In what system does the state and those in powerful position (big companies, media) have the biggest incentive to have a well informed populations?
It is clear that in the current democratic and capitalist system the interest of political parties is not to create people with no critical thinking skills or at the very least, they have no incentive to do the opposite and are happy with people parroting whatever narratives they preach.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
*the interest of political parties is not to create people with critical thinking skills
mathematics are taught in public school, logic isn't. pretty fuckin' strange, dawg. it's like teaching people how to write without vocabulary.
critical thinking skills are a euphemism for "high iq" and can't really be thought
You should just pick up the logic as you go.
No, especially if it comes to politics. You are not born for example, with the knowledge that if you read some news article, it's a good idea to check the sources and what news site it is on. Or if a politician makes some economic promises, to have an idea how realistic would it be.
You're born with the faculties to do that aka critical thinking.
This is a problem of states, authority and obedience. I don't think any ideology can solve that. You could educate people on why obedience is necessary for the survival of the state, I guess.
a vast majority of people I talk to, and I am talking 90%
What about enlightened absolutism? The core ideology of the state is that it's goal is to spread rationality, abolish superstition etc. so you have to believe in these concepts to be obedient.
>if they were taught basic logic skills, which are more fundamental than mathematics themselves as math is based in logic, this wouldn't be an issue
I think this is your error. Do you really think teaching basic logic would fix the issue?
We teach math but there still ends up being vast amounts of people with little to no numeracy. I don't see why logic would be any different.
Sounds like communism.
States will teavh technical skills, just not stuff thst threatens their authority and interests.
>historians debate the actual implementation of enlightened absolutism. They distinguish between the "enlightenment" of the ruler personally, versus that of his or her regime. For example, Frederick the Great was tutored in the ideas of the French Enlightenment in his youth, and maintained those ideas in his private life as an adult, but in many ways was unable or unwilling to effect enlightened reforms in practice.
Sounds like it didn't work out.
>In what system does the state and those in powerful position (big companies, media) have the biggest incentive to have a well informed populations?
Heinleinism.
explain pls.
You're asking which system encourages the elite to supplant itself so the answer is neither. However a more educated workforce is more productive so capitalism in general seems to benefit from it
>t. I just read Starship Troopers and I feel enlightened by my intellect
A "polyarchy" where there are 1000s of plutocrats who know there is little chance of themselves becoming top dog and are more interested in preventing someone else trying to become top dog and destabilizing the system which might result in them losing their position.
They will want to stop the plebs from becoming enamored by some demagogue and the best way to do this is to tell them to truth about tyranny and how unstable it is.
I have taken the approach of withdrawing from all politics/news. I dont care about sources or economic promises. I've heard people get all upset in 'right vs left' arguments which is just absurd.
Im not sure why other people care
The whole point of the system is to concentrate power into people who: a.) care enough about the system to die for it and b.) are experienced and/or educated enough to make informed decisions after reaching that threshold.
>t. I will whine about society being non-meritocratic while shunning a system, while designed as a warning of what might be, that actually implements a meritocracy
The irony of Heinlein is that by creating a scary system that should turn most people off, he created THE system to combat the dregs of enlightenment ideology.
Meritocracy is a meme, you need some perfect body/person deciding what merit is and who has it. Unfortunately the flawless, unfailingly patriotic, fatherly and wise soldiers of SST don't actually exist
>It is clear that in the current democratic and capitalist system the interest of political parties is not to create people with no critical thinking skills or at the very least
It happens that skilled workers are both more productive in a very service-reliant economy and more critical of their work conditions than are unskilled workers. Democracies have the most critical, thoughtful masses compared to other systems, it's just that you are comparing these to the ideal masses of a merely hypothethical system or to the elites of non-democratic systems.
>"Democracies" have the most critical, thoughtful masses
>election between a billionaire celebrity and a former presidents wife
>all actual politicians are ignored
Meanwhile in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria...
Syndicali-Anarchism I suppose, provided you can convince the local assemply
>Meanwhile in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria...
Failed democracies, but this hasn't passed by the citizens that protest these transgressions.
As for the USA elections, Hillary was actually already a politician and the American electorate is more critical and thoughtful than the general population of, say, Russia, NK, African dictatorships, etc. And the USA is less democratic than other western countries, still. See Switzerland, possibly the most democratic major nation-state in history so far.
Actual (never been tried) Socialism™, where workers control the means of production.
Socialism died with WW1, where it should have, amongst the young men it supported sending off to war
Those countries might not be fully democratic but at least they have a more centered leadership that seems to have more concern for their country's future.
Germania and Nordland are just a few examples of successfully functioning democracies. Plenty of other places where the democracy meme has been instituted are afflicted by the simplistic arguments that mostly sound the same everywhere leading to the dismal circumstances of those countries.
>Those countries might not be fully democratic but at least they have a more centered leadership that seems to have more concern for their country's future.
They seem to have more concern for keeping themselves in power, which is why they overturn the democratic process.
They could have literally sold their country off to transnational corporations and the ZOG and gone off to live lavishly but instead decide to resist. Meanwhile in the democratic world......
In a free capitalist system.
>mfw "educated" and "smart" people still think that "THESE news outlets are 100% objective and trustworthy and THOSE news outlets are 100% biased and opinionated!"
A direct democracy, where the politicians are public servants and fellow citizens, rather than being a seperate, privileged class that gets to decide what the populace is allowed to vote for in the first place.
As in Switzerland, where the citizens sometimes votes for legislation that both sides of the political spectrum urge against.
In such a democracy, ensuring that the citizens are informed is in everyone's interest, as keeping them ignorant might just bite the politicians in the ass.
Really though, I'd say that the failure of democracy is unique to the United States, which really is no wonder, considering the shitshow of a political system they have.
Then demagogic pundits just become the politicians.
>I'd say that the failure of democracy is unique to the United States
How can you claim that the U.S. is in any way related to the failure of Democracy when the U.S. was never and was never intended to be a democracy. It's a federal republic with safeguards against democracy in place because democracy is an illegitimate pipe dream.
>unique to the United States
There are also quite similar rhetorics being spewed all over the global South e.g. "Vote for us and together we'll improve workers conditions and increase their salaries." vs. "We need to make our country more hospitable for job creators."
It's a democratic republic revisionist.
>It's a democratic republic
>democracy plays little to no part in representation or policy above the state level
>democratic republic
"No."
>democracy plays little to no part in representation or policy above the state level
Except during elections.
en.wikipedia.org
no news outlet is objective senpai
this is why you follow multiple contradicting sources and make up your own reality with the information you get
We don't elect the president. We elect electors that elect the president. It plays little to no role in representation or policy above the state level.
Do we elect electors or delegates? Or rather, do we nominally elect electors but expect them to behave as delegates?
You elect electors who may or may not vote for the candidate they pledge to vote for.
I did not vote for an elector though. I voted for a presidential candidate with the expectation that the state government would select elector-delegates to vote for the candidate who got the most votes in the state.
>Do you really think teaching basic logic would fix the issue?
yes, why wouldn't we? logic applies to literally all of your thinking in life. not teaching it to children is choosing for them to either be retarded or work it out themselves.
You voted with full knowledge that is not how the system works. It may not have the elector's name on the ballot, but you voted for the elector, not the candidate.
That is how the system works you retard. I did not vote for an elector. The state never asked me or gave me a choice in electors. They asked me who I wanted the elector to vote for.
That's the point I was making ya dingus
Why does the state attack morality, justice and religion if it benefits them?
It is a myth that the state wants good obedient people. A good person is not a weak person, an obedient person is not necessarily submissive, they might be cooperative with "extreme far-right" "militants" for example and be utterly devoted to resisting the state and securing their rights, constantly evading tax and sabotaging law enforcement efforts in their area ensuring they are a net cost to the federal government until they get out.
In the state's view this is magically """"bad"""" somehow.