Politics & News

No Notifications

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Did you know the average lifespan of National Constitutions is only about 17 years?

That's taken from all written constitutions since 1789...

Did you know that at the bright age of 241, the USA is THE OLDEST sovereign government to have ever existed?

Does it look like it's growing or dying to you?

Is it because humans are easily corruptible and power corrupts?
If so, would that suggest that attempting to assemble a large government is a fools errand- destined to ultimately fail?

The type of government doesn't seem to matter.. monarchies, democracies, republics, dictatorships, left wing, right wing...

What are we doing wrong?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Tatsumi · 31-35, M

Capitalism. It was always destined for this. America has become more or less a place for large companies to milk the populace like money cows. Without concern for their wellbeing. Only profit. Truly a ferrengi society.

Hell, maybe multiculturalism, as well. The only way multiculturalism can really work, imo, is if everyone still considers themselves under the same, ultimate flag. The same banner. For instance, after 9/11. The entire country was one. "WE were attacked. WE need to do something." However, this didn't last.

But, I think with various different cultures, once the others get big enough to threaten the primary culture, well, shit just exolodes. Perhaps diversity just isn't possible, in this sense.

I dunno. I need to learn more about multiculturalism. And the history of America. If we've gone through similar stages, when we lacked diversity.

I don't think it's the fault of big government. I think it's the fault of big companies. The inherent disagreement between the right and left, I suppose. The right fears big government; the left fears big companies.

However, I am more apt to believe that the tennets of capitalism are the primary issue. The rich get richer; the poor get poorer; unsunstainable but mandatory consumption of finite resources [which wasn't so bad when we had a shitload of resources to grab--but, they run low]; attempting infinite growth; money is power, so government inevitably falls into the hands of those with the actual power. Capitalism always falls to crony capitalism, once the means of production are monopolized. Well. Maybe not always. But imevitably, imo. Just like Rome, just like Greece.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Tatsumi · 31-35, M

@CoxswainOtter Mmm. What do you mean? Isn't that a perfect reason why shit's going downhill?

What about them? I thought we were talking about the U.S. o_o

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Tatsumi · 31-35, M

@CoxswainOtter Mmm. You gotta have a shitload of knowledge for the whole picture, though. :/ I mean. I can't really say anything without researching hundreds of government histories.

I mean. That's next level, dude. Like. I usually feel like I'm going over the head of SW when I ask some basic philosophy questions, but you've gone far above my head with that kind of question. I simoly lack the knowledge.

But, I can try with the capitalism. Capitalism may have done a lot of good. But only while the means of production were evenly distributed, there were still seemingly infinite resources to grab, and trade was just stsrting to burgeon. Once its established, it's lifespan starts ticking. Though, I would argue it is, indeed, more suseptible to corruption, since its basis is wrapped in greed and personal, individualistic enrichment, rather than collective benefit or human growth.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Tatsumi · 31-35, M

@CoxswainOtter It was a lot more isolated than other nations?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Tatsumi · 31-35, M

@CoxswainOtter Ahhhh, I gotcha. I'm approaching 35 hours without sleep, so my brain isn't processing what I read well enough, probably.

Still, you implicitly suggest that big government is not worth trying. What is?

But. I mean. 250 years is actually quite a long time. One could make the argument that the 20,000 years of human existence is small in the "big picture". But, I kinda feel like that's a copout. Humans have made excessive advances in that time period. The type of people are innately different. Even if the system remains similar, or of the same type. And even if human instinct remains the same, the environments are so vastly different. We couldn't even write until like 4,000 years ago. I mean. That's comparing apples and oranges, imo. Basing it off time isn't so legitimate, I don't think. Rather, how successful the government was, is. What mistakes they made.

I don't think it's really fair to judge current governments on the same level of past governments.

And, if you're trying to convince everyone that big government is futile, what is your solution? 'Cause if tyere is no solution, we can't very well just stop doing anything and die from dehydration. Our onky choice is to move forward with what we have and either keeo evolving it [biggest probability] or tearing everhthing down amd starting from scratch--and good luck wkgh that. The people in power wouldn't let that happen, and the plebs will never revolt, as Orwell said. Not until shit gets reeeeeal bad.

So what ultimately do you want to tell people? It can't just be, "Everything is shit, so stop trying."

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Tatsumi · 31-35, M

@CoxswainOtter Okay. So what would democracy be if it were not based on one group controlling the other?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Tatsumi · 31-35, M

@CoxswainOtter So, anarchy?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Tatsumi · 31-35, M

@CoxswainOtter Okay, a minarchist. Just small government. But would that not leave a power vaccum?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Tatsumi · 31-35, M

@CoxswainOtter What about people who can't be independent? The elderly, sick, mentally ill, and such?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Tatsumi · 31-35, M

@CoxswainOtter But who is "we" in a virtual non-nation where everyone is virtually an independent nation, unto themselves? A privitized organization?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Tatsumi · 31-35, M

@CoxswainOtter Probably. But there are so many offshoots.

If you could just indulge me that last question? I'm about to pass out, anywho. Who would take care of those who were incapable of being independent?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Tatsumi · 31-35, M

@CoxswainOtter So, the government would take care of them? As far as I'm aware, a typical minarchist believes governmemt should be restricted to police, courts, and military. And not big on social spending, at least.

But. At the same time.

Would there not be people who disagreed with that? If I remember correctly, your argument against modern representative republic was based on 50% of people disagreeing with policy. Do you think most people would agree with libertarianism? Or do you want to convince most people to accept that form of governing?

I'm gonma go to sleep. It's been a good chat man. For real. A big difference from regular SW. I might wanna get back to it, tomorrow. Or, I'll keep an eye out for other posts from you. ^^

P.S. I missed your second comment while writing this. I will think on it.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Tatsumi · 31-35, M

@CoxswainOtter Why would people be selfless under libertarianism? What would change?