Democracy is the worst form of government...

[FireDragon76]

It's not a literacy test. It's a civics test. I understand why he's suggesting it. It's because so many people have no clue about the Constitution or how the government operates. They are the folks who believe the government should support all their needs and desires.

How you think the government operates is irrelevant. In terms of how it does operate... you really want to go there? The US operates more like an oligarchy in practice. It isn't a perfect or ideal system. Indoctrinating kids to the contrary is just propaganda (which is what "civics" typically means for most people). Kids need to learn actual history so they can make informed decisions about the kind of society they want to have.

 

[Bradskii]

Until the dictator turned on you and decided only his family and cronies deserved to have everything and everyone else lived to serve them and their needs. Everyone else could wear gray clothes and live in a hovel. You'd care then. The difference would be the only way to get rid of him would be to commit treason and overthrow the government.

At least in a democratic/republic type of government you would just be able to vote them out.

I think you missed the point. The example was, obviously, considering what has already been described as a 'benevolent dictator'. And if you didn't know who was running the show and everything was just as everyone wanted it to be, then you'd be happy.

Put it this way, in the best conspiracy laden fashion: You go through the process of democratically electing who you think is the best person. The system appears to be fair and above board. Decisions are made, policies are enacted and everything is just as you'd like. But...it's all a front. Behind the political curtain is just the one man controlling it all. He makes the decisions whoever is elected.

You think your country is in a mess right now. But it's democracy at work. If things were going exactly as you wanted, all the policies you wanted were put into place, you'd have everything you wanted, then look at this like taking the red pill or the blue one. Take the red one and you'll see that you are being governed by that benevolent dictator. Do you tell everyone and demand democracy and end up in what you consider to be a mess? Or stick with what you want?

I said that I knew where I'd like to live. But that's before taking the red pill. That's without knowing what the process was. If I'm offered the pill? Yeah, I'd take it. I'd want to know. But it then means rejecting a system that works as we want it to work, by giving us what we want, and swapping it for a system that seems not to work.

 

[BPPLEE]

How you think the government operates is irrelevant. In terms of how it does operate... you really want to go there? The US operates more like an oligarchy in practice. It isn't a perfect or ideal system. Indoctrinating kids to the contrary is just propaganda (which is what "civics" typically means for most people). Kids need to learn actual history so they can make informed decisions about the kind of society they want to have.

Who determines what is actual history? The 1619 project?

 

[Bradskii]

I can't say I disagree with you, particularly in the last few elections.

But Are you trying to tell me the Aussies always have the best candidates and never have to vote between a couple of bad choices?

Why only look at America,,,?

Because you're American and probably aren't up to speed with Australian politics (that's not a criticism - I don't expect you to be). The majority of posters are from the US. And I'm reasonably familiar with US politics.

The system here works differently than yours. We don't elect our Prime Minister. We vote for someone to represent our local area (and the number on the ballot in the last election for my area was 7 or 8 - although only 3 were in with a chance of winning). We use preferential voting, so you number all those on the ballot from first to last. The party with the most members gets to form government and they choose the leader and deputy leader. So I'm not saying that we always have the best candidates. But we do have a reasonable number from which to select.

Personally speaking, I think that's a better system than you have.

 

[FireDragon76]

Who determines what is actual history? The 1619 project?

The consensus of academic historians should determine what is considered the bounds of good historiography.

Historians I have listened to on Youtube consider the 1619 Project to be flawed history, for the most part. But they don't advocate for nonsense like teaching that slavery was good for black people, either, which is seriously being pushed in some schools.

 

[Bradskii]

True but do most of them have to come from the Ivy Leagues or highly privileged backgrounds?

You can come from a humble background and attend a quality university. Hawke I mentioned earlier. Working class background but smart enough to get to Oxford.

 

[rjs330]

How you think the government operates is irrelevant. In terms of how it does operate... you really want to go there? The US operates more like an oligarchy in practice. It isn't a perfect or ideal system. Indoctrinating kids to the contrary is just propaganda (which is what "civics" typically means for most people). Kids need to learn actual history so they can make informed decisions about the kind of society they want to have.

I don't disagree with you. That's why people might consider the civics tests etc. You see if people were more educated in the founding of the country and it's constitution we may have less oligarchy and a government more in line with what was intended.

Right now we have so many issues because kids HAVE been indoctrinated by the left. Yes kids need to learn actual history and not the social indoctrination going on now and that has been going on since the 1930's.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't disagree with you. That's why people might consider the civics tests etc. You see if people were more educated in the founding of the country and it's constitution we may have less oligarchy and a government more in line with what was intended.

I don't think the founders were perfect, either, and neither is the Constitution. By teaching history, I don't mean an ideologically driven project like you typically got in the old nationalist education programs. I mean interacting more with primary sources and working on critical thinking skills, the way alot of students learn history now days (and what some people are reacting against by mislabelling it "critical race theory", because it's not based on nationalist propaganda).

I follow several influencers on Youtube that are history teachers, like Mr. Beats. The curricula students are exposed to are generally better than what I got in school, which didn't interact much with primary sources and involved an uncritical reading of history.

Right now we have so many issues because kids HAVE been indoctrinated by the left. Yes kids need to learn actual history and not the social indoctrination going on now and that has been going on since the 1930's.

I see it just the opposite. Kids used to be indoctrinated with nationalist propaganda, but educational goals have changed for the most part, and some people are pushing back against that.

 

[rjs330]

Because you're American and probably aren't up to speed with Australian politics (that's not a criticism - I don't expect you to be). The majority of posters are from the US. And I'm reasonably familiar with US politics.

The system here works differently than yours. We don't elect our Prime Minister. We vote for someone to represent our local area (and the number on the ballot in the last election for my area was 7 or 8 - although only 3 were in with a chance of winning). We use preferential voting, so you number all those on the ballot from first to last. The party with the most members gets to form government and they choose the leader and deputy leader. So I'm not saying that we always have the best candidates. But we do have a reasonable number from which to select.

Personally speaking, I think that's a better system than you have.

I don't know that its a better system at all. You see America has actually forgotten it's system. People more and more consider the president to be the supreme leader so to speak. Our representatives have ceded much of the power they should have to the president. And due to the lack of education people don't have a grip on what it was intended to be. And that's is the lefts fault. They realized back in the 1920's and 30's that they had to alter the education system in order to change the government into the socialist type of system they wanted. People were too strong on the history and constitution. The great depression offered them the best opportunity for the seeds of change.

 

[rjs330]

I don't think the founders were perfect, either, and neither is the Constitution. By teaching history, I don't mean an ideologically driven project like you typically got in the old nationalist education programs. I mean interacting more with primary sources and working on critical thinking skills, the way alot of students learn history now days (and what some people are reacting against by mislabelling it "critical race theory", because it's not based on nationalist propaganda).

I follow several influencers on Youtube that are history teachers, like Mr. Beats. The curricula students are exposed to are generally better than what I got in school, which didn't interact much with primary sources and involved an uncritical reading of history.



I see it just the opposite. Kids used to be indoctrinated with nationalist propaganda, but educational goals have changed for the most part, and some people are pushing back against that.

And yet that's the problem that has brought us where we are today. The type of education you support. If it weren't for that you wouldn't have the oligarchy type of stuff that's going on. The stuff you complain about. Once we left the founders principles, and the Constitution the left can then replace it with indoctrinating the kids with the CRT and LGBTQ stuff that's being pushed in schools. The lefts agenda has lead us to where we are.

 

[FireDragon76]

And yet that's the problem that has brought us where we are today. The type of education you support. If it weren't for that you wouldn't have the oligarchy type of stuff that's going on. The stuff you complain about. Once we left the founders principles, and the Constitution the left can then replace it with indoctrinating the kids with the CRT and LGBTQ stuff that's being pushed in schools. The lefts agenda has lead us to where we are.

Which is better than where we were in the past. Or do you think slavery and Jim Crow are acceptable?

 

[Bradskii]

Whoa, if anyone wants to whinge about educational standards over the last 100 years and how the left (or the right) is indoctrinating kids then please take it elsewhere. I mean, good grief, I know threads tend to wander but is it not possible for a decent discussion on the pros and conns of democracy without bringing up crt, slavery and gay agendas?

 

[rjs330]

Which is better than where we were in the past. Or do you think slavery and Jim Crow are acceptable?

I think you were the one mentioning what's going on today. I merely pointed out how we got here. In some ways it's better and other ways it's worse.

Please let me know when you find a conservative who believes in the way the Constitution was created and how the government was set up to be who believes we should have slaves and Jim Crowe. When you find one let me know. Cause I'm not him.

Oh I forgot we were talking about the Constitution and the way the government was set up. How the US government was supposed to operate. Not operating the way it is now with the oligarchy you mentioned. Which stems directly from the left.

 

[rjs330]

Whoa, if anyone wants to whinge about educational standards over the last 100 years and how the left (or the right) is indoctrinating kids then please take it elsewhere. I mean, good grief, I know threads tend to wander but is it not possible for a decent discussion on the pros and conns of democracy without bringing up crt, slavery and gay agendas?

Okay good point.

What are you referring when saying a democracy?

Also from your first post you quoted something about a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. This kind of lends itself to talking about the average voter and where they get their ideas. Much of what comes from the education system.

I mean someone is influencing the voters.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay good point.

What are you referring when saying a democracy?

People voting for the government. The usual definition would do: 'A democratic country has a system of government in which the people have the power to participate in decision-making'. There are varieties.

As I said, I think the Australian system is better than the US one in that we have multiple choices in just one voting area and we have 151 electoral divisions. You could say that that's spreading the vote too thinly. It's a valid argument. Feel free to argue that if you like.

Also from your first post you quoted something about a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. This kind of lends itself to talking about the average voter and where they get their ideas. Much of what comes from the education system.

Churchill was referencing intelligence, not education. If you want to talk educational indoctrination then take it elsewhere.

 

[BPPLEE]

Whoa, if anyone wants to whinge about educational standards over the last 100 years and how the left (or the right) is indoctrinating kids then please take it elsewhere. I mean, good grief, I know threads tend to wander but is it not possible for a decent discussion on the pros and conns of democracy without bringing up crt, slavery and gay agendas?

Someone will find a way to bring up evolution

 

[Whyayeman]

Right now we have so many issues because kids HAVE been indoctrinated by the left. Yes kids need to learn actual history and not the social indoctrination going on now and that has been going on since the 1930's.

I am against indoctrination of any kind. That is why democracies need a good education system, one that teaches people how to resist indoctrination.

We all need to be able to think critically.

 

[rjs330]

Churchill was referencing intelligence, not education. If you want to talk educational indoctrination then take it elsewhere.

He was? Where did he say that?

 

[rjs330]

As I said, I think the Australian system is better than the US one in that we have multiple choices in just one voting area and we have 151 electoral divisions. You could say that that's spreading the vote too thinly. It's a valid argument. Feel free to argue that if you like.

Hmm... Maybe. I do think our two party system is not broad enough. It lumps everyone into two camps only. And severely limits our choices.

But I understand the arguments against more parties due to the fact that if enough people don't break away from both parties it ensures a consistent victory for one party.

I honestly don't know how to fix that.

But democracy is still the best bad choice we have. Have a choice in who governs you is better than no choice at all. I still prefer giving more power to individual states than to the federal governments. That way people in individual areas can choose what is best for them rather than having people hundreds of miles away choosing for them.

 

[partinobodycular]

I am against indoctrination of any kind. That is why democracies need a good education system, one that teaches people how to resist indoctrination.

We all need to be able to think critically.

I sincerely doubt that education is the answer. Electors are already well educated, or at least the Dunning-Kruger effect would have them believe that they are. I propose that we hold elections by lottery. It might not make the government any saner, but we could at least do away with this ridiculous biennial process of bickering over which side is the most morally perverted, while secretly hoping that we achieve some level of political stalemate so that one party or the other doesn't totally screw things up.

If history has taught us anything it's that even smart people can do really dumb things.

At least by using a lottery system you wouldn't have to educate everybody, just the people that happened to get selected. Separate from this random group of Americans let each political caucus, independently selected by their party, introduce legislation, give each political party sufficient time to present their arguments before these randomly selected Americans, and then let these ordinary mainstream Americans vote yea or nay.

No more gerrymandering. No more pandering to the political powers that be. No more getting stuck with a choice between this party or that party. No more trying to convince me that the people on the other side are the devil incarnate. Just ordinary people who'll slip back into anonymity once their term in the legislative body is done.

I know, a lottery sounds ridiculous, but then again how's the system we have now?

Select them, educate them as best you can, and then let them vote.