Millions of Americans Are Embarrassingly Ill-Informed

It may be "marginal" but it was non-existent before. Most people have access to the Internet on a consistent basis, even if only through public libraries.

 

Only Persons from less developed economies may have that excuse. There is no excuse for Persons from more developed economies to not work smarter instead of harder.

 

That's true to an extent. However, I would argue that the vast majority of people still access their news via more traditional methods.

 

With a law like that the UK can't really claim to be a free country, can it?

I think they get away with this crap because of faux democracy. As long as people can enjoy the illusion that they're in control rather than simply being dictated to, which modern democratic systems provide quite nicely, they'll put up with all manner of government abuse. After all, they the voters are truly to blame, right?

 

I think you misunderstand me.

 

There is less excuse for first worlders to not use their infrastructure; as there is for third worlders who may not have that infrastructure.

 

I agree with that. Nevertheless it doesn't appear to chime with what I wrote. I guess what I'm arguing is that the potentiality of access to new forms of communication technology does not necessarily correspond to the way the vast majority of the world's population actually access their news. It's my view that most people still access their news in the traditional way through the medium of their televisions. Moreover, the news channels they watch are mainly the CNNs, BBCs and the like.

 

That may be true in theory but it doesn't necessarily mean it's true in practice. I still contend that television is the main way in which people access information, news and entertainment and are therefore subject to the commercial limitations that is implied by this.

 

I find it almost incomprehensible that a kid can go through 12 years of school and graduate without knowing what a logical fallacy even is, never mind having a grasp on what constitutes a valid argument.

The simple truth is that we do not teach our kids the basic tenets of Philosophy are (logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument).

Without these basic tools, how is someone supposed to weed through the daily inundation of fallacy and ridiculously pathetic arguments thrown out by the mass media and political talking heads. How is that person to be expected to case an informed vote ?

Would it be so tough to ask a simple question "Why should people obey the law" ? "What are the legitimate acts of Government - legitimacy of authority".

The answer to both of these questions, as per the founders, underlies the Constitution, Rule of Law and our system of justice.

The main overriding principle "The Golden Rule", do unto others as you would have them do to you. This rule arises through philosophic induction in Classical Liberalism.

In a "state of nature" anarchy exists. Humans come together in groups partly for social reasons but also for protection. Those groups that were able to protect themselves thrived and those that could not did not do so well.

As groups got bigger it the citizens within those groups also wanted protection from each other. It does not good to be in a group for protection from outsiders if you are not protected within the group itself. United we stand- divided we fall. Groups that developed a system of protection were more likely to thrive than those that did not.

In return for this protection there was an "agreement" among the citizens that some body be formed that would enforce protection. Obviously the powers of this body were to be a limited as possible as no one likes to be restricted by arbitrary rules.

It is this "agreement" that formed the basis of rules/laws by which protection to individuals was established. Citizens agreed that because they did not want others within the group to kill or steal from them, they would agree not to kill or steal from others. To ensure compliance with this agreement there would be a body set up with powers to enforce this agreement should a member not comply.

This "agreement" is then the becomes the basis for morality. If you do not want others to kill you then you have a moral obligation not to kill others. Otherwise known as "The Golden Rule". We can find this rule at least as far back as 1800 BC in Hammurabi's law code. It was also taught by Confucius, Buddha, and formed the basis for the ministry of Christ.

The legitimate powers of Government extend only to acts which are injurious to others because that is all we agreed to and nothing more.

This ability to develop rules for society on the basis of "the natural authority of the people alone" (the collective agreement) was in stark contrast to societies which depended largely on religious authority as was common practice at that time.

What the founders thought of this previous practise of using Religion as the basis for law and authority of the state was made crystal clear.

The Golden Rule extends to more than just religious belief. If you do not want others forcing their religious beliefs on you (through law) then do not force your religious beliefs on others. It is a general prohibition against forcing your will on others. It is also a general prohibition against "The State" forcing its will on others.

Suppose there is a referendum on banning alcohol. (not that this should even be allowed under the Constitution to begin with as first a compelling argument must be made that regulating alcohol is a legitimate action of the state as such regulation violates the "agreement" since someone else consuming alcohol neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg (harms me directly) )

The question of a referendum is not "Do you like alcohol" or "does God like alcohol". The question of a referendum is do you have legitimate grounds to force others not to drink alcohol by making a law.

It is not a valid answer to the question of a referendum to say "this should be a law because I don't like it or God does not like it"
Is it within the purview of the collective agreement ? That is the question at hand.

If you do not like alcohol do not drink. If you do not want others forcing their personal beliefs on you, then you have a moral obligation not to force your beliefs on others.

There is a difference between "having a belief", and forcing that belief on others through law.
Belief in freedom is not belief in freedom only for things that you agree with.

If you want freedom for yourself then you have a moral obligation to believe in freedom for others, regardless of whether or not you like what it is they are doing. If it is not directly harming you, then mind your own business.

The Golden Rule seems simple at first glance but, it is much deeper. It is one of the most powerful and long lasting and universal ideas that humanity has ever come up with. It is the idea that is the foundation on which this nation was built.

Surely in 12 years of education we could teach children at least the basics principles outlined above that underlie the founding of this nation, the Constitution, the Rule of law and the legitimacy of our Government.

 

Yes, I agree, but this is changing at a rapid pace.

Also, one must not forget the humble radio. Which when driving or in many workplaces, and in many areas of the developed world, is the only source of news.

 

The fact that one of the two major parties (guess which one) consistently runs down any facts which don't agree with their ideology, criticizes education because IT IS RUN BY THOSE EEEEEEEEVIL LIBERALS, elects idiots (crazy ol' Louie comes to mind - just what is it about Texas anyway), ignores science when their corporate owners or the religious right tells them to, and seems to consider anyone intelligent, especially INDEPENDENTLY INTELLIGENT) a traitor and RINO doesn't help. Abject stupidity and enthusiastically embraced ignorance aren't much of a recommendation.

 

Here's a quote of Sutton's from another text which seems to provide a succinct summary of his reasoning, if my source can be trusted:

"America's Secret Establishment has had little publicity, few reviews ignored by mainline distributors yet, has sold
steadily for the past 16 years at a rate of several hundred copies a month.

This activity, in turn, has generated other articles and books by other authors. But my real intent, to generate an
exploration of Hegelian influence in modern America, has not been fulfilled. In great part, this can be attributed to
an educational system based on a statist-Hegelian philosophy, and which has already achieved the "dumbing down"
of America.

This disastrous, destructive philosophy, the source of both Naziism and Marxism, has infected and corrupted our
constitutional republic. Much of the blame for this corruption is with an elitist group of Yalie "Bonesmen." Their
symbol of Skull and Bones, and their Hegelian philosophy, says it all, although with typical duplicity, they would
have you believe otherwise.

Hegelianism glorifies the State, the vehicle for the dissemination of statist and materialist ideas and policies in
education, science, politics and economics.

Wonder why we have a "dumbed-down" society? Look no further than the Bonesman troika who imported the
Prussian education system into the U.S. in the 19" h Century. A political philosophy in direct opposition to the
classical liberalism nurtured in 19" h Century British and American history. In classical liberalism, the State is always
subordinate to the individual. In Hegelian Statism, as we see in Naziism and Marxism, the State is supreme, and the
individual exists only to serve the State."

 

If they can watch tv on a computer they can learn something new from the comfort and convenience of home.

 

"Freedom" Huh? lol

They tried the small Gov't thing with the Articles of Confederation. Guess what they chose to change it to the BIG FED GOV'T instead.

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

 

Then the founding fathers didn't properly understand human nature. People don't operate according to others' ideals and will game any system put before them.

 

It accords a degree of "excuse" not deserved by the startling portion of the American citizenry that is DELIBERATELY stupid...to call them "ignorant". An ignorant person does not know simply because he has not been exposed to learning opportunities.
The "waters's world" mental defectives we see on tv many times do not have knowledge or any "depth" of any kind because they themselves WANT to be that way.....as they live life concerned only with "party hearty" and "game" the system to be "taken care of " for as little effort on their part as they can get away with. They do not know because they do not WANT to know....and refuse any opportunity to learn or improve themselves in any way. They are STUPID either by nature ...or....more often....deliberate choice. They are not simply....."ignorant."

 

In more cases than you may realize, they have been intimidated and had their curiosity killed by the school system that was supposed to provide them with a real education but has not.

 

american schools are 27th in the world, because they almost completely rely on property taxes too pay for schools meaning poor people get poor schools rich people get better ones. were one of the only countries that doesn't provide extra education funding too impoverished areas instead in poor neighborhoods schools are shutdown rather than properly funded. teachers are punished for poor grades and are paid far less than teachers from rich neighborhoods. and classrooms are overcrowded sometimes going over a 40:1 teacher student ratio. the american education system started crumbling after desegregation when white parents took their kids too private schools and started repeatedly demanding cuts in the public education budget

like alot of americas problems this one is based on racism as well. rich white supremacists don't want their tax dollars going too a black kids education.

 

Another problem is how embarrassingly well informed we are as to things that are just not so. If your main source of info is a dope addict who makes his living running down other dopers and my hs gym teacher reborn you would be better off knowing nothing rather than what they tell you.

If I went by what this board says I'd be quite convinced our President had been put in office by a cabal of time traveling Kenyan witch doctors who used Lizard Man technology to control everybody's brains from the polling places. (They use the media vans to hide the antennas in plain sight doncha know)
[

 

The FF were neither stupid nor naïve. The Constitution is an amazing document not least because it is shot through with safeguards to prevent its being "gamed" That we are lesser men who do not understand and often ignore these preventatives is not their fault, but ours.

 

Points taken. Certainly they weren't stupid or naïve, I agree, and the Constitution certainly is an outstanding document, and absolutely it is being ignored and pissed on by the government of today.

But what to do about this? We face a monstrosity now that will use every loyal officer under its command to resist any overthrow and return to constitutionality. We also have hordes of uneducated brethren in this country who enjoy certain aspects of that abuse, such as the welfare programs provided through unconstitutional taxation and coercion. Our entire modern currency and financial system is likewise unconstitutional. It's not up to a central bank that didn't exist in 1776 to issue unbacked paper money in the form of debt notes, after all, but rather the job of our congress, and it was stated quite clearly that it was to be of gold and silver:

The Founders understood that the new nation would not prosper under an unstable, readily manipulated monetary system and they drafted the Constitution accordingly. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power “to coin money and regulate the value thereof” and Article I, Section 10 provides that state governments may not “coin money, emit bills of credit, or make any thing but gold and silver coin a legal tender in the payment of debts.” Also pertinent is the Tenth Amendment, which says that the federal government is only to have those powers expressly granted to it.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgel...d-its-time-to-return-to-constitutional-money/ (Good review/article, incidentally).

I'd be happy to start trading in gold and silver money instead of the Fed's paper today if it were possible, but so far it isn't. No one is prepared to take it and the government would probably call it illegal After all, they think they have to tax every ******ned transaction that takes place, usually more than once.

 

My experience is that what happens in the US then happens here in Blighty, is then exported to Europe and then the rest of the world - albeit more sporadically and slowly.

I absolutely agree. Corporations are the new catholic church who dispense their dogma and burn at the stake heretics who don't heed it.

Learning for learning's sake, knowledge for the advancement of humanity - all these are becoming things of the past. It's awful. It's tragic. In fact, it's criminal, I would say. Students have now to learn and be shaped for future jobs. It leads to great losses of abilities like critical thinking.

Yes, sadly we're pushing rapidly forward to the past and a new saeculum obscurum.

The elites love it.