Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This seems like a good thread for this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsQ7jJJcEA

 Ketara wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
If you don't mind me asking, how to 'adults' gain their political education?

There are several means. Firstly, you have direct knowledge granted within the confines of the basic Politics A/AS level. Then you have inferential knowledge gained from doing similar subjects, such as history or economics. Whilst not directly related to the current political scene, doing a module on say, slave trading in the 17th century, might teach you a thing or two about why a racist party might be a bad idea. Likewise, covering the English Revolution demonstrates why 'Divine Right' and feudalism isn't taken seriously anymore. It teaches you things you can transfer to your understanding of politics

That works for well-educated and interested people. Unfortenately most people are neither well-educated nor interested. The farther down on the social ladder you go, the worse it becomes.
Also, people receive a lot, if not most of their political education from their parents.

 Ketara wrote:
Then you have knowledge gained by association from other people and the media. All the things you hear, see and discuss get churned around in your brain, according to your personal priorities and beliefs. Naturally, the older you are, the more of this you experience, and the more information you have to work with.

But the older you get, the less capable you become of handling new information and ideas. You will also lose your hair and start to smell funny, but that is besides the topic.

Isn't 18 or 21 the voting age in most places?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That works for well-educated and interested people. Unfortenately most people are neither well-educated nor interested. The farther down on the social ladder you go, the worse it becomes.

Our schools aren't that bad! Generally speaking, we do alright over here with subjects that aren't STEM related, even amongst the less academic.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

...
That works for well-educated and interested people. Unfortenately most people are neither well-educated nor interested. The farther down on the social ladder you go, the worse it becomes.
...

That may be true, but to balance it out, the lower down the social ladder, the lower the voter participation rate.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
This entire thread is why I condemn democracy as a concept. It goes against the idea of equality by discriminating against children and those under an age threshold, while allowing morons and imbeciles to lead the rest into disaster after political disaster by being easily swayed by silvertongues and misinformation, with the rest of us unable to do anything because "its the will of the people."

I forget which, but I believe either Socrates or Aristotle had the idea of letting the people most suited to ruling rule, and then imbeciles can't feth the rest of us up. A literal case of "Can you do a better job? No? They shut the feth up."

I speak as a student of journalism, politics and law (including public law) at university, a fairly well-informed one who spent 4 years are member of local government youth councils as well as sub-national government bodies, and spent nearly 12 years studying history at various levels of a fairly respectable grammer school. I also speak as a young man who refused to vote in the last general election, just months after turning 18, in abstention and protest of the woeful quality of candidates.

They might want to give a bit more attention to spelling rather than grammar at "grammer school" Also, it was Plato, not Socrates or Aristotle who came up with the idea you describe. That is something that should be common knowledge, right? Right? Philosophy is one of those critical areas of education that is neglected way too often

On Topic:
While democracy (and especially the fake democracy in most countries) is a horribly unfair, flawed and inefficient form of government, I struggle to think of something better.
For example, Plato's 'philosopher-kings' (or any kind of system that relies on a small clique of rulers with absolute power) have the problem that they could easily abuse their powers and that there would be no safeguards against it. In an ideal world, such a thing would never happen, but we all know that the world is not an idea and that power corrupts.

I still think democracy is the best safeguard against rulers abusing their power, and the more direct and inclusive this democracy is, the better this safeguard will be. An ideal democracy should not discriminate against its citizens on basis of anything, whether that be religion, language, social class, wealth, age or anything else, altough I do like the idea of people having to pass some kind of test before they are allowed to vote.
Alternatively, if you want to make democracy be

Oh dear. I need to stop drinking on Thursday nights I think. Philosophy was not an option for me unfortunately, I was only permitted 3 A-Level subjects so went with History/English/Media Studies instead. but I agree, philosophy should be taught to everyone.

Personally, I think that safeguards against abuse are useless. Governments can still abuse their powers. The UK government for example has their Parliamentary sovereignty, they can't be overruled but by the Queen, and if the Queen did there would be an outrage as it would be "undemocratic," so governments essentially have free-reign to make laws as they please, with the EU the only thing able to oppose them. Although, the EU cannot force Westminster or the courts to change their laws, if Westminster wanted to their could simply ignore the EU laws altogether, and should we leave the Union this year this doesn't even become a factor. And I think the idea that you need safeguards against tyranny is a bad idea. The whole idea of the Philospher kings is that "the right people" for the job, and the right people to me implies that not only will they be talented leaders, but also morally upstanding. I will admit it also implies that their tyranny is justified because they obviously know best for society so obviously tyranny is a good thing. I will add that most of the hype about such safeguards comes from 20th Century dictators in the form of Hitler (who abused the democratic system of the Weimar Republic) and Stalin&Co, who were arguably only harsh in response to very real threat from western society.

Personally, I think that hardship can be beneficial. Should a select group of rulers start abusing their position, it would prompt response and removal from power from those who disagree, which is what should happen is indeed the entire basis of Marx's theories, that the proletariat respond to oppression with revolution. I want to make clear I am NOT a marxist as well, I consider myself completely removed from the Left-Right spectrum as I feel its an arbitrary method of classification just made to identify who's who and not really indicative of anything substantial. I personally prefer if we go to an animalistic, philospher kings style scenario where the right leader will simply emerge from the turmoil and lead mankind amongst the stars in a 200 year Great Crusade into 10,000 years of eternal war. Better slaughtering greenskins that each other i say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

...
That works for well-educated and interested people. Unfortenately most people are neither well-educated nor interested. The farther down on the social ladder you go, the worse it becomes.
...

That may be true, but to balance it out, the lower down the social ladder, the lower the voter participation rate.

Stupid people are dangerous. You'll have a higher percentage of upper-middle class right wing supporters which the left-supporting working classes will be opposed to, then you extend the problem we have now which is the lower classes getting shafted by Tory governments and becoming angry, poorer and poorer, creating a vicious cycle that if history shows anything, ends in the Tory government strung up above Westminster by their gonads by angry mobs.

 Deadshot wrote:


Personally, I think that safeguards against abuse are useless. Governments can still abuse their powers. The UK government for example has their Parliamentary sovereignty, they can't be overruled but by the Queen, and if the Queen did there would be an outrage as it would be "undemocratic," so governments essentially have free-reign to make laws as they please, with the EU the only thing able to oppose them. Although, the EU cannot force Westminster or the courts to change their laws, if Westminster wanted to their could simply ignore the EU laws altogether, and should we leave the Union this year this doesn't even become a factor.

Wait what? So...your argument is that safeguards against abuse are ineffectual, therefore we shouldn't bother?

And I think the idea that you need safeguards against tyranny is a bad idea.The whole idea of the Philospher kings is that "the right people" for the job, and the right people to me implies that not only will they be talented leaders, but also morally upstanding. I will admit it also implies that their tyranny is justified because they obviously know best for society so obviously tyranny is a good thing.

According to whose morals? I really think you need to go back and re-examine Plato's Philosopher King concept, it's so riddled with holes and potential for abuse that I don't think anyone could take it seriously as a real form of government. It completely ignores the concept of human fallibility, cultural differences, and more.

I will add that most of the hype about such safeguards comes from 20th Century dictators in the form of Hitler (who abused the democratic system of the Weimar Republic) and Stalin&Co, who were arguably only harsh in response to very real threat from western society.

............back up say what now?

I'm pretty damn sure that Stalin and co (as you put it) came about as a response to oppression by the Tsar. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Bukharin, Zinoviev and all the rest didn't all group together and decide to revolt because Britain was threatening them. And before you say you were referring to Stalin specifically, Stalin was committing mass genocide long before he came out on top. I mean, even if you're referring purely to Stalin era of governance, Beria and Molotov were doing the same long before they were power brokers!

Hitler meanwhile. had backing from abroad when he wandered into the Rhineland and Austria. It's one of the reasons we believed him at Munich. He was in absolutely no danger from abroad until he invaded Poland. So I'm really pretty sure you can't ascribe his facist tendencies to foreign threats!

If you want more examples of where unbridled power can go wrong, I suggest looking at Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot, and heck, practically every modern dictatorship. The reason we have safeguards, is to stop circumstances that occur in countries like that from happening here. And frankly? Looking at the lack of imprisonment, genocide and suchlike, those safeguards seem to be doing pretty well.

Personally, I think that hardship can be beneficial. Should a select group of rulers start abusing their position, it would prompt response and removal from power from those who disagree,

Sometimes. More often than not, the revolutionaries end up dead. Or if they succeed, they become what they deposed. Or worse.

Modern technology has made revolution infinitely harder, regardless. There's a reason half the world still labour under repressive regimes.

which is what should happen is indeed the entire basis of Marx's theories, that the proletariat respond to oppression with revolution.

Not quite. Marx was an economist, the political stuff was on the side. Marx predicted that capitalism would eat itself in cycles of boom and bust, as it was unsustainable. He then extrapolated that the resulting economic fallout would be so damaging that there would be a natural formation of a separate economic system, based on the proletariat taking the place of the bourgeoisie. Alas, he was wrong. As demonstrated by the continuing existence of capitalism.

.

 Ketara wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:


Personally, I think that safeguards against abuse are useless. Governments can still abuse their powers. The UK government for example has their Parliamentary sovereignty, they can't be overruled but by the Queen, and if the Queen did there would be an outrage as it would be "undemocratic," so governments essentially have free-reign to make laws as they please, with the EU the only thing able to oppose them. Although, the EU cannot force Westminster or the courts to change their laws, if Westminster wanted to their could simply ignore the EU laws altogether, and should we leave the Union this year this doesn't even become a factor.

Wait what? So...your argument is that safeguards against abuse are ineffectual, therefore we shouldn't bother?

And I think the idea that you need safeguards against tyranny is a bad idea.The whole idea of the Philospher kings is that "the right people" for the job, and the right people to me implies that not only will they be talented leaders, but also morally upstanding. I will admit it also implies that their tyranny is justified because they obviously know best for society so obviously tyranny is a good thing.

According to whose morals? I really think you need to go back and re-examine Plato's Philosopher King concept, it's so riddled with holes and potential for abuse that I don't think anyone could take it seriously as a real form of government. It completely ignores the concept of human fallibility, cultural differences, and more.

I will add that most of the hype about such safeguards comes from 20th Century dictators in the form of Hitler (who abused the democratic system of the Weimar Republic) and Stalin&Co, who were arguably only harsh in response to very real threat from western society.

............back up say what now?

I'm pretty damn sure that Stalin and co (as you put it) came about as a response to oppression by the Tsar. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Bukharin, Zinoviev and all the rest didn't all group together and decide to revolt because Britain was threatening them. And before you say you were referring to Stalin specifically, Stalin was committing mass genocide long before he came out on top. I mean, even if you're referring purely to Stalin era, Beria and Molotov were doing the same before they were power brokers!

Hitler meanwhile. had backing from abroad when he wandered into the Rhineland and Austria. It's one of the reasons we believed him at Munich. He was in absolutely no danger from abroad until he invaded Poland. So I'm really pretty sure you can't ascribe his facist tendencies to foreign threats!

If you want more examples of where unbridled power can go wrong, I suggest looking at Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot, and heck, practically every modern dictatorship. The reason we have safeguards, is to stop circumstances that occur in countries like that from happening here. And frankly? Looking at the lack of imprisonment, genocide and suchlike, they seem to be doing pretty well.

Personally, I think that hardship can be beneficial. Should a select group of rulers start abusing their position, it would prompt response and removal from power from those who disagree,

Sometimes. More often than not, the revolutionaries end up dead. Or if they succeed, they become what they deposed. Or worse.

Modern technology has made revolution infinitely harder, regardless. There's a reason half the world still labour under repressive regimes.

which is what should happen is indeed the entire basis of Marx's theories, that the proletariat respond to oppression with revolution.

Not quite. Marx was an economist, the political stuff was on the side. Marx predicted that capitalism would eat itself in cycles of boom and bust, as it was unsustainable. He then extrapolated that the resulting economic fallout would be so damaging that there would be a natural formation of a separate economic system, based on the proletariat taking the place of the bourgeoisie. Alas, he was wrong. As demonstrated by the continuing existence of capitalism.

.

Yeah, why waste time trying to prevent something that can't be prevented? It's like throwing a hungry lion in with a lamb and trying to stop it eating. It's a waste of time and probably going to give you a headache at the very lease.

Morals are subjective to the society. Morally upstanding is a hard topic to pin down and define. Plato is riddled with holes, no more than any thing form of governance that relies on the few governing the many. At least at itsa core, the Plato advocates bright leaders for the positions that need them, rather than the current method where you have one man being puppetmastered by the larger party so he doesn't lose his position as head of the party, and is only there as a face of the party or government. I mean, is David Cameron really a competant or suitable leader? Did the Tories win because people want DC as PM, or because they want a Tory government and are willing to suffer an incompatant lout? That's all I'm saying.


What I meant about Hilter was that he came to power through abuse of the democratic system. The part about Western threat was about Soviet Russia only. I just mean, you can argue that if there wasn't such a massive threat from A) up and coming, technologically advanced (compared to Russia) Nazi Germany and B) Rich Britain and America, Stalin's regime might not have needed to be as harsh to prevent people defecting or building weaponry and other such gizmos during the Cold War error which led to the harsh brutality of the regime.

Dead revolutionaries inspire more revolutionaries, and eventually the military get sick of killing their friends and neighbours, that's how they work. And governments can't kill everyone, there'll be no one left to rule.

On the Marx point, I know what you mean but disagree on "Marx was wrong." Marx's theory doesn't have an expiration date, its got an inevitable clause. Ie, eventually, capitalism will kill itself like a cancer. He never put a time stamp on it (one of the major points that caused a split between the Lenin Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was a timespan of when the revolution should happen, with Lenin screaming "NOW!"). It could still happen in the next few years, decades, days or minutes.

You have to draw the line somewhere, if not 18, why 16? Why not 17, or 15, or 21?

I tried to get a bit of debate started with my form group asking them how they felt about not having a say in this vote and those that responded all agreed that it was better people their age didn't take part!

 Deadshot wrote:


Yeah, why waste time trying to prevent something that can't be prevented? It's like throwing a hungry lion in with a lamb and trying to stop it eating. It's a waste of time and probably going to give you a headache at the very lease.

From my perspective, it has been prevented. You're not currently being locked up for having this discussion, you mother isn't an informant, your father isn't in a State Labour camp, your sister raped with no comeback after she refused to sleep with a local government functionary, and your brother didn't 'disappear' one night.

Congratulations. You're better off than about a third of the globe just on that basis.

Your Prime Minister and the ruling party can be removed on a regular timetabled basis. Your army is in not likely to commit a coup. Government officials and civil servants who get caught breaking the law can get locked up. Your power and water supplies do not cut out at an intermittent basis because of general incompetence. If you fall ill, you can seek medical treatment without being billed & if you are unemployed, you get funds and your rent paid without needing to pay bribes locally. You don't get mistreated or discriminated against in job posts because you have different personal beliefs to most of the country. If someone gets murdered or raped, the police actually make an effort to track down those responsible.

Well done. You're now better off than another third of the globe. So please tell me again how our safeguards aren't working?

Morals are subjective to the society. Morally upstanding is a hard topic to pin down and define. Plato is riddled with holes, no more than any thing form of governance that relies on the few governing the many. At least at itsa core, the Plato advocates bright leaders for the positions that need them,

Plato is, at his heart, a eugenicist and a facist. He believed that only people who happened to be born smart enough should rule, and that they should utilise the next smartest as soldiers to oppress the rest of humanity to ensure they did as they were told. If you need to be told why this is bad, and should generally be considered a worse form of government than ours, that troubles me.

rather than the current method where you have one man being puppetmastered by the larger party so he doesn't lose his position as head of the party, and is only there as a face of the party or government.

He's not being puppetmastered. He's first amongst equals. I know the concept of cabinet responsibility has diminished since Tony Blair wanted to be an American President, but the Prime Minister isn't supposed to 'rule' on his own. And he represents his MP's, who all subscribe to a common political ideology.

It's a bit like a band. You need someone to stand at the front and do the singing/make the announcements, but the music doesn't happen without the five guys in the back. And when the leader thinks he's more important than the rest, the fall tends to be quite hard (Hello Thatcher!).

I mean, is David Cameron really a competant or suitable leader?

He's reasonably competent. He's a good spin doctor, fairly good at negotiation/leadership (evidenced by how he crafted a coalition government and made it stay for a full term, as well as keeping the Tories in check until now), doesn't make any embarassing mistakes on the world stage, and generally does his job. He's nothing special, but he's not incompetent. You might disagree with his political ideology, but that doesn't make the man a fool.

Did the Tories win because people want DC as PM, or because they want a Tory government and are willing to suffer an incompatant lout? That's all I'm saying.

I really think you overstate Cameron's importance in the Government. Again, first amongst equals. Not President. That's why other Ministers are campaigning differently to him right now ont he EU question.

What I meant about Hilter was that he came to power through abuse of the democratic system.

So what you're saying is that if they'd had more safeguards, he wouldn't have managed it?

The part about Western threat was about Soviet Russia only. I just mean, you can argue that if there wasn't such a massive threat from A) up and coming, technologically advanced (compared to Russia) Nazi Germany and B) Rich Britain and America, Stalin's regime might not have needed to be as harsh to prevent people defecting or building weaponry and other such gizmos during the Cold War error which led to the harsh brutality of the regime.

Stalin believed Nazi Germany were his best friends. It's why he split Poland with Hitler, and went into a week of shock when Germany invaded. He believed his country had to modernise, yes. But if you honestly believe that the purges only happened because he was scared of the West, I seriously recommend some extended reading on the subject. Simon Montefiore's biographies on him would be a good place to start as a readable format.

Dead revolutionaries inspire more revolutionaries, and eventually the military get sick of killing their friends and neighbours, that's how they work. And governments can't kill everyone, there'll be no one left to rule.

Except for the many times that doesn't happen, and people are cowed into submission. There are many ways you can control a population. Hunger is a good one. You do as you're told, or you don't get fed. Education is another. If people can't read or write, they find it a lot harder to communicate.

Usually in this day and age, if a revolution succeeds, it's because they had foreign friends helping them.

On the Marx point, I know what you mean but disagree on "Marx was wrong." Marx's theory doesn't have an expiration date, its got an inevitable clause. Ie, eventually, capitalism will kill itself like a cancer. He never put a time stamp on it (one of the major points that caused a split between the Lenin Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was a timespan of when the revolution should happen, with Lenin screaming "NOW!"). It could still happen in the next few years, decades, days or minutes.

Just out of curiosity, have you actually read 'Das Kapital'?

Stupid people are dangerous. You'll have a higher percentage of upper-middle class right wing supporters which the left-supporting working classes will be opposed to, then you extend the problem we have now which is the lower classes getting shafted by Tory governments and becoming angry, poorer and poorer, creating a vicious cycle that if history shows anything, ends in the Tory government strung up above Westminster by their gonads by angry mobs.

Sorry, but when was our last revolution? I'm pretty sure it was before the Whigs came about. Not to mention the fact that people today are richer than they've ever been before, more or less.

You seem to have a strange view of history.

I'll repeat what I said on the EU referendum thread on this issue of allowing 16 year old to vote:

No taxation without representation.

In the UK, our 16 year olds get taxed on earnings, so they should have a say on where that money goes.

If unemployed people aged 18 and over get to vote, why not the 16 year old who is earning and paying tax?

The rise of Hitler was indeed helped by the democratic form of government, however this point is moot due to using a completely different style of representation. Germany under the Richstag Government used proportional representation to delegate seats within parliament, it was this that allowed the initial Nazi party to begin gaining impetus. We don't have that sort of policy and as such should not be compared to the Rise of Hitler. (GCSE History lesson there )

It seems to me that the way most people shape their political beliefs is through experience. But the problem with experiences is that by definition they can create bias, on the other-hand a politically minded Young Adult would research. They would look at multiple sources and make an decision of their own based on the available facts. Even if you think experience out-weights this then you must see that a Young Adult brought up in a society which valued them and encouraged them on the political scene would have an over all more positive experience and would make better-informed voters then the likes we currently have.

Another important point that should be addressed is the representation of Young Adults in general on the political scene. Democracy can be defined as an Organisation controlled by the majority of it's members and yet it's a well-known fact that older demographics are more likely to vote. This creates a skewed representation as the priorities of these people can be totally at odds with the priorities of someone below 35. We have an aging population here in Britain further skewing votes. The only way to remedy this is to bring up the current abysmal voting percentages for adults (with only 52% of 18-23 aged people voted in the Scottish referendum) yet we we have also seen that people my age are a politically active demographic. We should start now while political interest is at an all time high, pulling the voting percentiles up as we age through the system.

It's also important to note that despite Media embellishment Young Adults in the Scottish Referendum were not the ones crying for independence. Only 51% of people aged 16-24 voted for Independence, decrying the well known poll of Lord Ashford that stated 71% because the sample size of the ages 16-17 was only 14 people! Take from that what you will, but I would take it to suggest you are underestimating how well-rounded a decision Young Adults can make.

(http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13181487.Full_indyref_survey_reveals_young_voters_voted_No_and_only_25_39_age_group_said_Yes/)

Driving, drinking, joining the armed forces, and voting should be 18 years old for all people! 18 is the magic number.

21 to get a hooker, though. 19 year olds don't know not to wrap that gak up?

 kronk wrote:
Driving, drinking, joining the armed forces, and voting should be 18 years old for all people! 18 is the magic number.

This ^.

At least here in the US where we decided that 18 was the age of majority. If you live in one of those countries where that age is different? Then that age should be your voting age.

 kronk wrote:
Driving, drinking, joining the armed forces, and voting should be 18 years old for all people! 18 is the magic number.

21 to get a hooker, though. 19 year olds don't know not to wrap that gak up?

Put together like that, that sounds like a terrible night.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
The rise of Hitler was indeed helped by the democratic form of government, however this point is moot due to using a completely different style of representation. Germany under the Richstag Government used proportional representation to delegate seats within parliament, it was this that allowed the initial Nazi party to begin gaining impetus. We don't have that sort of policy and as such should not be compared to the Rise of Hitler. (GCSE History lesson there )

(http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13181487.Full_indyref_survey_reveals_young_voters_voted_No_and_only_25_39_age_group_said_Yes/)

Excuse me if I don't take my historical arguments from a GCSE textbook but this is an incredibly simplistic view of the situation. The impetus that the Nazis got was due to nepotism of the Weimar state, the violent abuse of rival politicians, and the fear of communism throughout Germany at the time.

Trying to say that PR played a role is very tenuous. The Nazis never had as significant a holding of seats as they did of power. Just look at why Hitler was given power personally and his rise to Chancellor, it is entirely separate to the number of seats his party had.