End of History

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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...

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 wrote:

Aren't we a Republic?

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

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