King Hazza wrote:Well America is simply a case of ultra-religious communities sharing sovereignty with highly secularized, scientific communities. The secular people and scientists keep making advancements, the loonies keep tilting the scales during elections towards conservative religious governments who decide how these advancements are used (or not)- and both threaten the way of life of the other every day.
Which is why I'm such a big advocate for allowing states to secede from larger bodies- they're getting what they want, and are only doing the other population a big favor by ridding themselves (moreso in a democracy with a more direct say in governance in some form).

Reminds me of the England-Scottish sovereignty issue, more people in England want Scotland to go independent than do in Scotland

Veto the referendum. Democracy is great, but just like the market it needs stringent rules and regulation, and banning the teaching of evolution would violate what I believe should be a core pillar of modern democracy, a secular state.

Although the poll is very badly worded. This is not a question of democracy vs. science, but one of unhindered democracy (no constitution, majority always gets it's way) vs. a regulated one (codified/un-codified constitution, rules on what government can/cannot do).

Ban teaching of evolution, this would include in medical school etc. No doctors, no new antibitotics for evolved strains of illnesses....Stoopids do a die.

Paul G wrote:Ban teaching of evolution, this would include in medical school etc. No doctors, no new antibitotics for evolved strains of illnesses....Stoopids do a die.

I'm doing a biology degree at the moment and it really is so obvious that 99% of biology simply makes no sense without evolution (or to be really precise something that produces the same observable and repeated results that the theory of evolution does)

Festeringbob wrote:option 3, privatise the schooling system

Sure, and send it down the tubes, just as in healthcare.

Fuckin' brilliant!

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Festeringbob wrote:option 3, privatise the schooling system

Sure, and send it down the tubes, just as in healthcare.

Fuckin' brilliant!

Privatising might be a very solid option, BUT:
- public funding for those who follow minimal national standards, other: you're on your own
- automatic recognition for studies of those who follow minimal national standards, students of other schools or home schooling: have standard exams to test them
- religious education & activities not funded
- anyone free to set up a school

For both education & healthcare my mantra is: public funding, public standards (or regulation), private provision. This leaves freedom of choice combined with a equality of access (of course this is simplified).

Corneel wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Festeringbob wrote:option 3, privatise the schooling system

Sure, and send it down the tubes, just as in healthcare.

Fuckin' brilliant!

Privatising might be a very solid option, BUT:
- public funding for those who follow minimal national standards, other: you're on your own
- automatic recognition for studies of those who follow minimal national standards, students of other schools or home schooling: have standard exams to test them
- religious education & activities not funded
- anyone free to set up a school

For both education & healthcare my mantra is: public funding, public standards (or regulation), private provision. This leaves freedom of choice combined with a equality of access (of course this is simplified).

All it does is drive the cost up because now you have to pay profits, whereas when education is in the public domain, no profits are necessary or paid.

All it does is invite degradation of quality as a means of enhancing profitability.

Neither education nor healthcare should be profit making enterprises. They aren't commodities.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Corneel wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Festeringbob wrote:option 3, privatise the schooling system

Sure, and send it down the tubes, just as in healthcare.

Fuckin' brilliant!

Privatising might be a very solid option, BUT:
- public funding for those who follow minimal national standards, other: you're on your own
- automatic recognition for studies of those who follow minimal national standards, students of other schools or home schooling: have standard exams to test them
- religious education & activities not funded
- anyone free to set up a school

For both education & healthcare my mantra is: public funding, public standards (or regulation), private provision. This leaves freedom of choice combined with a equality of access (of course this is simplified).

All it does is drive the cost up because now you have to pay profits, whereas when education is in the public domain, no profits are necessary or paid.

All it does is invite degradation of quality as a means of enhancing profitability.

Neither education nor healthcare should be profit making enterprises. They aren't commodities.

Nope, it doesn't.
The point is empowering parents to chose the best schools while sufficiently regulating schools that they don't teach whatever they like. Bad schools disappear because they don't attract pupils.
Of course, fine tuning is needed: for pupils that have learning disabilities, or have non-native speaking parents, funding should be more important, all this needs to evaluated regularly.
But the basis should be: have pupils = get money.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Festeringbob wrote:option 3, privatise the schooling system

Sure, and send it down the tubes, just as in healthcare.

Fuckin' brilliant!

if theyre not going to teach evolution, why not ruin it for everybody?

I would wait for the referendum to hit the Supreme Court who would then determine the constitutionality of the bill. It would probably be struck down.

No Supreme Court? I'd go all FDR on that bish and make one. Then stack it with my 9 favorite friends.

Personally I believe people - and children in particular - have a fundamental HUMAN RIGHT to knowledge.

If I could veto it, I would. Period. And I would do *anything* to keep fucking creationism out of schools, regarding that is legal. Fuck the opinion of the majority. If someone could manage to delay that idiocy for two or four years, there would be two or four years of less stupidity in schools, i.e. millions of kids not being bullshitted. Sacrifice that for populace appeasement? Fuck me!

mrjonno wrote:
Reminds me of the England-Scottish sovereignty issue, more people in England want Scotland to go independent than do in Scotland

It'd be interesting indeed how people would react if the question actually were put to referendum (or what would happen if the majority of people the state were seceding FROM wanted that state gone but the other did not???)

Mojzu wrote:
Although the poll is very badly worded. This is not a question of democracy vs. science, but one of unhindered democracy (no constitution, majority always gets it's way) vs. a regulated one (codified/un-codified constitution, rules on what government can/cannot do).

Nope, it's perfectly worded- democracy in the real sense vs science in the real sense.

King Hazza wrote:

Mojzu wrote:
Although the poll is very badly worded. This is not a question of democracy vs. science, but one of unhindered democracy (no constitution, majority always gets it's way) vs. a regulated one (codified/un-codified constitution, rules on what government can/cannot do).

Nope, it's perfectly worded- democracy in the real sense vs science in the real sense.

democracy and science in 'real' senses? I'm afraid you're going to have to define what a 'real' democracy is, because there's a massive range of different democratic models out there, which one exactly is 'real'?

And it's not science vs. democracy. If the poll had been 'a referendum has delivered the result that atheism should be the state mandated worldview', I would answer in the same fashion, I think enacting such a law would violate what I think to be a core pillar of modern democracy, a secular state. The poll is really asking where you think the line should be drawn in what the government can/cannot do, and so far the majority of people think that the government cannot outlaw scientific knowledge/teaching just because a large portion of the population agrees, and I would expect that most of them would answer the same way if the government were being asked to outlaw the teaching of creationism in RE classes entirely.

A pure democracy would be a horrible way to run a country so right after I veto the referendum I would set about trying to get rid of the democracy and replace it with something a little less tyrannical.

Mojzu wrote:
democracy and science in 'real' senses? I'm afraid you're going to have to define what a 'real' democracy is, because there's a massive range of different democratic models out there, which one exactly is 'real'?

Democracy is simply a system (and a measurement) where the voting public has practical sovereignty AND input over governance- the more sovereignty and input the public has (and more directly it can be applied), the more ACTUALLY DEMOCRATIC that society is. That's all democracy is- anything else is completely irrelevant to how 'democratic' it is- regardless of how free/liberal or not the society otherwise is (or chooses to be).
The degree of power a government has to suppress the people is proportionate to how UN-democratic it is.

Saying a system of government where the public's power is limited to playing a part in electing their dictator for the next few years and otherwise having no rights beyond the discretion of a few elite powers and documents, is no less democratic than a direct-democracy, or even a representative system with binding citizen-initiated referenda, is like saying a cupcake is no less 'milk' than a gallon container filled of the stuff because a teaspoon of milk is in the cake along with a half cup of flour, water, and a tablespoon of sugar.

Saying a system of government where the public's power is limited to playing a part in electing their dictator for the next few years and otherwise having no rights beyond the discretion of a few elite powers and documents, is no less democratic than a direct-democracy, or even a representative system with binding citizen-initiated referenda, is like saying a cupcake is no less 'milk' than a gallon container filled of the stuff because a teaspoon of milk is in the cake along with a half cup of flour, water, and a tablespoon of sugar.

Electing a government to get on with it and then reviewing the situation every 4-5 years is about the only sensible compromise with democracy and having morons decide how the country should be involved

mrjonno wrote:
Electing a government to get on with it and then reviewing the situation every 4-5 years is about the only sensible compromise with democracy and having morons decide how the country should be involved

Nice theory except:
-On what logic are the elected government actually 'smarter' and not 'morons'? They're not- absolutely no process they go through requires intelligence as much as it requires the person's endorsement of the party and ability to look better than the spokespeople of the other parties. And there is no process that could effectively ensure they are NOT morons to implement.
-Under what criteria does being in representative government make you 'right'?
-What's to stop a representative government working for itself every now and again at everyone elses expense? Or working to create it's own secret vision? Simply accept the losses, pay the price but possibly vote them out in half a decade's time as punishment? Not very effective (aside from the assumption that they aren't planning on leaving government to join a company they compromised policy to).
-Note the difference of bribing a politician and bribing the entire population, and consequences of such.
-Representative governments lacking direct accountability aren't actually that effective at 'getting on with it' than those that could be overturned by CIR. Between a government and a voting public, if either were to make a mistake which would cause great problems for the country and make either one look totally stupid to everyone else- who do you think would be faster to want to go back on their decision to fix it, and which one would sooner think of ways to try not to look bad instead?
-Which body would have a greater understanding of the consequences of social issues from policy? And for that matter, which one would care the most about those consequences?
-Finally, of all of the bodies that actually allow more direct democracy, how many are actually failures as opposed to successes? That is, actually doing worse for themselves?
-And finally, what right would one person have to impose on 99 people that is more just than 51 over 49?

You seriously think your average election politican isnt better educated, more intelligent, more charasmatic, better at working with others (and richer) than the people who elect them.

Now that isnt to say they are morally better, but its extremely difficult to get anywhere in politics and be stupid. Possibly Bush was an exception aided by a lot brighter (but nasty people around him).

When it comes down to it the general public is nasty and stupid while politicans are just nasty

mrjonno wrote:You seriously think your average election politican isnt better educated, more intelligent, more charasmatic, better at working with others (and richer) than the people who elect them.

Nope! All they had was endorsement to the party that employed them (sometimes straight out of college) and attention-seeking skills.

Now that isnt to say they are morally better, but its extremely difficult to get anywhere in politics and be stupid.

Wrong. A quick evaluation of conduct of many ministers, congressmen or senators will find a lazy, careerist business-world dropouts, who will not always read their documents but act anyway to look busy, fail to grasp even simple economic logic and social consequences of their action, as much- or moreso than anyone else. Not to mention the disproportionately high number of deeply religious people filling the ranks vs population in most Western countries.
All that happens is people with an agenda- who might appeal to such constituents, ask for a job, the party scopes out their enthusiasm for their cause (which may be political or willingness to play along to corruption) and also how well they might be able to pander to a swinging fringe minority of extremist voters (the people that ultimately decide government policy as they're the only people that MIGHT leave but MIGHT stay), and those hopeful individuals have instantly got a job!

Possibly Bush was an exception aided by a lot brighter (but nasty people around him).

Not so much- yet at the same time the country STILL didn't fall apart despite him (there was the economic crisis, but to his credit that can't quite be blamed on him as it was largely outside the jurisdiction of the government to intervene (until it stepped in anyway to try to address it).
But on that note, why can't those SAME advisors make referendum questions, law blueprints etc to the public? Are you saying Bush, who could NOT hold a business (something even most poor people can do) who thought "Mexican" was a language, and allegedly thought "General Motors" was a soldier in Iraq, is SMARTER than most people?

When it comes down to it the general public is nasty and stupid while politicans are just nasty

Complete superficial stereotypes unattachable to either alone. And considering the public of North Sydney actually greatly improved their suburb when they had direct democracy under Ted Mack (a competent manager, previously architect, and Direct Democrat himself) shows that in many cases, NEITHER are necessarily true.

I was never a fan of the idea that democracy was meant to be used to vote on absolutely anything, to be honest. In fact, that would be a very dangerous proposition.

Some things are not about any definition for democracy one would have, or what sort of restrictions should be placed on what people can vote on. Some things just deal in common sense, such as allowing scientists and science teacher to determine what goes into a science class.