King Hazza wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:But I would like to modify the scenario a little bit and throw it back at you:
What if the population decided that they wanted to ban the teaching of "Science" as a whole discipline? Do they have the "right" to do that?
Yes, they do- and they will reap the consequences, as grownups must.
They will live in an ignorant backward age and get to experience the utopia they dreamed of first-hand, as proof that it doesn't work (or maybe does in the greater scheme of things?) and set a concrete example of raw proof for other countries to know the exact consequence of what they did.
From there they can either find a way to function without it (useful examples for others also) or, simply, realize they did something really dumb and
quickly change it back.Another thing people don't actually grasp with a direct-democracy- when the people fuck up, the people are the first to know and the first to want to correct their mistake. It's probably the BEST system for making bad decisions because there is the least to lose from doing a backflip and reverting back to the previous discourse once the lessons were learnt- as opposed to a politician trying to save face- it aint written in stone.
Speculating on a population voting to outlaw the teaching of science is like speculating on the Sun burning out tomorrow, it ain't gonna happen. Culture's have thrusts, they adhere to many five and ten and 20 year policies, within which they stake their claims. The history of Western nations is that the idea of not teaching science has never even been suggested as a viable policy going forward, other than perhaps by a few isolated whackos. Culture's don't usually follow their whackos, they follow their brilliant, who are made known to them through books and movies and media.
Any typical or common or ordinary or average or midddle-of-the-road Westerner wouldn't even think twice about a proposition to outlaw the teaching of science. We may consider them to be a little confused and not too hip, but they do know that their lives are dependent on science. They "know" that much. I mean, they may be dumb but they're not stupid. It's not an idea that would or could be made into a mainstream issue up for serious consideration. Even Sarah Palin likes her jet planes and I'm sure if she ever needs a liver xplant she'll be glad she can get one (assuming a donor can be found).
Nobody in the West would find the least attraction to a proposition of not teaching science ever again.
Here's a question: How many hours a day would the average Joe have to spend on governence in a "direct democracy" situation? An hour? A half hour? Ten hours?
Informed decisions require informed views; informed views come from studying an issue, learning its ins and outs and upsides and downsides. Congresspersons have huge staffs to do this work for them, who then merely brief them on the issues. In a direct democracy I would not have a huge staff at my command, I'd have to do all the research myself, or, run the risk of making some very bad decisions. Most issues today are supremely complicated and thus require boatloads of time to come to grips with (or a huge staff), and they often carry a lot of scientific implications.
Overarching policy is another matter. Advocates make their pitches (or do their teach-ins or write their books) for this or that schema and then people vote, selecting the one that sounds the best to them. This is a bit easier to grapple with than specific issues, where the rubber meets the road of making society work.
by 
