Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utegc!utai!ubc-vision!fornax!chapman
From: chapman@fornax.uucp
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Free trade, Canadian culture, $$, Really Democracy
Message-ID: <210@fornax.uucp>
Date: Thu, 26-Feb-87 16:12:50 EST
Article-I.D.: fornax.210
Posted: Thu Feb 26 16:12:50 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Feb-87 02:11:02 EST
Distribution: can
Organization: School of Computing Science, SFU, Burnaby, B.C. Canada
Lines: 56

> 
> 	Sure, if the majority is not properly educated then they will make
> 	stupid decisions.  The alternative is to have some "board" or

I think this deserves some more comment.  It is a topic which has always
bothered me.  In my opinion democracy and freedom will be conficting
values/forces unless the electorate is educated.  It also seems to me
that along with the so-called "right" to vote must come some responsibility.

First of all is the responsibility to vote.  I would argue that there
is something seriously wrong in a society where so many people do not
avail themselves of the ability to have some say in their country's
actions.  The voter turnout statistics are quite depressing.  During
the recent election in BC the local station interviewed people (sidewalk
style) about voting.  there was a 22 year old woman who wasn't going
to vote because "it just doesn't concern me".  This was her first
opportunity to participate in an election and she just couldn't be
bothered.

Secondly there is the responsibility to make reasoned and informed decisions.
There have been suggestions that some people should get more votes based
on their education, contributions to society in general etc.. I can
understand the proponents motivation in this but I think it is too
dangerous as it effectively disenfranchises the majority.  The only
solution I see to this is to provide people with every opportunity
possible to educate themselves and to learn to reason.  Since most
so many people cannot even be bothered to vote it is unlikely that
there would be an enthusiastic response to any expenditures in this
direction - but what is the alternative but to be governed by the
very low common denominator of the population?  

With regard to the CBC in this context I believe the following to
be true.  People cannot appreciate or enjoy a certain activity unless
they are exposed to it.  If they do not appreciate it they will
not demand it.  Thinking and learning is hard - it only becomes fun
once you get good at it.  We have a whole generation of parents now
who are tube addicts - it is unreasonable to assume they will do
anything but turn their children into addicts as well.  So we have
a vicious cycle which I contend is precisely similar to the often
noted muti-generation welfare family syndrome - one generation sinks
and all those who follow learn to do the same by example.  It is
unlikely that we will ever get people to give up the tube (use it
in moderation anyway).  If we wait until there is a demand for
alternative programming it will never come.  The CBC provides an
alternative, although not an ideal one, and so should recieve funding.
It is an existing base in a powerful medium with which we might
help dezombify the next generation.  The question as far as I am
concerned is not: should we subsidize the CBC, but: how can we make it
a more powerful tool to help create a population of thinking, informed,
critical and active citizenry.

Stay tuned to this station for comments on the education system.



1