Get rid of Democracy

keynesian

I hate to quote a Steve McQueen film, but, "when will the people ever learn democracy don't work"!

Is Democracy the best way? Why not theocracy? Or simply get rid of democracy and put the bureaucrats in power. Educated people not baby kissing machines.

Why give the people the elution they have democracy, when it's elitists who make decisions on there behalf.

Madrox

that law against necrophilia getting you down?

daithimac

I hate to quote churchhill but Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time.

DadaKopf

That's pretty much what George Monbiot says in his book, 'The Age of Consent', too.

But the thing is, it's debatable whether we live in a democracy at all. There's a definite sharing of power - and the distribution of that power has shifted in recent decades - but it can be argued that we live in a 'competitive elitist' model of democracy which is, by and large, a system ruled by powerful capitalists and their agents (Ministers) and technocrats (civil servants).

'Competitive elitism' rhymes with this shift in the distribution of power from a 'Welfare state' to a 'Competition state'. The state is subservient to the market, but politicians rule to ensure optimal market functioning, to which bureaucrats oblige, and the economic, political, social, cultural, psychological and physical health of the people suffer, by and large.

And while this may be the 'least worst' form of rule, it's in need of vast reform locally, nationally, globally.

edanto

keynesian wrote:

Is Democracy the best way? Why not theocracy? Or simply get rid of democracy and put the bureaucrats in power. Educated people not baby kissing machines.

Why give the people the elution they have democracy, when it's elitists who make decisions on there behalf.

As I read what you've written, you're kindof arguing against yourself. On one hand, democracy is only an illusion, elitists make decisions, so you're saying that we should just give up this illusion of control from the bottom and hand over power to *insert group here*. A solution which would be worse than the problem, surely.

If a democracy doesn't work, that's less to do with the principles of the system and more to do with participation/apathy.

Join a party if you care so much and get people involved. Or find some other way to build your community and then you won't feel so powerless.

aidan24326

keynesian wrote:

I hate to quote a Steve McQueen film, but, "when will the people ever learn democracy don't work"!

Is Democracy the best way? Why not theocracy? Or simply get rid of democracy and put the bureaucrats in power. Educated people not baby kissing machines.

Why give the people the elution they have democracy, when it's elitists who make decisions on there behalf.

Theocracy??! Just look at any country run as a theocracy and you'll see why democracy isn't so bad after all. Sure it doesn't really work, there is undoubtedly a better way if only someone could figure it out. Trouble is even if they did, the real power and control has become so much the exclusive possession of a wealthy elite that they're sure as hell not going to give that up easily. The system is self-serving to those in the upper echelons. The rest of us just play out our parts as cogs in the machine. That's the reality as I see it.

The religious cult group called the Raelians, led by Claude Rael, encourage a system of government called 'geniocracy', whereby a high level of intelligence is required to sit in office. It is outlined in Rael's book, which is for the most part a pretty interesting read, even if you don't ultimately believe his story (which although plausible up to a point, lacks any evidence to make it actually 'believable'). Considering we have goons like Martin Cullen in office, the idea holds some merit.

J.S. Pill

This should really be in political theory

DadaKopf

edanto wrote:

As I read what you've written, you're kindof arguing against yourself. On one hand, democracy is only an illusion, elitists make decisions, so you're saying that we should just give up this illusion of control from the bottom and hand over power to *insert group here*. A solution which would be worse than the problem, surely.

If a democracy doesn't work, that's less to do with the principles of the system and more to do with participation/apathy.

Join a party if you care so much and get people involved. Or find some other way to build your community and then you won't feel so powerless.

Participation is important. But the ultimate problem is power. The problem is not just whether people participate. The *right kind* of participation, targeted at changing power structures is what democracy, IMHO, should be about.

bonkey

aidan24326 wrote:

The religious cult group called the Raelians, led by Claude Rael, encourage a system of government called 'geniocracy', whereby a high level of intelligence is required to sit in office.
....
Considering we have goons like Martin Cullen in office, the idea holds some merit.

I was reading a thread on another site recently complaining about members of Mensa believing in the 911 conspiracy theories.

Intelligence is not a sufficient quality, especially considering that we cannot meaningfully define or quantify it.

Intelligence, wisdom and learning combined form the "golden triangle" of what such a system would require* Of course, there is no meaningful way of testing for a combination such traits.

jc

* Honesty would also have to be added for a golden pyramid*

** Any number of other traits would also be required if you really look at it.

magpie

Democracy is fine, they just shouldn't give the vote to anyone educated below a graduate level. And while we're at it nobody educated below that level should be able to stand for government.

I suppose you might call it an Exclusionist Meritocracy.

Has anyone trotted out the old argument about Hitler being democratically elected yet?

DadaKopf

magpie wrote:

Has anyone trotted out the old argument about Hitler being democratically elected yet?

Maybe you should read the thread first.

Hmm, so you're saying rule by the people is fine so long as only the priveleged rule? Looking at current trends in education across Ireland, the UK and America (more comparable than much of continental Europe), this is what happens in practise. And it's wrong.

Akrasia

magpie wrote:

Democracy is fine, they just shouldn't give the vote to anyone educated below a graduate level. And while we're at it nobody educated below that level should be able to stand for government.

I suppose you might call it an Exclusionist Meritocracy.

you know they tried something like that, it was called Apartheid. They also had 'Jim Crow' laws in America which were designed to prevent uneducated blacks from voting, and look what that led to, segregation, systematic oppression, and eventually the civil rights movement and court cases that led to universal suffrage.. for a while at least.

magpie

Maybe you should read the thread first.

OK, I've read the thread:

Hitler was democratically elected you know?

Hmm, so you're saying rule by the people is fine so long as only the priveleged rule?

No, I'm saying rule by the people is fine as long as only the educated rule

you know they tried something like that, it was called Apartheid

I'm not suggesting racial discrimination - colour, religion and ethnic background are of no interest to me. Level of education, and thus ability to make informed political choices, is.

As for politicians, most of the worst despots of history were school-leavers, if that:

Himmler - uneducated Chicken farmer
Hitler - Art-school dropout
Stalin - Uneducated thug
Ahern - Book-Keeper who describes himself as an 'Accountant' and claims to have attended UCD and the LSE, though no evidence exists of him attending either

QED.

egan007

Education does not necessarily make you smart.

...................................................................................egan007

Akrasia

magpie wrote:

I'm not suggesting racial discrimination - colour, religion and ethnic background are of no interest to me. Level of education, and thus ability to make informed political choices, is.

You propose discrimination against class, not race (although in practise, ethnic minorities would likely be overwhelmingly a part of the lower class) That is called a caste system. Do you think the wealthy 'educated' people would represent the interests of the poor as enthusiastically as they would represent their own interests? Of course not. Do you think the dirty polluting and unsafe industries would be located in upscale leafy suburbs? of course not. Do you think the upper class would strive to improve class mobility at their own expense? of course not.

JC 2K3

Democracy doesn't really work in the context of large countries.

I mean it's essentially a system where 51% of the population can potentially oppress 49%.

Even if you have what seems like a big majority, there is still potential opression of a vast amount of people. A 85%:15% majority in a country of 4,000,000(like Ireland) people means 600,000 people potentially opressed.

Look at the USA, after the 2004 presidential election almost 150,000,000 people had to live in a country with a president who did not support their opinions and had policies they didn't agree with.

Akrasia

JC 2K3 wrote:

Democracy doesn't really work in the context of large countries.

I mean it's essentially a system where 51% of the population can potentially oppress 49%.

Even if you have what seems like a big majority, there is still potential opression of a vast amount of people. A 85%:15% majority in a country of 4,000,000(like Ireland) people means 600,000 people potentially opressed.

Look at the USA, after the 2004 presidential election almost 150,000,000 people had to live in a country with a president who did not support their opinions and had policies they didn't agree with.

That is technically true, but why would those 51% of people want to oppress the other 49%? why is it a competition?

Game theory shows that everyone does best when we cooperate with each other.

Representative democracy is not a system where 51% of the people can oppress the other 49%. In reality, it is a system where 10% of the population oppresses the other 90% (even if the 90% don't always know it). representative democracy is not true democracy.

JC 2K3

Akrasia wrote:

That is technically true, but why would those 51% of people want to oppress the other 49%? why is it a competition?

Differing religious beliefs, moral codes, ideology etc.

What "Nationalism" is exactly should really be looked at again.

Democracy could work well in a proper nation state, but with the decline of religion and cultural identity and the promotion of free thought and speech, I believe that a lot of nationalism is no longer strongly related to one's heratige or inherited religion.

It's a pity that geoographical locations are so valuable to people, otherwise the world could be split up into individualist nation states with a different kind of rule/laws in each.

Akrasia

JC 2K3 wrote:

Differing religious beliefs, moral codes, ideology etc.

Well, the question is, why would an ordinary person care what his neighbour believes religiously or morally? In reality, there are countless examples all throughout history of diverse peoples living side by side without serious conflict. It is only when matters of elitism and power are taken into account, that competition between religions come into practise.

What "Nationalism" is exactly should really be looked at again.

Nationalism is the false belief that the interests of the individual and the interests of the 'nation' are inextricably linked. Nationalism is little more than a Machiavellian extention of the 'divide and rule' strategy of rulers and the ruled. The rulers always promise gains should their side emerge victorious. It is always a matter of playing off the working classes of both sides against each other. it is the ultimate control mechanism.

Democracy could work well in a proper nation state, but with the decline of religion and cultural identity and the promotion of free thought and speech, I believe that a lot of nationalism is no longer strongly related to one's heritage or inherited religion.

Nationalism is based on the perception that if 'my side' wins, my values will be safe from attack and I will benefit personally through increased wealth, peace and freedom . This is sometimes true in a short term analysis, if you are being oppressed and you fight an imperialist oppressor, you will win some freedoms, but after that battle, you almost always find that the promises made by those you fought for will be broken by means of a pact to maintain most of the status quo with little more than a meaningless changing of the guards while the nationalists are left with nothing but a smug satisfaction and a few more war songs to sing. Nationalism is inherently divisive because it is a zero sum game (look it up), the victory of one side is matched by the losses of the other side and so there will be eternal conflict, and this is desired by the elites who benefit from the conflict that gives them power.

To escape from this cycle, we need to reject zero sum conflicts and embrace cooperative non zero sum games where there is still competition, but the benefits are shared, and not just shifted eternally from one side to the other while the third corner sucks up the power.
(This is all simple game theory)

It's a pity that geoographical locations are so valuable to people, otherwise the world could be split up into individualist nation states with a different kind of rule/laws in each.

that would not work. we need to find a way of living together, not constantly allowing ourselves to be divided.
We are not separate peoples. We all came from the one place, we all have the same fundamental human values, we are 99.9% the same. we can live together. but we need to embrace principles of solidarity, mutual aid, the principles that allowed us to become the dominant species on this planet. Milton Friedman was wrong. Greed is not good. The Nice guy does not finish last.

Thrill

I like democracy and living in a democratic country. Any one who does not like this form of government should not complain about it until they have actually lived under other forms of rule. Only then will they truly know what their really talking about.

How many peoples from other forms of government flock to the west the first chance they get?
I dont see too many people in a rush to escape the freedom democracy provides.

Transcendant

I want proof of these diverse people living side by side?

Akrasia

thrill wrote:

I like democracy and living in a democratic country. Any one who does not like this form of government should not complain about it until they have actually lived under other forms of rule. Only then will they truly know what their really talking about.

Ah, so obviously you have experience of living in anarchist or social democratic society or libertarian society or muslim society. obviously you know about all the alternatives because you know for certain that this system is the best.

How many peoples from other forms of government flock to the west the first chance they get?

People go to where they believe the wealth is, not to where the democracy is. Why aren't there millions of north koreans living in Ireland if we're so free and they're so poor? Because of controls and propaganda. N.K. populations are clearly under the influence of propaganda, 90% of westerners would agree. are we under any kind of propaganda? how would we know? N.Koreans don't realise they are victims of lies and propaganda, why should we be any different?

I dont see too many people in a rush to escape the freedom democracy provides.

well, every time any country tried to democratically choose a different kind of freedom (one where corporations didn't have preferential treatment in a democracy America didn't approve of) over the last 50 years, America stepped in and ****ed it up.

Thrill

I never once claimed i had ever lived in a country with a different ideology.

Why would i want to live under a different form of government than the one i am happy with. I have all the freedom i could ever want and can choose to believe in whatever i want. If i thought that democracy was wrong for me then i could move to a country with a system that was more suited to my beliefs, which is more than can be said of North Koreans

The reason millions of North Koreans are not living in Ireland is because they are not free to leave their own country.
How can you possibly know that N.Koreans are totally fooled by propaganda?
90% of westerners may well believe that they are fooled by propaganda but i for one think they are ruled by fear.
They cannot question any their leaders polices for fear of losing their lives.
For fear of their families losing their lives.
An ideology that rules by fear is not one i choose to live under.

When i said that: I don't see too many people in a rush to escape the freedom democracy provides. I meant that people are not leaving the west in vast numbers to live in countries like N.Korea or countries ruled by strict Islamic law.

magpie

You propose discrimination against class, not race (although in practise, ethnic minorities would likely be overwhelmingly a part of the lower class) That is called a caste system. Do you think the wealthy 'educated' people would represent the interests of the poor as enthusiastically as they would represent their own interests? Of course not. Do you think the dirty polluting and unsafe industries would be located in upscale leafy suburbs? of course not. Do you think the upper class would strive to improve class mobility at their own expense? of course not.

I don't propose discrimination against class either - read the post! Education isn't about priviledge or class, though its a handy excuse to use.

Akrasia

thrill wrote:

I never once claimed i had ever lived in a country with a different ideology.

Why would i want to live under a different form of government than the one i am happy with.

because, using your own very words "until they have actually lived under other forms of rule. Only then will they truly know what their really talking about." Many North Koreans are happy living where they are, they don't know any different

I have all the freedom i could ever want and can choose to believe in whatever i want. If i thought that democracy was wrong for me then i could move to a country with a system that was more suited to my beliefs, which is more than can be said of North Koreans

How do you know that having all of this 'freedom' is what is really best for you? maybe you have been lied to and are brain washed, just in the same way you believe North Koreans are being lied to? I am not saying North Korea is a nice place, but there are more than two countries in the world. How do you know you wouldn't be happier in a different place? I strongly object to the cultural imperialism in your post. You assume that our system is the absolute best and that others would realise this if they had a chance to experience it (perhaps we should offer them regime change?) meanwhile you clearly stated that you have no desire or intention to experience their culture or experiment with with other political philosophies.

The reason millions of North Koreans are not living in Ireland is because they are not free to leave their own country.

nonsense, even if they were free to leave their own country, millions of Koreans would certainly not be welcome or permitted to simply arrive in Ireland and live here.
North Korea has travel restrictions, but it's not like the whole country is constantly banging at the doors trying to get out. It's not a prison, it doesn't have a fence the whole way around it.

Akrasia

magpie wrote:

I don't propose discrimination against class either - read the post! Education isn't about priviledge or class, though its a handy excuse to use.

Of course it is. look at the places where early school leaving is a problem. they are overwhelmingly disadvantaged working class lower socio economic areas.

in Tallagh most people don't even finish their leaving cert, in Foxrock, most people finish at Honours Degree level or higher. do you think people in Foxrock would represent the interests of people in Tallagh?

ISAW

magpie wrote:

No, I'm saying rule by the people is fine as long as only the educated rule

Yes you are you are redefining "elite" as "having a certified qualification"

You are not a Fine Gael supporter are you?

I'm not suggesting racial discrimination - colour, religion and ethnic background are of no interest to me. Level of education, and thus ability to make informed political choices, is.

Indeed it does and the Irish driven to the side of the road by the British exploitation had no education so they should "know their place" and croppies should lie down?
A century and a half later there are still travellers on the roads with appling levels of education. you are suggesting they be disqualified from having power and decision making.

You do vote fine Gael dont you?

Here is a counter example constantine the Greate was illiterate when he became Emperor and only learned to read later on.

Himmler - uneducated Chicken farmer
Hitler - Art-school dropout
Stalin - Uneducated thug
Ahern - Book-Keeper who describes himself as an 'Accountant' and claims to have attended UCD and the LSE, though no evidence exists of him attending either

Comparing Bertie to the others is clearly proposterous! Unless you vote fine Gael that is And it is also arguemtn from ignorance! Indeed you claim you don't know Betries qualifications and you use theis ignorance to assert he is a dropout and a despot!

Furthermore it is a fallacy that only undeucated people are despots.

QED.

What was already proven?

Sleepy

Democracy won't work until all citizens of a country are properly educated (so they understand what they're voting for) and only those qualified for positions are allowed to hold them (i.e. a minister of finance should have some form of qualification for the job, whether that be an economics degree or industry experience as a management accountant).

magpie

Of course it is. look at the places where early school leaving is a problem. they are overwhelmingly disadvantaged working class lower socio economic areas.

Ok, and there are a number of reasons for this - e.g. lack of role models, low expectancy / self-esteem, being able to leave school and make €2000 a week on a buildinng site etc.

The question is how do you encourage more involvement in education? Not being allowed to vote unless you attain a certain standard would certainly focus the issue.

in Tallagh most people don't even finish their leaving cert, in Foxrock, most people finish at Honours Degree level or higher. do you think people in Foxrock would represent the interests of people in Tallagh?

And vice versa, all socio-economic groups tend to protect their own best interest, with the exception of a long history of Middle and Upper Class Philanthropists who have bettered the lot of the lower classes.

Indeed it does and the Irish driven to the side of the road by the British exploitation had no education so they should "know their place" and croppies should lie down?

Those dastardly Brits again!

A century and a half later there are still travellers on the roads with appling levels of education. you are suggesting they be disqualified from having power and decision making.

When people take a conscious decision not to send their children to school and to rear them by the roadside its hard to have sympathy for their appalling levels of education - given that its self-inflicted.

Comparing Bertie to the others is clearly proposterous!

I was trying to be humorous.

Indeed you claim you don't know Betries qualifications and you use theis ignorance to assert he is a dropout and a despot!

Not quite, the point is everyone knows he didn't attend either UCD or the LSE - yet he claimed on his CV that he had and was not able to provide any evidence that he was telling the truth. You know when you go for a job and they ask for your Degree Certificates? Same thing, except Bertie doesn't have the certs and the 2 institutions in question say they have no record of him ever attending.

You do vote fine Gael dont you?

No, but judging from what you're saying I must check them out.

What was already proven?

Quod Est Demonstrandum - "as has been shown", in this instance that all despots are badly-educated - based on an indicative sample of 4. And Bertie for laughs.

Akrasia

magpie wrote:

Ok, and there are a number of reasons for this - e.g. lack of role models, low expectancy / self-esteem, being able to leave school and make €2000 a week on a buildinng site etc.

there are very few people from these areas making anything close to €2000 a week. The reasons for the disadvantage is largely down to a severe lack of resources put into these communities, and the reason there are so few resources, is because the existing political elites are furthering their own interests and not the interests of these working class people.

The question is how do you encourage more involvement in education? Not being allowed to vote unless you attain a certain standard would certainly focus the issue. [/quote] Really? so the best way to help empower disadvantaged people is to disempower them even further?

And vice versa, all socio-economic groups tend to protect their own best interest, with the exception of a long history of Middle and Upper Class Philanthropists who have bettered the lot of the lower classes.

So what you are suggesting is to take away all representation from the poor and give it to the rich. and this will improve democracy? you really don't understand the implications of what you are saying.

Quod Est Demonstrandum - "as has been shown", in this instance that all despots are badly-educated - based on an indicative sample of 4. And Bertie for laughs.

the flaws in your logic are breathtaking. you can not make a categorical assertion based on an 'indicative sample', You don't define what 'badly educated' is, you can not make a conclusion from only one premise other than a tautology etc etc etc

magpie

The reasons for the disadvantage is largely down to a severe lack of resources put into these communities, and the reason there are so few resources, is because the existing political elites are furthering their own interests and not the interests of these working class people.

What further resources do you think are required? (I'm not being argumentative - I'm curious - I want to see a higher uptake of education in Ireland in general). At present we have free Secondary Education for all and free College Fees for all. The main problems seem to be that there are very few role models of people going to college, as it is perceived as not being something for 'the likes of us' - which is sad as it limits the possibilities of large numbers of bright people.

Disadvantage can't be the only root of the problem though - among immigrants from Poland (which can't exactly be held up as a shining example of priviledge) 40% hold Honours Degrees, as opposed to an embarrasing 15% of the Irish workforce.

So what you are suggesting is to take away all representation from the poor and give it to the rich

I'm really struggling with the way in which you equate education with priviledge and money. Education is a tool that allows anyone to escape even the worst disadvantage, and is open to everyone regardless of colour, creed, or socio-economic circumstance.

Democracy won't work until all citizens of a country are properly educated (so they understand what they're voting for) and only those qualified for positions are allowed to hold them (i.e. a minister of finance should have some form of qualification for the job, whether that be an economics degree or industry experience as a management accountant).

Exactly

Red Hand

On the subject of education, should that be Uni-taught education or self-taught? For not all that one picks up in organised education may be useful in governing? Is it the persistence facet of education (sticking at something for four years or more, though it may be soul-destroying) that makes it attractive to people who would like to see only educated people in government? Is there a cut-off point where you should not be let into government? Suggestions welcome.:)

Not sure how chemical engineering was useful to Magerate Thatcher as PM (or Pat Kenny for TV!).:)

Ben Franklin, one of the most talented people of his age, never held a degree.

ISAW

magpie wrote:

Ok, and there are a number of reasons for this - e.g. lack of role models, low expectancy / self-esteem, being able to leave school and make €2000 a week on a buildinng site etc.

come off it! Who is leaving school and making 2000 a week on a building site?

The question is how do you encourage more involvement in education? Not being allowed to vote unless you attain a certain standard would certainly focus the issue.

Indeed it would. So rt of "disenfranchise the plebs" eh? You are a FG voter aren't you?

And vice versa, all socio-economic groups tend to protect their own best interest, with the exception of a long history of Middle and Upper Class Philanthropists who have bettered the lot of the lower classes.

have you any examples of a pennnyless person who was a philanthropist? In fact most wealth is inhereted and not given to the poor. The "earn all you can give all you can" Thatcherite ideal didnt come to pass. Or was it the FG motto?:) What bettered the lot of the lower classes wanst rich people giving them anything so much as people organising and demanding fairness.

When people take a conscious decision not to send their children to school and to rear them by the roadside its hard to have sympathy for their appalling levels of education - given that its self-inflicted.

Being born into poverty isnt self inflicted! The Irish people who were evicted and thrown out onto the raodside by absentee landlords didnt chose to be homeless. And the Land League was organised from the bottom up!

I was trying to be humorous.

As a Fine Gael voter? Why didn't you include Eoin O Duffy instead of Bertie then eh?

Not quite, the point is everyone knows he didn't attend either UCD or the LSE - yet he claimed on his CV that he had and was not able to provide any evidence that he was telling the truth.

Where does he claime it and how do you know that?

You know when you go for a job and they ask for your Degree Certificates?

Actually sometimes they dont. there is the lecturer in the Smuffit Business school and the government science adviser.

Same thing, except Bertie doesn't have the certs and the 2 institutions in question say they have no record of him ever attending.

Can yo produce evidence of Bertie saying he attended and evidence of the institutions saying he didnt?

Quod Est Demonstrandum - "as has been shown", in this instance that all despots are badly-educated - based on an indicative sample of 4. And Bertie for laughs.

[/quote]

But my point was what was already shown to be true? It was NOT already demonstrated. All swans are white based on the sample one sees in Dublin. then I show yo a black swan. Your logic is in error and does not prove what you claim hense it is NOT QED!

ISAW

Akrasia wrote:

there are very few people from these areas making anything close to €2000 a week. The reasons for the disadvantage is largely down to a severe lack of resources put into these communities, and the reason there are so few resources, is because the existing political elites are furthering their own interests and not the interests of these working class people.

Well this isnt really true either. One way to combat poverty is to create jobs. ireland is doing very well at that. Another thing is that the working classes living in dublin have relatively a lot of wealth since they have very cheap or free housing. They are rich compared to the lower middle classes even though their earnings may be lower since the middle classes have no property or have huge mortgages eating away take home pay.

the problem is we have become a "jam today" society.


another huge growth are in the system is the amount of public jobs in these areas. this is particularly true in N Ireland. The "poverty industry" is what some call it.

The question is how do you encourage more involvement in education? Not being allowed to vote unless you attain a certain standard would certainly focus the issue.

Really? so the best way to help empower disadvantaged people is to disempower them even further?

Well you dont encourage it by getting rid of fees which working class people didnt pay and giving that money to the middle class do you?

So what you are suggesting is to take away all representation from the poor and give it to the rich. and this will improve democracy? you really don't understand the implications of what you are saying.

Oh I think he understands the implications. He just thinks they are justified. and Labour want to go into governmebt with the likes of that?

the flaws in your logic are breathtaking. you can not make a categorical assertion based on an 'indicative sample', You don't define what 'badly educated' is, you can not make a conclusion from only one premise other than a tautology etc etc etc

QED

ISAW

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

On the subject of education, should that be Uni-taught education or self-taught? For not all that one picks up in organised education may be useful in governing? Is it the persistence facet of education (sticking at something for four years or more, though it may be soul-destroying) that makes it attractive to people who would like to see only educated people in government? Is there a cut-off point where you should not be let into government? Suggestions welcome.:)

Sorry I missed this point. When I stated a certified piece of paper I meant to ask whether that is education. I am happy to say living for four years with a group of peers is a better "education" than the degree one gets for passing examinations over the same period.

Not sure how chemical engineering was useful to Magerate Thatcher as PM

It helped her produce the patent of the process for putting air into ice cream and other foods.

(or Pat Kenny for TV!).:)

Well he can handle science and pseudoscience better than Gay Byrne.

Ben Franklin, one of the most talented people of his age, never held a degree.

Patrick Moore is also self educated.

magpie

have you any examples of a pennnyless person who was a philanthropist? In fact most wealth is inhereted and not given to the poor. The "earn all you can give all you can" Thatcherite ideal didnt come to pass. Or was it the FG motto? What bettered the lot of the lower classes wanst rich people giving them anything so much as people organising and demanding fairness.

Alan Sugar

The Irish people who were evicted and thrown out onto the raodside by absentee landlords

I was actually making reference to the point someone made earlier about travellers having a low level of education.

Can yo produce evidence of Bertie saying he attended and evidence of the institutions saying he didnt?

Even the man who holds the top job in the country has had his difficulties over inconsistencies in his CV. While there is no suggestion that the Taoiseach deliberately lied or misled the public about his qualifications, in November 2001 the Fianna Fail website listed Bertie Ahern's third-level education as: "Rathmines College of Commerce, University College Dublin and London School of Economics."

That same month the Taoiseach was quoted in a new book, My Best Advice, as saying: "I obtained my accountancy qualification (in the College of Commerce, Rathmines) and later completed further diploma courses through the London School of Economics in taxation and business administration."

Sharp-eyed observers noted that the Taoiseach failed to make any mention in the book of his time at UCD. When a spokesman for Mr Ahern was asked to explain the omission, he said: "He has never claimed to hold degrees from UCD or anywhere else. I don't know what he got (after Rathmines College). He remembers doing the courses, but not what they were."

Attempts by reporters to trace Mr Ahern's attendance record at UCD or the London School of Economics proved unsuccessful. The reference on the Fianna Fail website to his studies at the LSE was subsequently deleted.

From: http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=45&si=1456273&issue_id=12908

Ahern was educated at St. Patrick's National School in Drumcondra, St. Aidan's Christian Brothers in Whitehall, and Dublin Institute of Technology. He has also claimed, or it was claimed by others on his behalf in circulated biographies, that he was educated at University College Dublin and the London School of Economics. Neither university has any records that show Ahern was ever one of their students.[1] He worked in the Accounts Department of the Mater Hospital, Dublin, from where he is still technically on a career break[citation needed]; and has often been described, and has referred to himself, as an accountant. As there is no legal definition in Ireland of the term accountant this is technically correct. But he is not a qualified chartered, certified or public accountant. On the 8 October 2006 the Irish News of the World described him as 'an accounts clerk.'[1]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertie_Ahern

Sleepy

ISAW wrote:

Well you dont encourage it by getting rid of fees which working class people didnt pay and giving that money to the middle class do you?

I want to take you to task on this glib statement. Do you honestly believe we would have the same level of education in this country without free fees? I'm from a middle-class background and had my parents had to pay for third level education, I wouldn't have gotten one. I'm hardly alone in this.

The one thing everyone in this thread seems to be in agreement on is that education is the key to an effective, equal democracy. Nearly all our economists agree that it has been one of the main driving driving forces behind our economic success of recent years and that if Ireland wishes to continue to prosper, it is going to have to be through the provision of a highly skilled, educated workforce.

If anything, free fees should be expanded upon so that there's no such thing as 'administration fees'; the maintenance grant system thoroughly overhauled so that it judges people on their own merits and not their parents' declared income and provides enough to at least cover the student's rent.

This may seem wasteful when there are those who can and will pay their offspring's way through college however the alternative means that people get left behind, denied an education because their parents can't, or won't, pay for it.

DadaKopf

If anything, free fees should be expanded upon so that there's no such thing as 'administration fees'; the maintenance grant system thoroughly overhauled so that it judges people on their own merits and not their parents' declared income and provides enough to at least cover the student's rent.

What do you mean "judges people on their own merits"? I'm with you on not judging students on the basis of their parents' declared incomes, but if "own merits" means 'intelligence', 'aptitudes' or academic success in school, then this further fuels inequality because inequality or social class determines this, too. How can this be tackled?

keynesian

thrill wrote:

The reason millions of North Koreans are not living in Ireland is because they are not free to leave their own country.

You seem to be under the impression we'd left them in and even if we did they wouldn't have the full rights of the state.

ISAW

Sleepy wrote:

I want to take you to task on this glib statement. Do you honestly believe we would have the same level of education in this country without free fees? I'm from a middle-class background and had my parents had to pay for third level education, I wouldn't have gotten one. I'm hardly alone in this.

First I can show what migh have been since we didnt decide it. Second fees are not FREE. someone pays. You are suggesting the tax payer pay for the middle classes and the rich as well as paying for the working classes and the poor. Third I dont believe people like you would not have gotten a third level education.

The one thing everyone in this thread seems to be in agreement on is that education is the key to an effective, equal democracy. Nearly all our economists agree that it has been one of the main driving driving forces behind our economic success of recent years and that if Ireland wishes to continue to prosper, it is going to have to be through the provision of a highly skilled, educated workforce.

that does nmot mean that educated people should rule over uneducated people. We even let people degrees vote and i am happy to do that but we dont insist that they only vote for people with degrees or that the Minister for Finance has to be an accountant or an economist.

If anything, free fees should be expanded upon so that there's no such thing as 'administration fees'; the maintenance grant system thoroughly overhauled so that it judges people on their own merits and not their parents' declared income and provides enough to at least cover the student's rent.

so you believe that someone who is worth a hundred million should have free third level and pay nothing?

This may seem wasteful when there are those who can and will pay their offspring's way through college however the alternative means that people get left behind, denied an education because their parents can't, or won't, pay for it.

But when partnts wont pay the children can move out and work and based on their earnings get a grant. but they prefer the soft life at home. Why should they have it easier than working class people? If you want to level the field shouldnt you discriminate in favour of the poorer people and give them more benefits for education?

ISAW

DadaKopf wrote:

What do you mean "judges people on their own merits"? I'm with you on not judging students on the basis of their parents' declared incomes, but if "own merits" means 'intelligence', 'aptitudes' or academic success in school, then this further fuels inequality because inequality or social class determines this, too. How can this be tackled?

If you stay at home and the house has income you pay fees. If you move out and get a job and a place of your own and work then you can claim a grant if your income is low. You could also get extra points for disadvantage.

DadaKopf

Wasn't asking you!!!