if the voters are informed and knowledgable and caperble of understanding the world and its various systems without relying on 'official experts'

I have always been ignored for example......it doesnt matter what I say.....(I accept that it is put in an ugly and unreadable manner, and sometimes the logic might be jumbled. but that is also because others are told to only accept a particular form of logic and argument pattern.....its not necessarily right.

The other reason I am ignored (by people who I dont assault with unreadable prose) people who I have been able to explain in words....(Where I am not trying to cover all bases for the large disparate audiance) Is because they ultimately start to feel uncomfortable......because I can begin to make them see, but I can see in their eyes how frightened this makes them feel, because they start to feel a bit mad....because they cant believe that the traditional source of all wisdom (for them) .....official scientists....official financiers....official educationalists might actually be wrong....................I then have to explain that the official ones are fine for understanding the world through the extant system of logic that most people work with....which is the one that 'society' presumes everyone must work in ("we do...why should you be any different?")
but that if one is to understand the wider implications.....true reality (irrespective of of your societies point of view) then you have to look to non official logic and understanding.

Everything that you have been taught within school and university and job works on some principles that chiaroscuro and caviar and cigarettes for instance know and understand very vell and they can actually probably see the boundaries, that this system of logic, that has tightened up any leaks (piecemeal over the centuries since the greeek c;lassical period) is now incapable of detecting any slight flaws that lie in its foundations.

They worked fine for a while.........but when you get to several hundred stories high...slight imperfections in your foundations can have catastrophic implications.......just cos its worked up to now doesnt mean its always going to work.

God thats my other problem, I dont half digress.....mainly because when I strt to say something, i can predict objections that others might come up with and I try to stave them off with what I think is the answer to that objection..............

I suppose I could avoid that byu just doing loads and loads of little posts......the problem is I have to keep going off so I might loose the thread of where the argument is gone.

The voters are not aware of the scale of the problems that lie ahead.
1) government would not want you too
2) they dont want to live with the awful looming realitys (neither does gordon brown et all)
3) The papers also cannot consider anything like that, they would have to become competant and relevant and vituous if they were to realise the import of what is to come.

The public are informed by the papers and other mass media. Whis is dumb and concentrates on total irrelevances and conceits.

Even the education does not attempt to rectify and point out anything useful, because the government controls what the education system does, and the government is limited and controlled by the advesorial nature of party politics which enables papers to dictate the few issues upon which the majority (possibly ignorantly=) chose the government.

ITS CLOSED SYSTEM......education/government/information to the majority/ignorance/petty media/public concerns......at present it cant be broken out of.

Democracies can be great....or they can be very weak and crap if the people that drive it (the majority) are weak and frightened and ignorant and fat and lazy and have not been encouraged to hink for themselves or consider that there are other ways of using logic.

Teachers are mostly sh**.......or is it that they've been beaten in some sort of battle?

I initially expected teachers and lectureres to be cleverer than me, to help me understand,, till I was about 29, I was really really puzzled, because I couldnt make out what wasa wrong wit hthe world, it all made no sense, I thought I actually was mad, I came to realise that i was making the false assumption that others knew better (false humility? humbleness? self hate? who knows)......it all made sense when I realised that it didnt all fit into my minds model because those that I trusted to know more or better than I were actually mostly ignorant of the whole (they had only had limited viewpoints)

Sorry that sounds arrogant......I seriously do think there are cleverer people on DIS than me, I think they ,merely dont realise themselves, their viewpoints might not have been as skewed as mine might have been. I also have the advantage of having lived longer, through more, having seen iterrations of different governments(people we trust?) being crap in sometimes different sometimes the same way.

I've also experianced an older education system and watched with bewilderment how they went from the injustices of the old system completely the other way.........but far far too far, they swung completely (I suppose momentum has something to do with it) (an aside....yes momentum is a concept that can apply to concepts htat do not involve physical mass.....in fact many things can apply to many other things than you realise......'everything is relative'.......human ednaevor was for a large period dissected into disciplines and compartmentalised......Experts are assigned to be the gatekeepers of these compartments.........I like going sideways through knowledge heirarchys (assuming top down conventionality)

failings is unproductive. On the one hand, it's obviously entirely true. But the Tories' failings were just as influenced by the Labour party's failings in the 70's. And you can go on back forever.

I do think that the regulations should be applied to everyone, I did say that individuals would have to give up some unecessary excess too, in fact all I did was draw a bottom line for individuals to needing food shelter and heating. Businesses can actually go bust, its not hte end of the world, but as I said I dont want all the businesses to go bust....I want it to be workable.

My coincern is that it is easier for government to apply individual obligations when businesses can have more largesse to break these obligations. because big businesses are powereful, that is not necessarily bad thing its just reality.

Individual activity is often dictated by business activity.........large out of town work places, large out of town food suppliers, this means that many people cannoit just live locally and toddle down the shops, it doesnt matter how much you want to change its a bugger to try to do this, because of the influence that big business has over individuals.

Also consider the instance of 'packaging/rubbish/landfill/bin weighing chips'

The government COULD put the onus on the individual......OR the government could approach M&S Sainsburies aSDA tESCO wAITROSE etc and say......less packaging please. we want to see a 30% reduction in your packaging (applied to uneccessary packaging.....since we're doing it to your competitors too then you needednt worry about loosing out, you will not pass the costs on to the public.
M&S Sainsburies Tescos and Asda etc will then....EASILY be able to influence their suppliers to reduce unecessary packaging.

If this is done then without even talking to individual humans their rubbish is reduced by 30% without them having to do anything.

Which is most effective and easier?
trying to put chips on everyones wheeliebin, causing the public to be cross, and only attaining a certain percentage of the population doing it?

Or approaching a few retailers, applying regulations evenly to them, and possibly givint them the dosh that you would have spent on wheelie bin chips to help them implement the change?