We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Best form of Government
| 141 | 22808 |
What is your opinion on the best form of government?
Most of us live in a democratic society, but there are many who are of the mind of Monarchy, Communism, or otherwise..
What do you think?
- 141 Replies
And who decides who is well informed and intelligent? Theoretically interesting, practically not feasable
I never said it was practical. And the thread isn't based around practicallity. As for who decides, there would be a series of exams and standardized tests. I realize the weaknesses to this system, so there's no need to point them out to me.
I've always thought that in a meritocracy, power would be based upon contributions to society and level of education. Am I incorrect?
Yes, this is also true. This is the more common definition of the term, but it does also refer to the style of government in which the intellectual elite lead and rule.
I don't know, wolf's comment was the first time I ever heard of something like meritocracy. But the concept itself seems wrong to me.
It's not as if I would abolish democracy as a whole. However, democracy is inefficient because of it's failure to educate people. It becomes a circus of mud slinging and pandering.
Two, you instore a meritocracy, thus stripping I don't know how many people of their right to vote, and limit the power to an arbitrarily set elite.
This is in esence what would happen. I know this sounds harsh to many people, but honestly, most people either waste their vote, by not being informed, or do not vote at all. Limiting such things would probably benefit society. And I realize I'm probably coming of as an elitist, but I do pay attention to politics and the more I see, the more I become disenfranchized with the entire democratic system.
it's not as if I would abolish democracy as a whole. However, democracy is inefficient because of it's failure to educate people. It becomes a circus of mud slinging and pandering.
You are touching on 2 of the fundamental flaws in democracy. 1) Its a strength as well as a flaw, but, everybodys vote counts the same. Stupid people, uneducated people, racists, bigots, drug addicts, and people with misinformation all get the same vote as everyone else. Also just general ignorance and indolence in much of the citizenry. 2) It takes seconds for politicians to tell a lie, but it can take years to sort out the truth and even then, not everybody will absorb it, and by then, the whole country has moved on. Therefore, there is a high incentive for people like Karl Rove to just make up bald-faced lies as it suits his campaign needs. for an example: See Swiftboating.
Anarchy has proven itself to fail miserably as everyone is equal and there is no system of government or real laws.
everyone is not equal. the bullies and rich have the power and the rest has to fight for what it needs.
democracy is inefficient because of it's failure to educate people.
educate what?
and how is there a link between a government system and education levels?
(whitout taking pol pot's ideas into accaunt. =P )
most people either waste their vote, by not being informed, or do not vote at all. Limiting such things would probably benefit society. And I realize I'm probably coming of as an elitist, but I do pay attention to politics and the more I see, the more I become disenfranchized with the entire democratic system.
i agree whit most of that. every system has it's own good and bad's. and this is a bad of a democracy. but i still choose it above a meritocracy. because in a meritocracy friends-politics is to easy to be done. and people that know about politics and are interested in it. but that havn't got a oppurtunity to achieve some merit. will still not be able to let it's voice heard.
(or do i missunderstand meritocracy here?)
or do i missunderstand meritocracy here?
"Meritocracy is a political philosophy that holds power should be vested in individuals according to merit.[1] Advancement in such a system is based on perceived intellectual talent measured through examination and/or demonstrated achievement in the field where it is implemented." -Wikipedia
However, you can break that down into seperate definitions.
1. A society based around progression through merit and skill
2. A society and form of government in which intellectual talent is rewarded.
The second definition is the one that I support.
It's not as if I would abolish democracy as a whole. However, democracy is inefficient because of it's failure to educate people. It becomes a circus of mud slinging and pandering.
It does not fail to educate people as it is not the goal of any governmental system to assure everyone is always top up-to-date. And that's what discussions and party debates and campaigns are for. Yes, it can become mud slinging fests on particularly touchy subjects, but the people are not stupid, and the other parties will always have an interest in pointing out flaws in the others argumentation. The voter can then look at both sides; and if certain voters are biased anyway, it's not the fault of the politicians.
, but the people are not stupid,
See this is where we disagree. When it comes to politics everyone is stupid. There are just some who are less stupid than others.
The voter can then look at both sides; and if certain voters are biased anyway, it's not the fault of the politicians.
Yes, actually it is. The politicians, are to some degree, responsible for the message which they put out. I am sure that when they misinform the public they do so intentionally in order to garner votes, that's how democracy works. The media is another party to blame, because the media also deliberately supports their chosen bias. Lastly is the public, mainly those who fail to educate themselves on the issues at hand.
So in a way, it is a democratic society's responsibility to educate its public. This way people would be informed and able to make the sober judgements on who they believe is best to run their country. When a politician deliberately lies to gain votes they are harming the system by spreading misinformation.
See this is where we disagree. When it comes to politics everyone is stupid. There are just some who are less stupid than others.
Well then every government form is stupid because people are all stupid. I don't say that we are all bright fellows, far from that; but the collective mind is more intelligent than every single individual on themselves. Politicians will rarely outright lie, usually twist or conceal information to their benefit. But if there are ten parties doing the same, you're either biased from the beginning and thus a lost case anyway, or you go mining for facts on yourself. See, politicians are responsible of giving us real information, but we, the voters, are just as much responsible of informing ourselves with several media and other sources. So when you say
in a way, it is a democratic society's responsibility to educate its public, you are correctly using the term society instead of politicians.
When a politician deliberately lies to gain votes they are harming the system by spreading misinformation.
Yes, but I see no government system where such a thing can be avoided. Because even in a meritocracy, this will happen. The mere fact of being intelligent and educated does not mean you abide by the rules and take all your responsibilities seriously. Under that aspect, I see democracy still as the best, or maybe I should say least bad, system.
everyone is not equal. the bullies and rich have the power and the rest has to fight for what it needs.
This is why it fails alongside democracy, Communism, and really any other form of government.
educate what?
and how is there a link between a government system and education levels?
I would respond to that by referring you to the words of Thomas Jefferson:
1786 August 13. (to George Wythe) "I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness...Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [tyranny, oppression, etc.]"
Long story short--> the US system of govt (by the people, for the people, or the people) is dependent on a well-informed citizenry -->therefore it is a responsibility of the govt to educate the citizens. The govt can't force you to stay current on the issues or follow politics, but it can provide for the education so that you can understand the issues, and understand why its important for you to understand the issues.
the US system of govt (by the people, for the people, or the people) is dependent on a well-informed citizenry -->therefore it is a responsibility of the govt to educate the citizens. The govt can't force you to stay current on the issues or follow politics, but it can provide for the education so that you can understand the issues, and understand why its important for you to understand the issues.
it still doesn't say what they need to educate people.
and because the usa has this or that sentence somewhere, doesn't make it so that every democracy on the planet is the same. or that a communist system would do better. or any other system for that matter.
i still dont see your link between a government system and education levels.
it still doesn't say what they need to educate people.
I'm not really understanding your question. Are you asking specifically which subjects should be taught?
and because the usa has this or that sentence somewhere, doesn't make it so that every democracy on the planet is the same. or that a communist system would do better. or any other system for that matter.
For the survival of any form of government, the decision makers, whoever they are, need to be educated and informed so that they make smart decisions. It doesn't matter if its communism, socialism, Fascism, democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, military dictatorship, etc. In the case of a democracy, every time there is an election the entire population becomes the decision makers... therefore democracies such as the USA (and many others) are dependent on the population to make informed decisions that directly impact the future of the country. In some other forms of government, this burden/privilege never gets put on the whole population, and instead stays in the hands of the ruling person/party/class. For political purposes, those countries only need to educate those in charge (for economic reasons, they would benefit from educating the population, but thats a different thread I suppose).
i still dont see your link between a government system and education levels.
If my previous response you quoted and this one don't explain my position well enough, I'm not sure I know how to do so.
Its not really who's the best president in the USA its who has the most money, best campaign organizers etc... and of course if they choose the right image. The majority of the public is to weak-minded for it to be anything else.
I'm not really understanding your question. Are you asking specifically which subjects should be taught?
"educating the citizens" is a very broad idea. if they all fail to educate their people then how come we know so much? (as population in a whole.)
so i wonder what you think they should educate better and/or more.
For the survival of any form of government, the decision makers, whoever they are, need to be educated and informed so that they make smart decisions. It doesn't matter if its communism, socialism, Fascism, democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, military dictatorship, etc. In the case of a democracy, every time there is an election the entire population becomes the decision makers... therefore democracies such as the USA (and many others) are dependent on the population to make informed decisions that directly impact the future of the country.
it's impossible to learn the entire population about every political detail.
and there is no need to educate this to them. (who might not even want to know) it will only balast them whit information they have nothing to do whit in their daily job and life untill they go fill in a paper after 4 or so year.
the time for the government to let the people know what they stand for is the election period. this few months should be enough for anyone to get to know their options.
that it in the usa becomes a mud throwing fest. is a usa problem. it doesn't matter it happens everywhere. in my country the politicians in election period are clean and speech what they stand for. (except 1 nutjob.)
and i'm totally for the idea of a test befor the actual vote. but i dont think it's entirely fair. it sure would rise my eyebrow if it becomes reality.
If my previous response you quoted and this one don't explain my position well enough, I'm not sure I know how to do so.
well if we go for math, we see some asian countries scoring very high above average. due to government stimulations. but not all these countries have the same government system.
if we go for education in chemical and medical research, we see west europe and north america scoring high above average.
my country invests lots of money in water management. by doing so it has educated the population about this topic and have we become to worlds experts. i can't say the government didn't educated enough about water management. they did/do a rather good job.
American is a Republic. Pretty strong country, used to be the leader in a lot of things. But now that's its leaning more Socialistic and it's losing its edge.
Ya, because it was those evil socialists that invested so much in foreign wars instead of stabilizing their economy, ehyup. Makes sense.
You must be logged in to post a reply!