Making Metaphysics a mandatory science study in High School?

Yes. It's called freedom.

Every citizen should have an equal say in how government affects their lives. Period.

An idea mooted in Catch 22, where a character (a Texan I seem to remember, but I may be wrong) thought that there should be "more votes for the decent folk". Not a bad idea. Perhaps each £100,000.00 of wealth could = 1 vote. Possibly some might argue that decency and wealth don't actually go together, but such things could be ironed out as we progressed towards the ideal society?

Then again, it could be argued that in a democracy those who are deemed "unworthy" to vote - for whatever reason - should be seen as those who should be the object of the fruits of the democratic spirit.....rather than seek to exclude them from it?

The way I see it is - if most of the people on the planet are stupid

And they vote stupidly in such a way that destroys them

Isn't this Natural Selection keeping the rest of the universe safe and a good thing?

Yeah, it sucks that the few clever ones die too but even they would agree with 'Sacrifice the few to save the many.'

No. It is not natural selection. A stupid goat gets eaten and has no effect on other goats (apart from increasing their chances of surviving long enough to breed, by becoming a meal). A stupid voter not only bends himself over, he bends me over also. He may enjoy the process, but I don't.




I know that Political Correctness has turned the average person into the truly docile, but surely they are not so far gone in the PC delusion that they think it is ok to sacrifice thinkers on the altar of their ignorance, are they?

If the majority are boneheads then we are truly in a doomed situation so all we can do is hope the boneheads drop the bomb on all of us quickly and don't keep breeding and spreading their stupidity to screw up others centuries from now.

This is true. Politics is, it seems to me, a process of appeasing disparate and conflicting interest groups on one hand, and failing to address the concerns of people, on the other.

No matter what system of government we have anywhere, it will be bad. I doubt humans are capable of anything else.



To some extent this is true, however, the manner in which the testing occurs could be set up to minimise the risk of bias, eg., provide a variety of questions and the applicant only has to answer 2 or 3 of those questions for example. The questions could be worded in such a way as to entail no part of a right/wrong dichotomy. It is not about finding out what people believe.

Again, the point is not to stop people from voting based on a disagreement over ideology. For example, you and I may (and probably do) disagree on many ideas politically, however, I would not seek to stop you from having the right to vote. Why? Because you obviously think about things. This does not mean I agree with you, because on most things from what I can tell, you and I disagree.

I can't speak for you, but, as it stands in Australia, there are maybe half a dozen politicians out of the thousands we have here at Federal, State and Local level, that I would even consider voting for. Most of the rest are muppets. My system may not eliminate muppetry, but it could not make it much worse.




For the most part, this is true. However, the USA has a non-mandatory voting system as I understand these things, and its politics does not appear that much better than ours. It is safe to assume that muppets get elected because muppets elect them.



On this, I disagree (at least, I disagree with the former point). How does it violate the fundamentals of someone's freedom to say, 'until you show an active interest in the political system, you cannot vote'? If people want to vote, they should have some understanding of the system and their reasons for voting, and the effect their vote will have. Also, why does democracy guarantee people the right to vote, even if they do not care, and, is this desirable? I would argue that my freedom is inhibited because idiots vote for idiots that then do idiotic things that impact my life.

I do not vote in Australia's Got (no) Talent because I do not care, I and take no interest in the pointless people involved. Why should people be allowed to vote in an election when they take as much interest in politics as I take in Australia's Got Talent?

There's another thread discussing this topic specifically. Head there.

I think human stupidity is the norm, and a practical absolute - we are all wrong to various degrees, in pretty much everything we believe. And, we are all far more inclined to consider ourselves right than wrong, and others that disagree with us are considered wrong irrespective of the truth of it all, as this is simply our nature, it seems to me.

However, I do not see that as a cause for pessimism.

People are fascinating - I could put them in a lab and study them under various conditions for years and never get bored

Sounds like an admit of defeat. No argument there at all.

Yes but why? Why is always what can your country do for you. Not what you do for your country.

Surely the goverment should be focusing efforts on prtecting the country and making it a safer place. Not looking after Joanna Chavs 20 bastard children because she dosnt want to work.

A goverment is meant to run the country not provide paychecks so its people dont have to work. If a country has a decent eductaion system and law system, people should be able to get jobs and not get away with chavvish anti-social behaviour.

Notice how middle and upper class kids genrally aint chavs. Sure there are exceptions. But its these people who expect so much from the goverment that place such a burden on it.

We should be able to manage our own lives, then we let the goverment manage the running of our country.

If we want to speak of the ideal society, then there should always be the twin pillars of "rights" and "responsibilities" in every citizen. Unfortunately, more often than not there is an imbalance in most of us, with our "rights" often taking precedence. My own experience is not as yours. I have noticed that the imbalance runs through all sections of society, rich and poor, of whatever "class" (if we wish to speak of class these days.... )

Recently I have read a bit here and there about some of the old mining communities. Without seeking to idealise anyone or anything, the picture that comes across is of what is now being spoken of by some as the "big society". But this society actually existed, where each looked out for the other, where support was given by those who had little themselves, to others who hit harder times because of illness or injury. Such communities were destroyed, and many cheered as it happened, happy to see the "power" of "the unions" destroyed. Yet look closer and so many factors come into play. New sources of power...etc etc. Really, I don't see speaking of looking after Joanna Chavs 20 bastard children because she dosnt want to work as being any sort of way forward.

I agree with all of this. And I know from my time in northern Ireland that everyone looked after each other. Even amongst friends people generally look after each other and it's a two way thing. However with the goverment it isn't people are keen to take everything they can but then complain at the slightest thing. However until we can move on from this supporting everyone and managing everyone's lives for them mentality we will never be able to progress the country.