06-23-2010, 09:50 PM
Hi,
Why 'unfairly'? We live in a representative democracy. Two centuries ago, it was founded on what was an agricultural society. At that time, the rural areas dominated the politics. Since then, the situation has reversed. Now the urban areas dominate. Democracy is majority rule. What's unfair?
I used to think so, too. Perhaps I still do. But how do you ensure that people are educated? Especially given the indifference, even hostility, to education so many display nowadays? And how do you keep the ones who aren't educated from dominating the process?
I got 33/33, but I had to answer what I knew they wanted rather than what I thought was right on a few. But, more important, I fail to see how the knowledge of some historical facts relates to civic literacy. A person who did well in school could get a perfect score, and yet not spend a second of his time following public issues or voting in elections. Someone who slept through his history and civic classes might get all those questions wrong, and yet by following the issues and voting would be more civically literate IMO. Too lazy to look up the source, but "A man who does not read is no different from a man who cannot read."
But it is not. This is the fallacy of the 'honest work ethic'. Sometime in the last century, the human race reached a level of productivity such that the output of every member of the race was no longer needed for survival -- or indeed, for a comfortable life style.
Because I like asparagus? Besides, can you make Scotch from manna? If I were happy living on manna, why should I ever till a field again? The point is that we're in a position to do the 'manna from heaven' for real, for everyone. People continue to work because they want something more, something different. And some, scientists, authors, mountain climbers, race car drivers, etc., work because they can not not do what they do.
Why does this matter? The point is that the people of the USA allowed this to happen. They allowed the government to expand when it needed to in times of emergency (as well as other times). They allowed the government to keep those powers when the emergency was over. So, how is the population that allowed this to happen with the framework in place to prevent it capable of preventing it without that framework?
--Pete
(06-23-2010, 07:51 PM)kandrathe Wrote: The MSP metro area, however, unfairly dominates State politics, . . .
Why 'unfairly'? We live in a representative democracy. Two centuries ago, it was founded on what was an agricultural society. At that time, the rural areas dominated the politics. Since then, the situation has reversed. Now the urban areas dominate. Democracy is majority rule. What's unfair?
Quote:(06-23-2010, 06:31 PM)--Pete Wrote: Is the average person capable of knowing, understanding, and doing what is right?
Yes, I believe with the proper education.
I used to think so, too. Perhaps I still do. But how do you ensure that people are educated? Especially given the indifference, even hostility, to education so many display nowadays? And how do you keep the ones who aren't educated from dominating the process?
Quote:I dare anyone to ask the average high school student to define or describe "inalienable rights"..**
** I got 32/33 -- I missed one about the beliefs of the Puritans.
I got 33/33, but I had to answer what I knew they wanted rather than what I thought was right on a few. But, more important, I fail to see how the knowledge of some historical facts relates to civic literacy. A person who did well in school could get a perfect score, and yet not spend a second of his time following public issues or voting in elections. Someone who slept through his history and civic classes might get all those questions wrong, and yet by following the issues and voting would be more civically literate IMO. Too lazy to look up the source, but "A man who does not read is no different from a man who cannot read."
Quote:. . . if our daily sustenance were derived from our own hard work, . . .
But it is not. This is the fallacy of the 'honest work ethic'. Sometime in the last century, the human race reached a level of productivity such that the output of every member of the race was no longer needed for survival -- or indeed, for a comfortable life style.
Quote:If it rained manna from heaven, why in the world would you ever till a field again?
Because I like asparagus? Besides, can you make Scotch from manna? If I were happy living on manna, why should I ever till a field again? The point is that we're in a position to do the 'manna from heaven' for real, for everyone. People continue to work because they want something more, something different. And some, scientists, authors, mountain climbers, race car drivers, etc., work because they can not not do what they do.
Quote: . . . it was the death of a thousand cuts, with the Civil War, WWI era, and WWII era being fairly large gashes.
Why does this matter? The point is that the people of the USA allowed this to happen. They allowed the government to expand when it needed to in times of emergency (as well as other times). They allowed the government to keep those powers when the emergency was over. So, how is the population that allowed this to happen with the framework in place to prevent it capable of preventing it without that framework?
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?