Political Psychology

[Trevor Salyzyn]

The Canadian perception of America, as far as I can tell, is that Canadians are completely annoyed that America, our closest neighbour and powerhouse for the world economy, is filled with hicks who think that "Tim Hortons" is our prime minister. The difference in the education system is total: The American school system teaches long lists of American presidents; Canadians preach multiculturalism and diversity of viewpoints (which is how me, an average Canadian, know about the American school system; whereas the average American would know nothing about ours -- since theirs is the best).

How much of this difference in outlook is due to the way these two countries approached the role of Britain in the nation's future?

[Philosophaster]

The American school system teaches long lists of American presidents; Canadians preach multiculturalism and diversity of viewpoints (which is how me, an average Canadian, know about the American school system; whereas the average American would know nothing about ours -- since theirs is the best).

In America, a person's view of the school system differs highly depending on his political affiliation. Conservatives generally see the schools as bastions of liberalism, godlessness, and multiculturalism, while liberals generally see them as poorly-run institutions in need of major improvements and vulnerable to attack by conservative interests such as creationism.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Bah, Philo. I liked feeling right for a change... then you had to ruin it. :)

[jlj000jlj]

Trevor Salyzyn on Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:12 pm

Canadians preach multiculturalism and diversity of viewpoints (which is how me, an average Canadian, know about the American school system; whereas the average American would know nothing about ours -- since theirs is the best).

Well,

It would seem the operative word is "preach". So, the American system needs to change to more closely
approximate the Canadian (since it is the best)? I think the two are more alike than you have been taught.
They apparently achieve similar results.

Government schools are indocrination centers for those in power. Thank God for the tendency of humans to rebel.

JLJ

[Trevor Salyzyn]

jlj,

Government schools are indocrination centers for those in power. Thank God for the tendency of humans to rebel.

If every single human automatically rebels at some point, does it matter if the schools are indoctrination centers?

[Carl G]

Humans don't have a tendency to rebel -- quite the opposite. They just have a tendency to think they do.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Carl: I'm having a hard time disagreeing... (both true and ironic)

[Philosophaster]

Humans don't have a tendency to rebel -- quite the opposite.

Yes. As one rebel wrote long ago:

"...and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

[Trevor Salyzyn]

"...and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

A genius wrote those words. That's why they're hard on the eyes of the lazy.

Philo: I recommend, if you wish to live up to the venerated tradition of QRS, that you reword such passages. You understand it, as do I, but those that most need the words do not; putting it in your own words will make them understand it. Create an aphorism.

[Philosophaster]

Paraphrase:

An evil system must be evil indeed before anybody can be bothered to dismantle it and make a better one.

[Imadrongo]

There must be enough people that want to change the system with the power to do it before it happens.

All systems are evil from some perspective.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Philo: what's the most evil of evils? What sort of system would you want to dismantle?

[Philosophaster]

Philo: what's the most evil of evils?

Hard to say. Probably attempts to force people to think in certain ways, and extreme limitations on consensual behavior.

What sort of system would you want to dismantle?

Theocracies, military dictatorships, probably some others as well.

[Imadrongo]

I would like to dismantle a democracy.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Neil & Philo:

What's more evil? Military dictatorship or democracy?

[Shahrazad]

I'm with Neil. Democracy sucks.

[Philosophaster]

I'm with Neil. Democracy sucks.

Why?

[Shahrazad]

It is the tyranny of the majority. On top of that, people glorify it as a god, which makes it even more dangerous.

I haven't seen people glorify dictatorships, for example, the way I've seen them glorify democracy. We are all expected to bow down to the god of democracy. Our failure to do so turns us into social outcasts.

[Philosophaster]

It is the tyranny of the majority.

Only if there are no protections for individual rights in place.

On top of that, people glorify it as a god, which makes it even more dangerous.

Do you have an example of that?

I think the deal is that the vast majority of people, all things considered, would rather have some political power (even if it is only the minuscule power of the right to vote) rather than none. So they tend to like democracy.

I haven't seen people glorify dictatorships, for example, the way I've seen them glorify democracy.

Ever hear of something called "divine right of kings?" People used to say that kings were ordained to rule by God himself, and that to rebel against the monarchy was to rebel against God. I would count that as glorification.

We are all expected to bow down to the god of democracy. Our failure to do so turns us into social outcasts.

Only if you happen to live in a democracy. Criticism of democracy would be much less unwelcome in Saudi Arabia, to give one example.

But as it turns out, few of the people who live in democratic countries and criticize democracy really want to move to a non-democratic country. :-)

[Shahrazad]

Philo,

I don't think you need me to reply. Your mind seems pretty made up about democracy. I'm not into playing the "I'm right and you're wrong" game. I just stated an opinion and you didn't agree. No need to turn it into a competition of sorts.

[Dan Rowden]

It is the tyranny of the majority.

Only if there are no protections for individual rights in place.

My interpretation of what Sher wrote there is that hypothetically (and often in reality) 51% of a population gets to dictate the state of affairs to 49% - even where the 51% might be witheringly stupid.

[Philosophaster]

I don't think you need me to reply. Your mind seems pretty made up about democracy.

Well, it is, just as it is pretty made up about evolutionary theory, for example. But I am willing to consider counterarguments.

I'm not into playing the "I'm right and you're wrong" game. I just stated an opinion and you didn't agree. No need to turn it into a competition of sorts.

Heh, I thought that this board was intended to be about debate, not simply parading one's opinions like clothes in a fashion show. :-P

[Philosophaster]

My interpretation of what Sher wrote there is that hypothetically (and often in reality) 51% of a population gets to dictate the state of affairs to 49% - even where the 51% might be witheringly stupid.

This is true. Sometimes all that one can hope for is that the witheringly stupid majority will elect leaders who are not too grossly malevolent.

[Dan Rowden]

Yeah, but seems like a hope most often forlorn.

[Jamesh]

It is the tyranny of the majority.

I disagree with this. Most western societies have enough freedom nowdays so that few are tyrannised by the majority. The majority don't all think the same.

I actually find the problem of democracy is tyranny by the minority. The minority who lobby politicians for their own purposes. Politicians and big business are setting themselves up as Lords of the Land dictating whom gets rewards based on the alms they offer.

I would like to see the majority react against this to improve freedom of information by requiring:
a) an independant during such meetings
b) the taping of all meetings with lobbyists - automatically released 2 years after the meeting c) laws against politicans meeting lobbyists for private discussions outside of these controleld settings.
d) limiting political donations to $20,000 per organisation, regardless of size - with heavy fines for using unhanded methods to get around this. At least it would get rid of those enormously costly TV ads that are a form of emotional blackmail to the non-thinking masses. I'd imagine about 70% of such donations just go straight to the hands of the media barons, via the TV advertising route.