We've been rather busy these days, as it's to be expected. However, we're managing so far, and enjoying our new life :).
In this period, there was a piece of news that I wanted to comment when it appeared, but I didn't have the time or the inspiration at the time, so now it's rant time. The article can be summarized in these graphics:
The first one shows average results in reading comprehension by country. The second one shows results in mathematics.
Any statistic like this needs to be taken with some scepticism. One never knows the exact details of the tested group, and if everything was fair and really representative. However, we can believe real situation is something close to this.
What this shows is that Spain is full of idiots. Maybe great people, but still idiots. This explains why governments don't know how to solve problems. Even if part of what's happening right now was done on purpose by our government to help their rich friends, there are things that escape to their control, that show they're not smart enough to find a solution. This is paired with a stupid society, and the result is that the stupid society keeps voting for the same idiots all the time.
For a while, I've been thinking that there are two new laws we should use. In each case, I can think of a soft way to apply it, and a hard way.
The first step that we need to improve things in Spain is to demand by law that any person in the government or in parliament has some kind of university studies. If a person doesn't have high-level studies, it means that this person has not shown to have learnt any complex knowledge, ever. If University becomes a privilege for a few selected ones, this could be discussed, but if we manage to keep it public and available to most, this needs to be a requirement.
In the soft way to apply it, any university degree would work. It would at least show your ability to complete more things than compulsory studies, and it would show you're able to learn and understand harder concepts than what a 16-year old knows. One could argue that a degree does not grant you intelligence, or experience, or the best decision-making....but it shows that the person who got the degree has dedicated some effort to it, has learnt something, and that it has been enough to actually pass some subjects and (probably) do a final project. That's how it works in most real-life jobs, at first nobody knows you're good or bad, so the only thing you can give as a reference are your studies. Politicians should be no different.
The hard way would be to actually make some particular degree that is required to be part of the government or to be able to represent people in parliament. The logic, of course, is that having a degree in computer science or art history does not guarantee that you'll be any good at governing a country. The studies itself should include a wide range of things, but economics should be an important part of it. These studies could be considered "second cycle" studies, so you would need first some other degree, and then you could enlist in this course. Again, this does not guarantee a good government, but forces politicians to be smart and put effort into it, not like now where several high members of the main ruling parties and government do not even have studies.
The other step is more controversial, but I believe it's also necessary...basically, I would apply a law that limits the possibility of voting. Basically, with this law, being 18 years old would not give you the right to vote, showing that you're smart enough to vote would give you this right.
Of course this is a very conflicting topic. One could say that being smarter does not indicate that you know what's best for everybody else. There's also the point of identifying what's considered smart. To address how to consider if you're smart enough to vote, again there's two solutions.
The soft way would be to limit voting people to those who have finished successfully the compulsory education. The compulsory education in Spain is at a very low level, but at least it shows you have some degree of studies. Of course this could not be applied for everybody from the start, but a date could be arranged, as in all the people born after a certain year would be required to prove they have finished the compulsory education before they're allowed to vote.
The hard way would be to demand to pass a simple exam before you could vote. This would be done every four years, and it would just require a certain grasp in comprehension and mathematics for example, like in the two graphs I posted at the beginning. I know this system could be abused in different ways, but the current system is also abused, so it's not a big difference actually, the point being that bad governments will abuse whatever system is in place.
Now, before being accused of being anti-democratic, I want to explain my reasons. Basically, I believe that a person should only vote if they're capable of understanding what they're voting for. I'm not saying to force everybody to understand what they're voting for, I'm just saying to prove they could do so.
I really really doubt that a person who cannot comprehend a written text is able to really understand all the implications of an electoral program of a certain party. If someone cannot read, I would be happy to accept their vote as long as they could understand an electoral program read to them. Smarter people may not be able to always know what's best for everybody, and people who may not be as smart should also give their opinion...but as long as their opinion is really their opinion, and as long as they do have an opinion. If huge amounts of Spanish people don't understand anything after reading a text...how the hell are they deciding who to vote? They cannot know if it's good for them or not, because they did not understand it correctly in the first place.
Dumb people are easy to trick and mislead. Dumb people will not understand what are the real intentions of a party, even if they're not lying with their goals. Therefore, I don't see why dumb people should vote. Again, to define who is dumb and who is not, you would only need to prove you're able to read/listen and understand the text, and to do some easy mathematical calculations.
Opinions are great and everybody should have one, but there are things that are facts, and there are cases when something is clearly wrong or clearly right. This is also true in politics, not everything can be defended logically, some facts are true and some are false. Not everybody's opinion should count, if their opinion regarding an established fact has been proven wrong. Emotions are not enough to decide who to vote, they should be accompanied with the ability to reason about it, and then you could do whatever you want. I think I said it before, but you don't ask the village idiot about his opinion regarding your brain surgery. You would only do that if he somehow has proven to have a great amount of knowledge in this topic.....
So why do we let the idiots decide about our life's future, as if it was something minor where all the opinions are good, no matter how stupid?
In this period, there was a piece of news that I wanted to comment when it appeared, but I didn't have the time or the inspiration at the time, so now it's rant time. The article can be summarized in these graphics:
Any statistic like this needs to be taken with some scepticism. One never knows the exact details of the tested group, and if everything was fair and really representative. However, we can believe real situation is something close to this.
What this shows is that Spain is full of idiots. Maybe great people, but still idiots. This explains why governments don't know how to solve problems. Even if part of what's happening right now was done on purpose by our government to help their rich friends, there are things that escape to their control, that show they're not smart enough to find a solution. This is paired with a stupid society, and the result is that the stupid society keeps voting for the same idiots all the time.
For a while, I've been thinking that there are two new laws we should use. In each case, I can think of a soft way to apply it, and a hard way.
The first step that we need to improve things in Spain is to demand by law that any person in the government or in parliament has some kind of university studies. If a person doesn't have high-level studies, it means that this person has not shown to have learnt any complex knowledge, ever. If University becomes a privilege for a few selected ones, this could be discussed, but if we manage to keep it public and available to most, this needs to be a requirement.
In the soft way to apply it, any university degree would work. It would at least show your ability to complete more things than compulsory studies, and it would show you're able to learn and understand harder concepts than what a 16-year old knows. One could argue that a degree does not grant you intelligence, or experience, or the best decision-making....but it shows that the person who got the degree has dedicated some effort to it, has learnt something, and that it has been enough to actually pass some subjects and (probably) do a final project. That's how it works in most real-life jobs, at first nobody knows you're good or bad, so the only thing you can give as a reference are your studies. Politicians should be no different.
The hard way would be to actually make some particular degree that is required to be part of the government or to be able to represent people in parliament. The logic, of course, is that having a degree in computer science or art history does not guarantee that you'll be any good at governing a country. The studies itself should include a wide range of things, but economics should be an important part of it. These studies could be considered "second cycle" studies, so you would need first some other degree, and then you could enlist in this course. Again, this does not guarantee a good government, but forces politicians to be smart and put effort into it, not like now where several high members of the main ruling parties and government do not even have studies.
The other step is more controversial, but I believe it's also necessary...basically, I would apply a law that limits the possibility of voting. Basically, with this law, being 18 years old would not give you the right to vote, showing that you're smart enough to vote would give you this right.
Of course this is a very conflicting topic. One could say that being smarter does not indicate that you know what's best for everybody else. There's also the point of identifying what's considered smart. To address how to consider if you're smart enough to vote, again there's two solutions.
The soft way would be to limit voting people to those who have finished successfully the compulsory education. The compulsory education in Spain is at a very low level, but at least it shows you have some degree of studies. Of course this could not be applied for everybody from the start, but a date could be arranged, as in all the people born after a certain year would be required to prove they have finished the compulsory education before they're allowed to vote.
The hard way would be to demand to pass a simple exam before you could vote. This would be done every four years, and it would just require a certain grasp in comprehension and mathematics for example, like in the two graphs I posted at the beginning. I know this system could be abused in different ways, but the current system is also abused, so it's not a big difference actually, the point being that bad governments will abuse whatever system is in place.
Now, before being accused of being anti-democratic, I want to explain my reasons. Basically, I believe that a person should only vote if they're capable of understanding what they're voting for. I'm not saying to force everybody to understand what they're voting for, I'm just saying to prove they could do so.
I really really doubt that a person who cannot comprehend a written text is able to really understand all the implications of an electoral program of a certain party. If someone cannot read, I would be happy to accept their vote as long as they could understand an electoral program read to them. Smarter people may not be able to always know what's best for everybody, and people who may not be as smart should also give their opinion...but as long as their opinion is really their opinion, and as long as they do have an opinion. If huge amounts of Spanish people don't understand anything after reading a text...how the hell are they deciding who to vote? They cannot know if it's good for them or not, because they did not understand it correctly in the first place.
Dumb people are easy to trick and mislead. Dumb people will not understand what are the real intentions of a party, even if they're not lying with their goals. Therefore, I don't see why dumb people should vote. Again, to define who is dumb and who is not, you would only need to prove you're able to read/listen and understand the text, and to do some easy mathematical calculations.
Opinions are great and everybody should have one, but there are things that are facts, and there are cases when something is clearly wrong or clearly right. This is also true in politics, not everything can be defended logically, some facts are true and some are false. Not everybody's opinion should count, if their opinion regarding an established fact has been proven wrong. Emotions are not enough to decide who to vote, they should be accompanied with the ability to reason about it, and then you could do whatever you want. I think I said it before, but you don't ask the village idiot about his opinion regarding your brain surgery. You would only do that if he somehow has proven to have a great amount of knowledge in this topic.....
So why do we let the idiots decide about our life's future, as if it was something minor where all the opinions are good, no matter how stupid?
No comments:
Post a Comment