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property. - Thomas J. --- this is the problem with our government. They are supposed to work for our interests; yet we work for their interests. The two have some overlap..

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence. - TJ

...All power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves… Thomas Jefferson

Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor. - TJ

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. Thomas Jefferson

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. - TJ

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. - TJ

If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest. - TJ

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. - TJ

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government. - TJ

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. - TJ

In all states there is the same principle of justice, which is the interest of the government; and as the government must be supposed to have power, the only reasonable conclusion is, that everywhere there is one principle of justice, which is the interest of the stronger. Plato, The Republic

And Eisenhower's warning re the military-industrial complex. Why does nobody see this enough to stop it?

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Phantum]

Redress of grievances, or as Jon Stewart said on Crossfire when he took that show down - Nobody is holding the politicians' feet to the fire.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't disagree that a third party might break the current stalemate in DC, though European style multiple party coalitions don't seem to get the job done any better, perhaps worse than the two party system.

I've always thought that a coalition — proportional representation — gets less done, as they find it harder to reach agreement. BUT, once they have reached agreement, there is no need for a future government to undo what was done by their predecessors. And so, counter-intuitively, I think shared government can actually achieve more, in practice.

************************************

Besides if billionaires can buy both the Dem and Repub parties, they can also buy a third party.

Yes, I think billionaires have become a real obstruction to any form of democratic government. They are effectively 'immune' from government control. And their power and influence is multi-national; global. As your 'token Leftist' said,

Billionaires should not exist.

*********************************************

Just my two-pennyworth.

[Pattern-chaser]

In the end, we are simply overpopulated, which creates virtually ungovernable complexity in societies.

Yes. In addition to billionaires, our huge and ever-growing population is a critical factor too, I think. Billionaires, population, and climate-change (leading to floods, wildfires, extinctions, etc) are the main threats here. Each is a major threat on its own, but taken together...?