Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Now, your silly little test idea...Imagine a party/administration get into power who want to conserve their hold on office...wouldn't a good way to do that be to make the tests harder and thus rid more people of the right to vote?
Wow...your idea gets even more shit every ten mins....
Ah, straw man. Or is this clause #5. The clause that allows a person to pretend to have a valid point to divert attention from the real point being presented.
Since your point was thought of long ago when I was still a wee laddie, I present to you the politician who wants to make the tests easier in a specific way (of course, after a careful statistical analysis based on demographics) that allows more people to pass the test who are more likely to vote for them in the future.
Ooooor maybe the information I presented was sooo short and to the point that you are poking holes in an idea that isn't even worthy of being called an outline.
The test is not made by politicians, silly. 😐
And you still don't see how you're being racist?
He isn't really being racist. Or, if he is racist, then he is no more racist than people who use Godwin in debates. By linking you with a (now) unpopular movement he is making the audience equate you with Jim Crow/Racist South discrimination. (Which probably isn't a good thing.) If he is being racist then every single person that uses Godwin is a Nazi.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So an independent body makes the test?So an independent body (unelected?) gets to control who has the vote?
Indeed. They are the oligarchy, silly.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
He isn't really being racist. Or, if he is racist, then he is no more racist than people who use Godwin in debates. By linking you with a (now) unpopular movement he is making the audience equate you with Jim Crow/Racist South discrimination. (Which probably isn't a good thing.) If he is being racist then every single person that uses Godwin is a Nazi.
I'm glad someone else chimed in.
It is racist. Things people say and do evince their line of reasoning. "Kne-jerk" reactions or first thought reactions can bring to the surface beliefs that one doesn't really believe fit in with societal norms. I believe he's made a blunder and shown that he is racist. Even if he doesn't really think he is, just naming "blacks" as dumb enough to be cut from passing the test is fairly racist on any terms considering he doesn't know the contents of the test, how it is administered, and how it is sustained.
Also taking into a large account that all races or social "lumps" will be equally affected, he would have been statistically safer in assuming that a larger number of "whites" would excluded from a voting privilage under my suggestion. Now, he can argue educational demographics and quality of education based on simple geography, however, he didn't and still doesn't know enough about the test to make a conclusion about the test excluding a larger percentage of African Americans than other race demographics.
Since he brought up African Americans and implied their being unequipped, he has consciously acknowledged for himself that he sees African Americans as less educated compared to the rest of the population. His point would have been less racist if he would have used Latinos as millions of them are, literally, new to the country. 12 million of them can't vote already anyway...so I'm not sure how good of a point it would have been. 😆
edit - the point of the test is to eliminate the effectiveness of the "game" played. You guys can think of ways to implement the weeding out of individuals who refuse to know anything about politics.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. They are the oligarchy, silly.
Your idea is shit.
Everyone agrees.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It is racist. Things people say and do evince their line of reasoning. "Kne-jerk" reactions or first thought reactions can bring to the surface beliefs that one doesn't really believe fit in with societal norms. I believe he's made a blunder and shown that he is racist. Even if he doesn't really think he is, just naming "blacks" as dumb enough to be cut from passing the test is fairly racist on any terms considering he doesn't know the contents of the test, how it is administered, and how it is sustained.Also taking into a large account that all races or social "lumps" will be equally affected, he would have been statistically safer in assuming that a larger number of "whites" would excluded from a voting privilage under my suggestion. Now, he can argue educational demographics and quality of education based on simple geography, however, he didn't and still doesn't know enough about the test to make a conclusion about the test excluding a larger percentage of African Americans than other race demographics.
Since he brought up African Americans and implied their being unequipped, he has consciously acknowledged for himself that he sees African Americans as less educated compared to the rest of the population. His point would have been less racist if he would have used Latinos as millions of them are, literally, new to the country. 12 million of them can't vote already anyway...so I'm not sure how good of a point it would have been. 😆
edit - the point of the test is to eliminate the effectiveness of the "game" played. You guys can think of ways to implement the weeding out of individuals who refuse to know anything about politics.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
TBH I was trying to connect your meritocratic fallacy of an idea with the tests blacks had to go through to vote in the Southern States, thus to imply your idea was racist and garner support for my cause amongst the less able-minded.Which is what would happen if you ever floated your idea on the public stage.
Now, to totally contradict those points above, the test WILL and SHOULD exclude those who don't know jack shit about politics. It will, unfortunately, discriminate against race because of those things I mentioned, however, that is solely coincidental and is just a symptom of a two-fold problem. It is a problem that is SOCIAL (the social problem can be further refined into three or four further classifications) and POLITICAL. Just because there are existing problems that need to be resolved does not mean that the test idea automatically fails to accomplish it's reason for existing. More "problems" would be encountered with this test other than educational exclusions due problems inherent with race.
On another note, you guys automatically assume that race should play a part in a political system and it shouldn't. There shouldn't be politically related problem based on race to begin with. Don't worry, my ideas are not for the present. 50 or more years will bring about racial blur and damned racial crutches will begin to be a thing of the past.
Besides, I wasn't thinking of applying this test to the U.S. I was thinking about having this applied more at a municipal level. I was REALLY thinking about using this method in my own utopia with it's entirely own laws. I city-like country, if you will. I have many ideas on how I would run this city-country ranging from technology to employment methods. Much much more complex than the current superficial understanding of one element in just the political system.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Now, to totally contradict those points above, the test WILL and SHOULD exclude those who don't know jack shit about politics. It will, unfortunately, discriminate against race because of those things I mentioned, however, that is solely coincidental and is just a symptom of a two-fold problem. It is a problem that is SOCIAL (the social problem can be further refined into three or four further classifications) and POLITICAL. Just because there are existing problems that need to be resolved does not mean that the test idea automatically fails to accomplish it's reason for existing. More "problems" would be encountered with this test other than educational exclusions due problems inherent with race.On another note, you guys automatically assume that race should play a part in a political system and it shouldn't. There shouldn't be politically related problem based on race to begin with. Don't worry, my ideas are not for the present. 50 or more years will bring about racial blur and damned racial crutches will begin to be a thing of the past.
Besides, I wasn't thinking of applying this test to the U.S. I was thinking about having this applied more at a municipal level. I was REALLY thinking about using this method in my own utopia with it's entirely own laws. I city-like country, if you will. I have many ideas on how I would run this city-country ranging from technology to employment methods. Much much more complex than the current superficial understanding of one element in just the political system.
In the defence of democracy Athenians used to argue that if you ask one farmer to guess the weight of a cow- he will probably get it wrong. If you get ten farmers to guess the weight of a cow the average answer will more likely be true than the answer of the one farmer. Ask a thousand farmers and chances are the average answer will be correct.
Perhaps you will say your test is simply sorting out the good farmers from those who find themselves unable to judge weights.
However the next question would be one of legitimate authority.
Why should this government be allowed to rule people who did not take part in electing it? Where is the moral standard there?
Perhaps you should form a nation on a small island where to become a citizen you have to pass the politics test? Failure to pass results in being banished from the state? Thus you avoid dictatorial control.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
In the defence of democracy Athenians used to argue that if you ask one farmer to guess the weight of a cow- he will probably get it wrong. If you get ten farmers to guess the weight of a cow the average answer will more likely be true than the answer of the one farmer. Ask a thousand farmers and chances are the average answer will be correct.
There is a fundamental flaw with this point from the beginning, which is the point of the test. What if some to all farmers have a fundamental misunderstanding of weight to begin with? What if they assumed weight was measured in volts? That may sound silly but a quick search on youtube will net you some really retarded people with extremely bizarre political understanding.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Perhaps you will say your test is simply sorting out the good farmers from those who find themselves unable to judge weights.
No. It will weed out those who have been indoctrinated by a neighboring town who specifically taught the farmers to measure incorrectly so they could manipulate them into buying or trading what ever goods they had to offer. This is why metaphors don't work too well sometimes.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
However the next question would be one of legitimate authority.Why should this government be allowed to rule people who did not take part in electing it? Where is the moral standard there?
You have it backwards, why should people get to take part in ruling others, via proxy, when they don't understand what they're doing specifically because they refuse to educate themselves because of their comfort zone while also existing in a system that allows for agents to specifically take advantage of and manipulate those I've mentioned? Do I really deserve a leader that will **** the system up even more simply because he or she played the political game right? Would we even have to worry about the political bullshit game if the bullshit was called out or what it was the majority of the time? That's really all I'm looking for. Instead of a celebrity, we get a true representative or law.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Perhaps you should form a nation on a small island where to become a citizen you have to pass the politics test? Failure to pass results in being banished from the state? Thus you avoid dictatorial control.
Umm..wow. That was creepy. How did you know that that is what I was intending? I wouldn't banish them from the onset, though.
The country would require many tests to even become a citizen. Maintaining full citizenship would require new periodic re-certification. There will, naturally, be people who qualified originally but become invalids. (dementia, injury, and so forth)
Now, for those who refuse to maintain their tests, there will be fines as voting will be compulsory for all citizens. (Built in time paid time off from work to re-certify, of course. Missing re-certification will be built into the system to an extent that re-certification will almost always be a direct rejection to the system and should quickly follow ejection.)
Banishment from this "utopia" will be a last resort to the criminal.
I'm far from ironing out the political system as that was the last thing I planned. It has many years of work before it "works" for me. I originally planned this as a technology endeavor but realized later how close technology and its implementation is tied to politics.
Now, one thing I don't like about my system is the presence of indoctrination that could be inherit due to the testing. I don't want that. I don't want the testing to be directly part of the political system. I want it to be part of society. However, someone/s somewhere will have to decide what is including in the certifications. That immediately opens the door for corruption. What would need to be born is virtual intelligence. (Not AI...which is sentience.) This is why the system wouldn't work to perfection like I desire.
Originally posted by dadudemon
There is a fundamental flaw with this point from the beginning, which is the point of the test. What if some to all farmers have a fundamental misunderstanding of weight to begin with? What if they assumed weight was measured in volts? That may sound silly but a quick search on youtube will net you some really retarded people with extremely bizarre political understanding.
No. It will weed out those who have been indoctrinated by a neighboring town who specifically taught the farmers to measure incorrectly so they could manipulate them into buying or trading what ever goods they had to offer. This is why metaphors don't work too well sometimes.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You have it backwards, why should people get to take part in ruling others, via proxy, when they don't understand what they're doing specifically because they refuse to educate themselves because of their comfort zone while also existing in a system that allows for agents to specifically take advantage of and manipulate those I've mentioned?
I disagree with this, the fact is they are taking part in ruling others in it's loosest sense- but even then only to an equal degree as everyone else. The real issue is of authority. Who has the authority to rule over other people? Only someone who has been duly appointed to do so by everyone over he/she rules surely? I don't think your earlier argument that many people are as capable as retards is very true either what evidence do you have to prove that anyway?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do I really deserve a leader that will **** the system up even more simply because he or she played the political game right? Would we even have to worry about the political bullshit game if the bullshit was called out or what it was the majority of the time? That's really all I'm looking for. Instead of a celebrity, we get a true representative or law.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The country would require many tests to even become a citizen. Maintaining full citizenship would require new periodic re-certification. There will, naturally, be people who qualified originally but become invalids. (dementia, injury, and so forth)
Originally posted by dadudemon
Now, one thing I don't like about my system is the presence of indoctrination that could be inherit due to the testing. I don't want that. I don't want the testing to be directly part of the political system. I want it to be part of society. However, someone/s somewhere will have to decide what is including in the certifications. That immediately opens the door for corruption. What would need to be born is virtual intelligence. (Not AI...which is sentience.) This is why the system wouldn't work to perfection like I desire.
Hmm, if the technology exists to create a test and exclude human corruption...then perhaps... heaven forbid though that it should decide only people with a master's in politics should get to vote.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Fail.
I don't think so. I believe that your reply to me did not discuss why limiting terms or banning certain individuals from being voted for is reasonable and not a silly limitation, especially when it is mostly very capable individuals you ban. I do find the idea of a political test for voters interesting, I think there are a few problems with it, and I don't really agree with the general principle, but the idea itself can be discussed, it was just not related to what I was talking about...almost at the opposite of the spectrum, I think.
this is a cloud for the bigger issue...who cares if bj boy clinton..who I thought did well...runs again...or the non american born pres..who cares... if you think of it from a business view...like britain did...its just business...Im not looking up and posting u.s./british treaties but it spells out there how the world works...I got nothing against the British as I wouldnt be sitting here saying this if it wasnt for them doing good business...but I am not stupid...getting there as I keep drinkin..lol.. but this is nothing but a measure of control...if one can run for an extra term so what...if they cant the next pres just does whats good for business...I dont know guess my mind werks different than most...you just gotta do deep research which is a pain..but dont be fooled its just a business scam...bet many of you can present proof that hasnt been mentioned...there are alot of smart dudes/dudettes here..lol
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Hmm, I dunno if I agree, to think of another athenian argument- how can you expect people to become literate in politics if they are not allowed to take part?
Does not apply in anyway shape or form. Unlike the bronze age, we live in the information age. Common techniques, classes, self study programs, etc. etc. etc. will exist for a political aptitude test. The test should be designed to be very direct with its questions. (No trick questions.) It should be designed so that it measures the ability of a potential voter to legitimately weigh or gauge political concepts and be able to measure with surety that the individual is aware of the political games that are played. (It could cover past examples)
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I disagree with this, the fact is they are taking part in ruling others in it's loosest sense- but even then only to an equal degree as everyone else. The real issue is of authority. Who has the authority to rule over other people? Only someone who has been duly appointed to do so by everyone over he/she rules surely? I don't think your earlier argument that many people are as capable as retards is very true either what evidence do you have to prove that anyway?
In a democracy, the majority can oppress the minority. I have no idea what you're talking about on your retards comments. I think you've misconstrued humor for the literal.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You believe that would happen?
It would happen to a certain degree. That's why I said a "majority." It would force individuals to recognize and actually prepare on current events and techniques used in politics to "win" votes.
If the voter recognizes more bullshit than they do now, that would be an improvement. My whole idea is becoming not so big of an idea because of this wonderful information age...but it would be mostly those who actively seek out political truth in this information age that would pass this aptitude test anyway.
Someone could still be a straight ticket dumbass, but pass the test, so I don't see why this is that offensive.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Now, your assumption is that many people are as politically literate as a retard is literate in anything. I suspect that many of the people who would not pass the test you set will be occupied in the lower strata of jobs...(there are obviously exceptions but lets face it, generally I am probably right). What you might find is your country has a huge amount of basically intellectual people: teachers, librarians, doctors, lawyers etc etc...but what about street cleaners? sewage workers, factory workers and so on so on...your nation will be devoid of people who will be willing to do those jobs surely?
Indeed. This "utopia" wouldn't have very many of those jobs you describe simply because of the automated technologies I would have in place. Most of them would be automated. However, I think you are emphasizing social hierarchy too much. Just because someone's a janitor, doesn't mean that they can't be politically adept. Just because someone's a grill cook at McDonald's, doesn't mean that they are a political layman. I know, I worked at McDonald's as a grill cook.
You can walk into all climes of society and find people very adept at politics. Even people significantly below average in the brains category can be adept enough to contribute positively to politics. You're faith in human intelligence is too weak. (You could say the same of me with my idea, however, my idea would force people to become adept or not live in my country. It would weed out the apathetic or indifferent from participating. They would either "participate" or not participate, if you know what I mean.)
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Hmm, if the technology exists to create a test and exclude human corruption...then perhaps... heaven forbid though that it should decide only people with a master's in politics should get to vote.
Lemme tell you how I came to the conclusion that it would require VI.
I was thinking that it would be comprised of a board of 12 or more professors of politics and human thinking sciences. This group of men, women, and even children if they qualify, would create questions on this test that would best measure the things I've outlined. However, since I don't like having very much government, I didn't like the idea of another body of government. The more government there is, the harder it is to control corruption. However, this board would be hard to corrupt and probably wouldn't be a bad idea at all. In fact, it could probably be very successful, depending on the policies they have to abide by. But wouldn't they set those policies themselves with an affirmative vote from another governing branch?
This is when I thought of VI. Something not sentient, but still intelligent enough to create tests based on the very extensive parameters set from the onset that everyone would have to agree on at the inception of this utopia. It could be amended, but it shouldn't. It should be decided and unchanging.
The questions will, of course, be recycled very frequently to curb brain dumps. It should pull from a massive database of question that are constantly updated. (Making it impossible to have any effective brain dumps to "cheat" on the tests.) This test should cover political precedence, general political knowledge questions (forcing voters to educate themselves on all major political points from parties, etc.), political aptitude questions to demonstrate the ability to weed through political game bullshit, etc.
I could go on and on. I still like the idea of a political aptitude test to be a registered voter. Hopeful citizens have to take a somewhat similar test in the naturalization process, so what is so foreign about this test?
I will always detest the idea that an idiot next door has just as much of a right to vote as I do when they don't even make an effort in any way shape or form to educate themselves on current political issues and then they cast a vote based on a commercial that made them feel good about a candidate they saw between American Idol segments. I don't want that vote. I don't ever want that type of person to have a voice. I would be fine with the 90 year old lady who can barely read but has actively sought out current political issues and educated herself. Who cares if she's virtually and invalid. Her vote certainly means a whole lot more than that dumbass neighbor.
Indeed, you could say that I am an "intellectualist." Similar to racist, but instead I prefer people who work hard and try to educate themselves over those who are lazy and apathetic towards education.
Well, you could say that just about everyone is an intellectualist to an extent. There's probably much much much more "intellectualism" in this world than racism.
On another note. It should be interesting to you that in this utopia I think about, every citizen will be required to modify their genetics to make them genetically superior IF they haven't already done so. This would include improving their body in almost every physical way, eliminating...or rather, modifying negative portions of their nucleotide sequence to eliminate susceptibility to specific diseases and conditions. I really like this idea and I really want it forced on everyone in the whole world. FORCE!
Hmm it all seems very utopian...and I don't think it is based in any foreseeable reality...
Your points make sense within the context of the world you have created, where the apparatus exists, yet I don't think this hypothetical is at all transferable to the practical reality.
Why rather than just have a compulsory test have a compulsory education program?
I was thinking that it would be comprised of a board of 12 or more professors of politics and human thinking sciences. This group of men, women, and even children if they qualify, would create questions on this test that would best measure the things I've outlined. However, since I don't like having very much government, I didn't like the idea of another body of government. The more government there is, the harder it is to control corruption. However, this board would be hard to corrupt and probably wouldn't be a bad idea at all. In fact, it could probably be very successful, depending on the policies they have to abide by. But wouldn't they set those policies themselves with an affirmative vote from another governing branch?
Could you explain why this extra government entity would be any harder to corrupt than another government entity? You said it would be, but I didn't see much reason behind it.
Ignoring the (over-hyped) problem of corruption, I think you should look at bias. Even if only the smartest people were allowed on this board, they all still have a unique perspective on life developed from experiences they have had that no one else has. It would be virtually impossible to make the test accessible to all walks of life; even IQ tests and government sponsored standardized tests inadvertently exclude large swaths of the population because of how they are written. Unless your utopia has very small population or is homogenized to an unprecedented degree there will be differences in lifestyle. (Or you could be a communalistic (sp?) dictator a la Anthem.)
Would Political bias be purged as well? If the board is [republican/right-wing/conservative etc.] would someone with liberal or progressive views be allowed to vote. (Or vice versa.)
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Could you explain why this extra government entity would be any harder to corrupt than another government entity?
I just explained why I would rather go with a VI that would do this all for me. I don't like this option as much as a VI.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You said it would be, but I didn't see much reason behind it.
I can see it being difficult to corrupt this institution. They have very little power. One could argue that they could all passively execute a coup d’état by getting ridiculous with how in depth and targeted (meaning, building into the test, demographic exclusions) the test could get. However, how effective could that ever be? Aren't they technically elected themselves? Wouldn't their very actions contradict that country's nascent principles? I mean, would the people really not notice the changes and not call bullshit on it when the entire political system was founded on calling out political BS?
Think about it...what is the whole point of this test? If it were gradually altered to target specific demographics, it would be to obvious because the country is filled with people required to keep abreast of politics...specifically to keep form getting fed bullshit by politicians.
Also, since this group of people are the "best" minds available, a certain degree of trust or faith could be placed on the collective minds of these individuals to not betray the "doctrines' of the things they hold precious: Political Science and Humanity.
Now, the checks and balances would come into play because there is more than just a political aptitude test going on here. There is a whole battery of tests from different boards. This would serve as checks and balances for each testing group. If one member of the political test was found to be racist through the humanity test, a further investigation would be required. If a psychological test found that one was becoming an ego maniac, a further investigation would be required.
Think of this world as a combination of Equilibrium and Minority Report, except a whole lot nicer. (There would be not prisons. Only exile. The entire criminal system would be based on rehab and exile.) There will be fairly stringent measures put into place to make sure the test designers are kept as clean as possible. Excessive bullshit from these precious individuals wouldn't be tolerated. But this would be very very similar to what Air Traffic Controllers have to do. They actually have to take psychological evaluations and pass them to even get their jobs. Why would we not test other facets of the work force, especially one as important as government? Despite my very limited knowledge in psychology, even I know you can design a psychological test to look for surpassed racism.
Anyway, I would liken these boards unto the supreme court, except with much much less power and checks and balances against each other group.
My thoughts are a mess on this as it is still an incomplete idea. I don't even think it's possible to implement among humans in the next few decades. (So, yes, I agree with you GMG. It would be hard to see a system like this setup.)
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Ignoring the (over-hyped) problem of corruption, I think you should look at bias.
Corruption is not just a function of actions. Corruption can simply be a way of thinking, which is the point of the system.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Even if only the smartest people were allowed on this board, they all still have a unique perspective on life developed from experiences they have had that no one else has.
Indeed, which is why they are all tested as well to verify if they are competent to continue to hold their positions.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
It would be virtually impossible to make the test accessible to all walks of life;
You see, this is where we get to split off and disagree. I don't care about all walks of life. 😄
Screw those who are too selfish to live in my system. They wouldn't be welcome. They would be denied entry. That's the point of the entry test.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
even IQ tests and government sponsored standardized tests inadvertently exclude large swaths of the population because of how they are written.
I know this. Also, GOOD! It should. It should pin point failures, individually and collectively, so policy and can be altered to correct the demographic differences. The educational system is far from perfect. (I'm not talking about my system.)
Now, you may think or others may thing, "but that is a measurement of what so and so thinks. Who's to say that they're right?" And I agree. However, they are not that far off, are they? I would say it should be relative to the population of the country and the rest of the world. There are very basic things that should always be universal which is science and math. (Again, speaking about the U.S., not my system.)
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Unless your utopia has very small population or is homogenized to an unprecedented degree there will be differences in lifestyle. (Or you could be a communalistic (sp?) dictator a la Anthem.)
You are correct. It should be obvious that the population will be held, for the most part, to a very strict minimum standard. However, it will be far closer to something like pure communism or pure anarchy. In fact, I don't really want to have to govern at all. I was hoping the people would cooperate and work together just fine without government. To put it more direct, my hope is to create a population of hyper-perfect humans that do not need any governing body.
I want to be able to alter genetics and integrate the electronic with the organic to such an extent that the "medical" scientists in the country will say, "What do you mean hyaline tissue depletion?", "What about telomeres?", "What is being sick?", etc. (And this is where the primary portion of this being called a "Utopia" comes in.)
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Would Political bias be purged as well?
Not really. But entrance into the country would require they meet an explicit level of unbias.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
If the board is [republican/right-wing/conservative etc.] would someone with liberal or progressive views be allowed to vote. (Or vice versa.)
The board is not really the point. The VI is. I don't like it being left in humans hands.
I am libertarian for the most part....but not by much. However, I can clearly see the merits in any perspective and I always weight all possibilities in politics. (Except for the lizard people.) My system would be designed to incorporate like minded people. Remember, that's the whole point of the system. Weed out the lazy and close minded and give voting rights to the open minded and hard workers.
Also, I would think that simply changing the genome coupled with like minded citizens would be more than enough to eliminate enmity form humans enough to live without governing in my utopia.
However, some argue that this conflict with humanity is one of the most important things of human progression and to eliminate this aspect of humanity would be to erase the very essence of humanity.
That's possible and I'm much too ignorant to know better right now. I have decades of education left to do. I don't plan to stop going to college for the rest of my life. I could completely discard my idea of a utopia in the future.
Oh, and...GMG, there WOULD be compulsory education. However, one could focus on a specific profession their entire life or get a little of everything. There would be basics as too much specialization with create too much miscommunication or vocational "factions".
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, and...GMG, there WOULD be compulsory education. However, one could focus on a specific profession their entire life or get a little of everything. There would be basics as too much specialization with create too much miscommunication or vocational "factions".
But what about a course which specifically teaches people what they might need to know to pass the politics test? Obviously it would have to be carefully monitored but surely it is a sensible idea?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
But what about a course which specifically teaches people what they might need to know to pass the politics test? Obviously it would have to be carefully monitored but surely it is a sensible idea?
Originally posted by dadudemon
...we live in the information age. Common techniques, classes, self study programs, etc. etc. etc. will exist for a political aptitude test. The test should be designed to be very direct with its questions. (No trick questions.) It should be designed so that it measures the ability of a potential voter to legitimately weigh or gauge political concepts and be able to measure with surety that the individual is aware of the political games that are played. (It could cover past examples)
And to add to that, there would be great emphasis on choosing a vocation that contributes to the "collective", if even in an artistic way as interpreted by the expressing individual.