Or better still, you stock and study both and allow students to make up their own mind. Or what happens when they're old enough to vote and they're inundated with polly talk?
Plato thought an oligarchical system (which is closer to our current democracies than a 5th century BC's conception of direct democracy) would become a direct democracy when the poor resented the riches of the elites and were able to overthrow them. Then the direct democracy would become a tyranny when a political leader would take advantage of the personal freedoms of direct democracies to promise order and change. He saw it as an endless cycle of political systemic changes, and ever devolving from a benevolent aristocracy to timocracy to oligarchy to democracy to tyranny. I don't know if I agree with it, but it's interesting to consider. From what I've noticed, political changes throughout history seem to be much more opportunistic than they are idealistic or philosophical. With the increasingly rapid changes in technology, war, economies, government powers, etc., I have no idea what the opportunities will look like in the future.
It seems that there has always been a discrepancy between that which society demands of it's citizens, and that which is taught in schools.Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but where is this knowledge meant to come from, if law is not taught in schools? Making sense of information presented in the media, the arguments put forward by politicians and how statistics can be misleading are all essential skills when it comes to choosing who to vote for. But teaching any of this would be very difficult without being biased in one direction or another. What you're actually voting for is easy to understand: A bunch of lying two-faced bastards.
