Excellent points!
Conspiracy theories aside, there is often a fine line between democracy and chaos. Any viable political system must have a structure for channeling the diverse opinions and interests of a society into constructive compromise.
It is true, and even Mencken was willing to accept (to a degree, that the "best" form of government is a democracy in spite of its faults.
However... it is my opinion that we are reaching a critical point since the SIZE of the population that it is managed at a given point will create an unmanageable problem, even if we accept that democracy is the best form of government...
At what point are we willing to accept that every opinion must have a hearing and a time to be listened to and at what point we deem that democracy is nothing else but a tyranny of the majority, (which could be wrong anyway). Where is the dividing line? Hard to say.
And constructive compromise and a governmental and legal framework that protects investment capital is necessary to convince banks and investors to risk their money in developing that society. Without the former, the latter is hard to achieve.
Completely agree... so long so we do not develop an immense and almighty bureaucracy who becomes the tyrant in itself.
Right now, the post-9/11 world is certainly anxious, and with good reason. Capital is leery about taking on risk outside of the major economies. And until some semblance of global order and discipline has been reasserted, and the major threats dissipated, the undeveloped nations of the world are denied access to capital. In fact, they themselves may be encouraged to heighten the chaos in order for government leaders to tighten their grip on their own people.
While I agree in your basic premise, it is easier said than done.
But first, I have to say that the events of 9/11 were extraordinary and I expect (and hope) that they will never be repeated... Partly by the USA willingness to be more prepared than we ever were before... Having said that...
There is a degree of civil behavior/conduct that it is required by every member of whatever society you are talking about for the desire to convert chaos into a manageable system to take place... unfortunately, in most third world countries such behavior is simply nonexistent because those in power are immensely corrupt and have no desire to change.
The worst thing about it is that in a silent way, the growth in population is making this problem to be completely out of control... to the point of no return.
The US is the largest economy on the planet, and should wield that power to whatever extent it must in order to achieve the necessary structural changes that promote economic growth and political structure aimed at fostering compromise between various factions.
Again, I agree, however... are we to become the world police to achieve so? I do not think we should even attempt it, the mere thought of it would find a lot of opposition in many countries. In the end it would be contra-productive. There MUST be another way in which we achieve a reasonably similar goal.
And if folks like Raymond want to beleive that the goal of the US is to dominate the rest of the world, I would suggest that he perform some further analysis on the history of US participation in foreign wars. Very seldom has the US attempted to occupy and annex nations that it has defeated in war. Certainly not in the past 100 years, it hasn't.
I am not exactly sure what is it that Raymond believes, as for me, I agree that the US, in general, has had a very smart foreign policy overall (with the exception of Vietnam)... The US has had a very different approach to that of say Great Britain, where as you indicate, no DIRECT political control has been sought.
Even their conquests in the West from old Mexico are now beginning to have similar effects than the ones Britain ended up with... although somehow different. The point here is that the Hispanic population is now in a position to influence what happens in the US territory AND it will continue to be so with greater influence as ... once again... population increases.
It's just not in the US interest to occupy other nations. What is in our interest is making as many nations out there reflect as many of our own political and legal values as our own.
I agree... but once again... will those nations on their own acount be able to achieve what the US has achieved without having the unified and disciplined mentality that it has required for the US to develop such system? I doubt it.
Using the example again of what is going on in the US - Western states (i.e. California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Texas --and the other western states to a lesser extent)... While the effect of the Hispanic culture due to its growth is very noticeable, it is NOT the same as the natives of Mexico (to use the most relevant example), because that Hispanic population has grown within an American system of values that have been largely embraced.
To expect the same from other countries within a generation and without the acceptance of some sort of basic willingness to live by a code of discipline and lack of outrageous corruption.... it will be hard to obtain.
And those who worry about the New World Order have to ask themselves whether they would be willing to accept a world government, were it to be created as a reflection of the US political system... I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such a system, but it will be some time before it occurs, IMO.
The very question, to a lot of people in those countries, represents an affront to their pride. I do not necessarily agree, as I believe that as far as I can see the US capitalist system, so far, is the best there is. But I am not the rest of the world, I am merely pointing out what's out there.
I certainly am not willing to support the US giving up sovereignty to be part of some global system that doesn't resemble our own system.
Once again I agree... and here is where we begin, yet again... with the problem of a "democratic" system.
I want to think in terms of a system where the individual is all-important. However, I do realize that as population growths, and worse, COMPLACENCY form people grows, I simply have to agree with H. L. Mencken and George Carlin...
1) I do not believe in democracy, but willing to accept that it is the most amusing form of government that humans have endured.
2) I understand that I have to be "plugged in" to the system somehow, yet in my own way.... approach the whole thing as if I had bought a ticket to the circus of the absurd and watch it from afar... at a reasonable safe distance and enjoy the show, as best as I can... One creates his/her own realities the best one can. -g-
Lastly… what I object the most is that we are creating an increasingly “over-sensitive” society that will reach a point of paralysis because we are too afraid to say the wrong thing or “hurt” someone’s feeling (not to mention be sued for it) and in addition create a society too dependant of what “daddy government has, or will have to say”.
Can you imagine such society attempting to “win the west”? Not likely, or perhaps with the help of some Hollywood producer…. –g- |
