Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,314 posts, read 8,655,159 times
Reputation: 6391
Advertisements
I think future Historians will look back on this era in amazment, that a majority of a population would continue to elect individuals to office, that have do not have the peoples best interest in mind, but that of thier political party.
Future humans might wonder where on earth we got the idea that ordinary people, ignorant and uneducated, cab drivers and waitresses, could and should collectively decide matters of state or global import.
Please elaborate. (Because apparently I misunderstood you.)
Morals and values change over time. I wonder if eating meat will be considered barbaric 100 years from now, or if zoos will be outlawed. Lots of things people don't even think about being immoral today may be considered immoral in the distant future.
I think that is one reason people should not be overly judgmental about how people lived in the past. We may think we are morally superior to past generations, but remember, future generations can judge you just as harshly.
Please elaborate. (Because apparently I misunderstood you.)
I made my statement as clear as I can. You and I both have a basic understanding of how democratic processes work, and I, for one, am not sure that the future course of history will prove democracy to have been the ideal method of effective governance. As I have already pointed out, there have been some mixed results, which caused the freedom-loving American people to get rather exercised about some of them.
If you have any specific questions about what my premise means, I'll try to answer them. But I won't necessarily respond to every opinion you offer.
I made my statement as clear as I can. You and I both have a basic understanding of how democratic processes work, and I, for one, am not sure that the future course of history will prove democracy to have been the ideal method of effective governance. As I have already pointed out, there have been some mixed results, which caused the freedom-loving American people to get rather exercised about some of them.
If you have any specific questions about what my premise means, I'll try to answer them. But I won't necessarily respond to every opinion you offer.
So what do you think that future people will consider as a better alternative to democracy?
^ This is a really old discussion. See, for example, Aristotle's Politics and Plato's Republic. And then there was Winston Churchill's remark about democracy being the very worst form of government, except for everything else that has been tried.
I think, when historians look at the long view, it will be the 20th century which will be viewed as one of incredable suffering and horror. The numbers who died in the world wars alone, civilian and non, would qualify it. I'm not sure what they will say of a century begun with the anniliation of some 3,000 people and the wars that followed, but in some way we are STIll the collateral damage of the 20th century passed along.
When we look at the medieval period, we look at the 14th century as the dividing line of change before was medieval europe. inbetween was massive death and sociatial damage by plague. After came the beginnings of a new society which eventually led to us.
Pretty much anyone here is at some point in the last century a flip the coin on if they'd have been born. A society and norms which were accepted were swept away in the last century and we're still defining the new one. It may be worse or better, but it is absolute that it will be different.
Usually, within a time, we do not see what later generatiions will since they get to see beyond the limited persective of the 'now' and where it leads.
Of course, not everyone agrees with the premise that we now live in an especially shameful era, or with the assumption that the future will converge with what you seem to regard as enlightenment. The comparison of today's criminal justice system to the Salem trials seems especially silly to at least one person (me).
I just look at the times we are in as disgusting.
Please dont take me the wrong way as there are things I see as positive and good.
Over all and on the surface our society just is sick.
Makes me wonder too as much as i love information and the internet and such
are we all plugged into overdrive with this.
is it too much information, are we too connected, too involved.
do we need some distance or some time to soak up the information before a tweeter message is sent. seems we have forgot to think at time.
It appears all to be a race "first to report" what happened to first digesting the the facts then presenting them to the reader.
So what do you think that future people will consider as a better alternative to democracy?
If we knew that, we could go straight there, and improve the world immediately. It is short-sighted to assume that we have already learned the eternal truth and no further enlightenment lies ahead. The current governmental system in Singapore is an interesting model. Jordan has been very successful under 70 years of benign monarchy, with similar results in Morocco, Oman and UAE.
There are plenty of nations in the world today that are failing badly in all respects, in spite of democracy, because the people who are elected prove to be opportunistic scoundrels, or the electoral process is easily corrupted, or the citizenry simply lacks the wherewithal to self-govern. Freedom is a very fine line, and human civilization has not yet found a way to grant people freedom but still restrain them from abusing their rights. Managing this dichotomy seems to be growing more and more difficult, rather than easier, and it remains to be seen if the fashionable fledgling of democracy, barely two centuries old, is outgrowing its usefulness.
Let me posit this question. Supposing, as events unfold, it becomes apparent to rational and analytical observers that the free market economy is in accelerated free fall, doomed to self-destruct, and can be saved only by central planning. By what mechanism could the American people wrest the governance from the entrenched establishment and introduce an alternate philosophy of statehood? It is too easy to hoodwink the governed and dissuade them from their folly, and the world is basically governed by inertia.
Last edited by jtur88; 09-19-2011 at 05:18 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
