Education for Public Life

[Hurdergaryp]

whatever the voter wants.

The voter does not always get what the voter wants, for the voter is only one of many. And the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[Uxupox]

whatever the voter wants.

The voter does not always get what the voter wants, for the voter is only one of many. And the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

so? vote in the next election. if you lose then try again.

[Hurdergaryp]

The voter does not always get what the voter wants, for the voter is only one of many. And the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

so? vote in the next election. if you lose then try again.

That's pretty much how it works, yes.

[Uxupox]

so? vote in the next election. if you lose then try again.

That's pretty much how it works, yes.

sometimes it doesn't work for the "few" and they get hungary for some nice old fashioned freikorps knocking, chetnik popping arm wrestling.

[UniversalCommons]

This also stinks of academic elitism. Lets say someone has technical training as a welder, or is a master carpenter or master plumber. This says tradesmen can't vote. The same would go for someone who is a paramedic or a nurse. This education can be more valuable than an academic education in many ways. Someone who went to the fire academy or police academy also is probably more prepared for voting than many degree holders.

What would you say being prepared for voting means? I'm a little confused because in this post you seem to believe in "transferable skills" but in this one you appear to not believe in it (at least for, so it seems, the subjects I discussed in the OP or possibly the ones in the poll or, alternatively, in Law).

It is called elitism. Voting is not about skills it is about representation. You create an elite out of touch with your population with this approach. The skill of being able to serve people in the real world with real occupations that interact with real people brings a voice to the people in a republic. Academic learning is abstract. A police man or corrections officer knows more about the way that the law is enacted in the setting where the law is carried out and can quite often bring a voice that the lawyer cannot understand. Academic skills exist within a tower meant to be abstract. Just as the man who runs the military academy who teaches at west point is no longer fighting the war, the soldier is the man who is on the front end who is affected most.

The policeman who carries out the law needs to vote with the lawyer. Just like the construction manager needs to work with the engineer or the building does not get built.

There is an assumption that the law is written for the politicians. It is written for the person who pays the politicians quite often, the businessman or doctor who lobbies the politician. People who are out of touch in the sense you are describing are easily manipulated because they are not in touch with the ordinary people who run the republic. They get bought and sold because they are not connected to the people.

An academic cannot build a house, nor can they sell the goods that the citizen needs.

I do not think of academic skills in many cases to be transferable. Anthropology for example has no visible transferable value to voting. Skills are not rights and responsibilities. The social worker has more connection to people than the sociologist because their work is not an abstraction and they see the people who are being affected by the welfare laws in a way that the academic never can.

In the Athenian republic everyone had to vote. The ropemakers would bind the men in red ropes who did not vote staining their clothes. It was a duty not an abstraction. Relying to much on abstraction allows abstractions like the idea that a corporation is a person to arise because they are not connected to everyday people. It also creates elitism.

[Isilanka]

What would you say being prepared for voting means? I'm a little confused because in this post you seem to believe in "transferable skills" but in this one you appear to not believe in it (at least for, so it seems, the subjects I discussed in the OP or possibly the ones in the poll or, alternatively, in Law).

It is called elitism. Voting is not about skills it is about representation. You create an elite out of touch with your population with this approach. The skill of being able to serve people in the real world with real occupations that interact with real people brings a voice to the people in a republic. Academic learning is abstract. A police man or corrections officer knows more about the way that the law is enacted in the setting where the law is carried out and can quite often bring a voice that the lawyer cannot understand. Academic skills exist within a tower meant to be abstract. Just as the man who runs the military academy who teaches at west point is no longer fighting the war, the soldier is the man who is on the front end who is affected most.

The policeman who carries out the law needs to vote with the lawyer. Just like the construction manager needs to work with the engineer or the building does not get built.

There is an assumption that the law is written for the politicians. It is written for the person who pays the politicians quite often, the businessman or doctor who lobbies the politician. People who are out of touch in the sense you are describing are easily manipulated because they are not in touch with the ordinary people who run the republic. They get bought and sold because they are not connected to the people.

An academic cannot build a house, nor can they sell the goods that the citizen needs.

I do not think of academic skills in many cases to be transferable. Anthropology for example has no visible transferable value to voting. Skills are not rights and responsibilities. The social worker has more connection to people than the sociologist because their work is not an abstraction and they see the people who are being affected by the welfare laws in a way that the academic never can.

In the Athenian republic everyone had to vote. The ropemakers would bind the men in red ropes who did not vote staining their clothes. It was a duty not an abstraction. Relying to much on abstraction allows abstractions like the idea that a corporation is a person to arise because they are not connected to everyday people. It also creates elitism.

In Athens everyone had the right to vote except women, slaves and people not born in Athens, which meant more than the majority of the population.
I get your point, totally, but I don't thin Athens is a good example of a non-elitist democracy. It was very much elitist.

[The Blaatschapen]

That's pretty much how it works, yes.

sometimes it doesn't work for the "few" and they get hungary for some nice old fashioned freikorps knocking, chetnik popping arm wrestling.

That's when we put them in jail

[Hurdergaryp]

sometimes it doesn't work for the "few" and they get hungary for some nice old fashioned freikorps knocking, chetnik popping arm wrestling.

That's when we put them in jail

If only because of the monopoly of violence.

[Forsher]

What would you say being prepared for voting means? I'm a little confused because in this post you seem to believe in "transferable skills" but in this one you appear to not believe in it (at least for, so it seems, the subjects I discussed in the OP or possibly the ones in the poll or, alternatively, in Law).

It is called elitism. Voting is not about skills it is about representation. You create an elite out of touch with your population with this approach. The skill of being able to serve people in the real world with real occupations that interact with real people brings a voice to the people in a republic. Academic learning is abstract. A police man or corrections officer knows more about the way that the law is enacted in the setting where the law is carried out and can quite often bring a voice that the lawyer cannot understand. Academic skills exist within a tower meant to be abstract. Just as the man who runs the military academy who teaches at west point is no longer fighting the war, the soldier is the man who is on the front end who is affected most.

The policeman who carries out the law needs to vote with the lawyer. Just like the construction manager needs to work with the engineer or the building does not get built.

There is an assumption that the law is written for the politicians. It is written for the person who pays the politicians quite often, the businessman or doctor who lobbies the politician. People who are out of touch in the sense you are describing are easily manipulated because they are not in touch with the ordinary people who run the republic. They get bought and sold because they are not connected to the people.

An academic cannot build a house, nor can they sell the goods that the citizen needs.

I do not think of academic skills in many cases to be transferable. Anthropology for example has no visible transferable value to voting. Skills are not rights and responsibilities. The social worker has more connection to people than the sociologist because their work is not an abstraction and they see the people who are being affected by the welfare laws in a way that the academic never can.

In the Athenian republic everyone had to vote. The ropemakers would bind the men in red ropes who did not vote staining their clothes. It was a duty not an abstraction. Relying to much on abstraction allows abstractions like the idea that a corporation is a person to arise because they are not connected to everyday people. It also creates elitism.

I think there are four points here, tell me if you disagree with this summary:

• Voting is about representing varied experiences.
• Laws are abstracted/removed from daily life.
• Academic skills are frequently non-transferable.
• Things would be better if voting was a duty, not an abstraction.

These four points are then subsumed into a case against your wider target, i.e. the evils of abstraction.

Unfortunately, it remains unclear what you mean here:

This also stinks of academic elitism

and because of that also here:

It is called elitism. Voting is not about skills it is about representation. You create an elite out of touch with your population with this approach.

To what do you refer with the first this? And is the second this the same this?

I shall address my summarised points in a spoiler as it is not entirely clear to me they are germane to what you're saying:

Voting is about representing varied experiences.

This is... kind of true. Voting is actually about choosing between options. In a practical sens an election will present at least two visions of the future and voters are asked to choose between these. To make these decisions, voters will draw on their experiences. And the visions that politicians offer draw on their own experiences. If we impose to strict a limit on any given class we end up with visions which have no particular relationship/correspondence to to lived reality/experiences. As I said earlier:

These lawyers might understand or be able to understand what is going on in our isolated farming community. But they're never going to think of it by themselves... it will have to be brought to their attention.

In that post I go on to articulate what I understand "being prepared for voting [to mean]" (i.e. translation) but I am still left uncertain about what you mean by it.

Laws are abstracted/removed from daily life.

Look, I think most academics probably can't build a house but I have literally had lecturers at university who had previously worked in the construction industry... admittedly on high rises and admittedly only one such person (whom I do not particularly like; whilst it has turned out to be useful for this thread, knowing this information is frustrating when you're borrowing money to pay to learn something else). But at the same time there are a great many academics who can tell you whether or not a house is being built properly or ethically or efficiently or helpfully or whateverly.

Similarly, have you ever been walking down the street in an Alpha or Beta City? Because I have. (I live in a Beta City.) And what you pretty quickly come to realise is that you don't hear much of the supposedly dominant language. And do you know why that is? It's for two reasons. Firstly, in Auckland or London you expect to hear English so when you do it's non-notable, so you don't pay attention to it and so you don't register it so you don't, in some sense, ever hear it. Secondly, because the people who are disproportionately likely to be talking are those with other people... and it is tourists who are disproportionately likely to be with other people and they are disproportionately likely to not speak English. Which is why when someone writes something like "You don't even hear English any more" (or some other stereotypical line), which is based on their "ear to the ground" and "first hand" experience we know it's problematic. Detachment isn't just a buzzword or a way of keeping the oppressed down... it actually and demonstrably is better for cutting to the chase.

Finally, are you familiar with the phrase can't see the forest for the trees? It's why we probably know more about Norman England, say, than someone who lived at the time. But we'd love to talk to someone who lived at the time because we'd like to know about the trees too.

Academic skills are frequently non-transferable.

Transferable skills are a buzzword about non-content skills which are incidentally gained. For example, a biological anthropologist would know how to write reports so we might hire one to become a secretary or a policy researcher (and, indeed, I know one so employed; interestingly in an education field). But it is also possible to transfer the academic skills. Give me an issue and I will tell you how a biological or social anthropologist might have something to say on it.

Things would be better if voting was a duty, not an abstraction.

This is... probably not the best phrased of the summaries... but I agree that if people took voting seriously they'd probably find democracy more effective.

In Athens everyone had the right to vote except women, slaves and people not born in Athens, which meant more than the majority of the population.
I get your point, totally, but I don't thin Athens is a good example of a non-elitist democracy. It was very much elitist.

I hate it when people go on and on about this point. The vast majority of countries are just like Athens. They limit citizenship strictly and exclusively to citizens. You make threads about this subject and they defend it.

Where Athens is actually different to modern democracy (as opposed to modern citizenship law) is that they sometimes used sortition... and that is very much non-elitist.

Also, the actual point being made is that elitism is created through abstractions (allowing persons to become separated from mundane life) rather than Athenian democracy per se was non-elitist.

[Isilanka]

Saying that citizenship is limited to citizens and then saying Athens is not different than modern democracies is not a good comparison. Limiting voting rights to citizens for example is a common practice. The question is not what you do, here, it's how you do it. What does "citizen" mean ? If your "citizens" are a small minority that also happens to be the one holding economic and social power (whic is very much the case of the Athens-born man), whatever the way they're chosen, then it's an elitist system. No matter how democratic it is, it's elitist. Yes, they sued sortition. So what ? If you use it among an elite, then it doesn't change the fact that this elite is still ruling.

You'll notice that I fully agreed with the point being made. I just didn't like the historical comparison, because I think it actually undermines said point.

[FutureAmerica]

They should learn about nations that can't vote such as China.

[Sick Jumps]

I'd say they should have a basic understanding of civics, and should be able to search for, understand, and critically evaluate information. They don't need to be a subject matter expert in order have a well founded opinion about something like economic policy.