End of History

jg1988

Francis Fukayama wrote a book after the USSR fell apart and theorized now that the Soviet bloc has crumbled history had essentially ended. He meant that the progression of governments toward a democratic or liberal state signified the end of political progression. People around the world are demanding democratic/ liberal ideals as seen recently with Tunisia, Egypt and now Jordan appeasing the will of the people. Do you think that Fukayama was right? Is there any other form of government that would better serve the people? I realize that a lot of people have little faith in the American political process, however shouldn't it be recognized that America is a very young country compared to Egypt (the cradle of civilization) and is doing something right?

zarocat

jg1988 wrote:

I realize that a lot of people have little faith in the American political process, however shouldn't it be recognized that America is a very young country compared to Egypt (the cradle of civilization) and is doing something right?

No.

mikepegg44

zarocat wrote:

jg1988 wrote:

I realize that a lot of people have little faith in the American political process, however shouldn't it be recognized that America is a very young country compared to Egypt (the cradle of civilization) and is doing something right?

No.

no to what? all of the above?

you really think America does nothing well in terms of its democracy?

** edited for spelling

jg1988

zarocat wrote:

jg1988 wrote:

I realize that a lot of people have little faith in the American political process, however shouldn't it be recognized that America is a very young country compared to Egypt (the cradle of civilization) and is doing something right?

No.

...ok. nice input, very articulate.

zarocat

No to the question.
And thanks, I try my best.

Moonpig

however shouldn't it be recognized that America is a very young country compared to Egypt (the cradle of civilization) and is doing something right?

Good God no

mikepegg44

Moonpig wrote:

however shouldn't it be recognized that America is a very young country compared to Egypt (the cradle of civilization) and is doing something right?

Good God no

so America does nothing right? at all?

zarocat

America does nothing right is the question now?

Sure, they do things that are right. Everyone in every country does things that are right.

Moonpig

mikepegg44 wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

however shouldn't it be recognized that America is a very young country compared to Egypt (the cradle of civilization) and is doing something right?

Good God no

so America does nothing right? at all?

ah no I'm not saying that, I just jumped on the bandwagon earlier with the frist response.

America does plenty good, aid to Paikistan, Haiti etc... I admit that there have been times when I have lost sight of that. Foreign policy in America erks me to no end though, 2 wars, little or no accountability to the unstability of parts of the world today.

This American dream is one thing, but it should not have to come at the expense of other nations.

BinauralJam

China

mikepegg44

zarocat wrote:

America does nothing right is the question now?

Sure, they do things that are right. Everyone in every country does things that are right.

however shouldn't it be recognized that America is a very young country compared to Egypt (the cradle of civilization) and is doing something right?


I thought that was the question? sorry man, I looked at your answer, which was simply no, and took that to mean you were answering this question

zarocat

no worries

he still stands

I'm probably the most radical and cynical fella on here... and I even think the U.S. does many things right and that in many ways we really are the most free of any country (but in many ways we're not free in the least).

As far as the original post, I'm VERY confused. A true democracy would be great but it doesn't exist. Lincoln's dream of "a government of the people, by the people, for the people" is a nobel dream and I'd love to see it realized but we don't have anything remotely like that.

Just one example is the initiative process which allows people to pass their own laws when there is significant disapproval of federal laws. Now, the government has tsars (which go back to the Reagan years, it isn't a new thing) which when the feds don't like the new state law they say "you don't make your own laws, we do and you just sit back and obey."

Another example is the article published by Jim Hightower back around the year 2000, which lists a group of about 40 corporations that donated more than $500k to BOTH Bush and Gore. BOTH of them! What does that mean? It means that whomever is elected they're in the bag to those corporations... hell, they wouldn't even be able to campaign for president without being in the bag. So, instead of Lincoln's noble dream, we have a government "of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations." I'm sure you could find a similar statistic for the 2008 elections.

So, going back to the USSR/Russia analogy of the OP, I think there are striking similarities between late 19th century/early 20th century Russia to the modern day United States. Read a book by Tolstoy and try not to be overwhelmed by the analagous themes to what is happening today. Same goes with Orwell or even Kafka... hell, I think they both would be stupified by things like the government being able to do an illegal search and seizure on the contents of your bladder!!!

And, I have the founding fathers on my side... "The fundamental article of my political creed is that despotism, or unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratical council, an oligarchical junto, and a single emperor. Equally arbitrary, cruel, bloody, and in every respect diabolical." - John Adams

"The best government is the least government" - Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

huh... actually, those are the first three Presidents of the US... Let's not forget how and why this country was formed and not return to the oppression of our ancestors.

jg1988

he still stands wrote:

I

As far as the original post, I'm VERY confused. A true democracy would be great but it doesn't exist. Lincoln's dream of "a government of the people, by the people, for the people" is a nobel dream and I'd love to see it realized but we don't have anything remotely like that.

That is true its a Republic, which prevents direct voting procedures. But liberal democracy it would seem is the last progression of government rule. A progression from medieval serfdom, to monarchy, fascism, communism to now liberalism. I guess that is the point. Is democratic liberalism the true end of the political progression taking into account the recent events in Egypt and Tunisia?

Soulfire42

I actually think that we are far from reaching the end of political/governmental evolution. I would imagine that scarcity will one day force our hand to radically change our political structures and governments. I think it is probably likely that at some point in the future we will see some form of government that is largely based around resources and that it has at its core an understanding of resource management. I think that our economic system is fatally flawed and will collapse at some point. I would guess that sooner or later people will come to see resources as what truly matters and that they may be given a very democrating role in their allocation. I think one day we'll likely crawl our way further from religion and more toward science. As weird as it may sound, we'll probably either come to the realization that not everyone is "fit" to vote or we'll improve education to a point where everyone (or essentially everyone) actually is "fit" to competently vote.

So in imagining a future based on an understanding of limited resources, the government's role would probably be based primarily upon enacting the will of the people to allocate their resources in particular directions and probably mandating that more weight be given to certain things than other things out of necessity. For instance, we may see a government of super-scientists who are understood as having more knowledge with which to allocate resources and "progress" toward than the general populace so we may even see a migration away from democracy in some manner. Or we may just see the development of super-specialists who are given more weight in allocating resources than the general populace (or who control decisions altogether based on their specialized knowledge). Some have even proposed a future where computers calculate the optimal options based on input that is given to them by people. Now that would be a different way of governing than we're used to. Imagine feeding a computer data based on resources and science and having it churn out the optimal path moving forward and having faith in it. Something different to think about...

he still stands

jg1988 wrote:

he still stands wrote:

I

As far as the original post, I'm VERY confused. A true democracy would be great but it doesn't exist. Lincoln's dream of "a government of the people, by the people, for the people" is a nobel dream and I'd love to see it realized but we don't have anything remotely like that.

That is true its a Republic, which prevents direct voting procedures. But liberal democracy it would seem is the last progression of government rule. A progression from medieval serfdom, to monarchy, fascism, communism to now liberalism. I guess that is the point. Is democratic liberalism the true end of the political progression taking into account the recent events in Egypt and Tunisia?

I don't know of any (literally not a single one) country that has made the progression as you list it... China might get there soon enough.

jg1988

I am not talking about one single country, I am talking about the progression of history as a whole. Democracy being the end of the road.

zarocat

jg1988 wrote:

I am not talking about one single country, I am talking about the progression of history as a whole. Democracy being the end of the road.

Are you saying democracy being the end of the road for the progression of history or the end of the road for the progression of democracy?
They'll never be an end to the road except for a mass distinction but even that will have human beings living on who will progress in one form or another. It will never be over (mass distinction aside) we need to find a way to space travel before our planet becomes a ball of stone in 4 billion years and if not, then it's over.

I think ... but I'm open suggestions God ... you there ? ... What's going here ? ... Oh, Goood ... I'm talking to you

Also, how does history progress ? It's already history.
Do you mean by 'the progression of history' for history to manifest into the future, for example, learning from one's mistakes?
I think I'm confused.

he still stands

jg1988 wrote:

I am not talking about one single country, I am talking about the progression of history as a whole. Democracy being the end of the road.

well, I don't know about that. Communism can't really be called a progression because only a few countries really attempted it and literally ZERO actually were a funcitonal Communist state. Fascism should be relabeled "Authoritarianism" which is VERY much alive and one could definitely argue the US more of an Nationalist Authoritarian state than a democracy. Fascism is a child of the authoritarian state, which I guess would include Monarchy, Dictatorship, etc. The point is, it's alive and well and I think we're gravitating towards that sort of a type of government more than liberal democracy. Most of the Middle East is a Theocracy, too. And what about Government of consent, not of coercion? (anarchism)

I see a trend away from democracy and towards a coercive, fascist, autocratic regime.

BinauralJam

Aren't we a Republic?

he still stands

BinauralJam wrote:

Aren't we a Republic?

I think it is more of an Anarcho-Syndicated Commune.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

BinauralJam

he still stands wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Aren't we a Republic?

I think it is more of an Anarcho-Syndicated Commune.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

that's some funny shit

jg1988

he still stands wrote:

jg1988 wrote:

I am not talking about one single country, I am talking about the progression of history as a whole. Democracy being the end of the road.

well, I don't know about that. Communism can't really be called a progression because only a few countries really attempted it and literally ZERO actually were a funcitonal Communist state. Fascism should be relabeled "Authoritarianism" which is VERY much alive and one could definitely argue the US more of an Nationalist Authoritarian state than a democracy. Fascism is a child of the authoritarian state, which I guess would include Monarchy, Dictatorship, etc. The point is, it's alive and well and I think we're gravitating towards that sort of a type of government more than liberal democracy. Most of the Middle East is a Theocracy, too. And what about Government of consent, not of coercion? (anarchism)

I see a trend away from democracy and towards a coercive, fascist, autocratic regime.

Then what accounts for the demand of democracy in countries like Egypt and Tunisia? I feel like you all are missing the point.

he still stands

I don't know it just really seems like you are over simplifying the "trend toward democracy." Of course any rational person would rather live in a democracy than an authoritarian regime of any type. The only ones who aren't in that frame of mind are those who have bought into some bullshit ideology or those who have always been oppressed and don't know any better.

The problem with your argument is that it purports that "democracy is democracy"... in other words it is a construct when in reality it is very a flexible concept with many varying levels of freedom and government power. Another problem is that what everyone is told is "democracy" is a watered down version of fascist police state (esp. in the case of the U.S).

I hope the trend evolves to the only place where total freedom is possible, and that is a government of CONSENT, not of COERCION.

FiveB247x

That idea is very flawed and simplistic. In fact one can say because the fall of the USSR, it created a much more unpredictable and unstable world filled with more geo-political and international terrorism as well as lawlessness and corruption. The notion that "democracy" or the "US" won the Cold War and the world is better for it is a naive idea. Perhaps democracy in practice is better than communism, but in practical terms, the end of the Cold War opened a can of worms in which a multitude of enemies which many hold no physical boundaries like the old and distinct USSR and bloc.

Also, in terms of Egypt, what is going on there is great for anyone who believes in democracy. But with that said, it remains to be seen how it will effect the rest of the Middle East or US relations going forward.

jg1988 wrote:

Francis Fukayama wrote a book after the USSR fell apart and theorized now that the Soviet bloc has crumbled history had essentially ended. He meant that the progression of governments toward a democratic or liberal state signified the end of political progression. People around the world are demanding democratic/ liberal ideals as seen recently with Tunisia, Egypt and now Jordan appeasing the will of the people. Do you think that Fukayama was right? Is there any other form of government that would better serve the people? I realize that a lot of people have little faith in the American political process, however shouldn't it be recognized that America is a very young country compared to Egypt (the cradle of civilization) and is doing something right?

Electric_Delta

jg1988 wrote:

Francis Fukayama wrote a book after the USSR fell apart and theorized now that the Soviet bloc has crumbled history had essentially ended. He meant that the progression of governments toward a democratic or liberal state signified the end of political progression. People around the world are demanding democratic/ liberal ideals as seen recently with Tunisia, Egypt and now Jordan appeasing the will of the people. Do you think that Fukayama was right? Is there any other form of government that would better serve the people? I realize that a lot of people have little faith in the American political process, however shouldn't it be recognized that America is a very young country compared to Egypt (the cradle of civilization) and is doing something right?

People naturally want to be free. It's in our nature to oppose oppression.

Communism is a bullshit system. Self-governance has proven itself to be the best option.

jg1988

he still stands wrote:

I don't know it just really seems like you are over simplifying the "trend toward democracy." Of course any rational person would rather live in a democracy than an authoritarian regime of any type. The only ones who aren't in that frame of mind are those who have bought into some bullshit ideology or those who have always been oppressed and don't know any better.

The problem with your argument is that it purports that "democracy is democracy"... in other words it is a construct when in reality it is very a flexible concept with many varying levels of freedom and government power. Another problem is that what everyone is told is "democracy" is a watered down version of fascist police state (esp. in the case of the U.S).

I hope the trend evolves to the only place where total freedom is possible, and that is a government of CONSENT, not of COERCION.

Then it seems that democracy is the end of the progression of history. Sure there can be varying levels of freedoms within a democracy, however you are given certain rights that are universal that are not seen in communist or fascist states. Even in the US, which you purport to be a fascist police state, people have the notion that they can control their lives with certain rights and freedoms.

whygohome

The U.S. has the best system the world has seen.....so far. it would take a narrow-mind and an over-inflated ego to believe that our society, our form of gov't is the be-all-end-all. How many other nations and/or empires thought the same?

The dream marriage of democracy and capitalism has (though not obviously seen) degenerated into a corporate oligarchy. The reasons for this include greed, lust for power, and a docile public. The number of those living in poverty has increased over the past few decades; the lower class is growing, while the middle class is shrinking. The haves have more, the have nots are oppressed and are seeing the ladders to the middle class pushed aside like those of the orcs at the Battle of Helm's Deep (yes! a Lord of the Rings reference!). Corporate profits are through the roof, and they have the true power to create jobs in the U.S., and instead they ship them overseas so those profits can continue to rise. All this while our infrastructure turns to shit, as our pipelines and methods for providing clean water to the public disintegrate, as our education system fails, as we are the only nation not to embrace high-speed rails and clean energy, and as we continue to mindlessly defend Corporate America, while going to the new Church of America, Wal-Mart, to purchase good made in Asia.
In my opinion, we will see a Tunisia or Egypt in this country because of the injustices I have briefly outlined. The poor, the oppressed will arm themselves and take to the streets. the battleground will not focus on Pennsylvania Ave. though, it will be Wall St., as we wake up and finally realize who the real oppressor is.

Things could be better; things could always be better.

catefrances

Electric_Delta wrote:

jg1988 wrote:

Francis Fukayama wrote a book after the USSR fell apart and theorized now that the Soviet bloc has crumbled history had essentially ended. He meant that the progression of governments toward a democratic or liberal state signified the end of political progression. People around the world are demanding democratic/ liberal ideals as seen recently with Tunisia, Egypt and now Jordan appeasing the will of the people. Do you think that Fukayama was right? Is there any other form of government that would better serve the people? I realize that a lot of people have little faith in the American political process, however shouldn't it be recognized that America is a very young country compared to Egypt (the cradle of civilization) and is doing something right?

People naturally want to be free. It's in our nature to oppose oppression.

Communism is a bullshit system. Self-governance has proven itself to be the best option.

please define self governance.