Socialism versus Capitalism, solved

As a democracy becomes larger and more complex voters rely increasingly on experts to figure out what is in their interest and for every expert there are 10 lobbyists posing as experts. As such there are limits to what can be decided "collectively" before corruption sets in, there is no fruit loop utopian vision that can simply wish away corruption and enable everything to be managed perfectly.

Thus it makes sense for socialists to think like capitalists, to recognise the limits of democracy and not overextend the limited administrative capital of voters, this would probably result in some kind of direct democratic system and strong local government taking care of welfare and public safety with otherwise unfettered capitalism everywhere else.

>>7
No, that movie talks about exactly what I was thinking about and exactly what I was saying wouldn't work.  It presents a decent argument for it, I will admit that, but it's entirely based on idealistic hope.  Regardless of how affluent the first world has become, intelligence breeds both elegant solutions and a higher-criteria of problems, but also the old problems remain.  People are people and naturally divide into camps; that's why conflict is unavoidable.  Our brain naturally categorizes things into a series of "likes" and "dislikes" and that is how it processes information.  You can make them as logical as they want but give them something they are divided about and time will create it owns flanderization with time.

Additionally, such idealistic postulations also suggest that people enjoy being capricious goldfish who will drop ideas, practices, and philosophies at the drop of the hat of "fact" and "logic."  Even what we would call smart people today aren't like that when not willing.  People do not like their lives overturned because someone proved a new theorem and, heaven and hell be damned, it's going to be used, whether or not they want it.

>>7
Also, yes, I am appreciative that it doesn't use the Inception soundtrack.  Or anything from the Matrix.

But my basic argument is this: people have been speculating that making people more affluent and intellectual would improve society for some time now, and indeed we've improved those areas.  We have not gotten anywhere with the other side of the equation, though, because the hypothesis itself is flawed by a lack of real evidence that changes like these have any sticking power.  Critical thinking does not change how people manage their information and does not address the underlying issue that critical thinking would only work if everyone had the same comprehension and opinions.  Or, alternately, was a tireless inquiry machine who had no other life.  Or, was not interested in seeking out other like-minded individuals as a method of validation.

>>8
>>9
Okay, tell you what. Let's get there first and see what happens. Better education will not hurt.

>>10
How do we get there; and, more importantly, why haven't we gotten there yet from wherever we were, or them having gotten there from wherever they were?

>>11
End rote learning and end the myth that knowledge = intelligence.

Identify the learning styles of students and actually act on that information instead of discarding it and getting everyone to open their book and read.

FUND IT. The money you spend on making smart citizens you will reap back 10 fold in the long term.

More incentives for teachers to say. Turnover rate in teaching is really high. Lots of people train to be teachers but don't stay teachers for long. Maybe better pay? Find it what teachers want, consider the feasibility of giving it to them and what you lose by not. 

We haven't got there because for many reasons but primarily because of "But that's the way we've always done it", lack of funding and faith schools.

>>12
How do you teach geography or grammar without at least going through the motions for rote memorization?

>>13
Imagine I'm rolling my eyes right now, okay? I'll reword it for you, 'End obscene over-reliance on rote learning that most schools engage in.'

>>14
I'm sorry.  You're right, it was awfully pedantic of me to press that particular issue.  All the same, what areas of schooling would benefit from a lack of rote memorization?  I am a product of such a thing as your "rote learning schooling" and, therefore, such a concept such as bringing more critical thinking into the classes room confuses me slightly.  Or are you advocating specific lesson planning, a curriculum, if you will, of topics nurturing critical thinking practices in general, much like how Catholic elementary schools have their own Religion course?

On a less serious note, and I apologize in advance for ducking into it, if your argument involves formulating better word problems in Math, I would definitely approve of that.