Quote:
All political ideaologies are cyclical. A never ending loop of reactionary philosophies born of dystopic realities and disillusioned spirits. No matter what we embrace now, it will, at best, be a temporary solution. Plato was a bit of an idiot, his work the Republic was viewed by my Forefathers as a farce, and I heartily agree. . .So, if the best we can hope for is a temporary solution, it really doesn't matter at all which we choose. Viewing things in the context of my country alone, where more money was spent by the Government pursuing Microsoft than keeping tabs on known terrorists, I think we would most benefit by a powerful and influential Aristocracy.
Not to replace the govenrment, but to balance it.
|
Ah, the short-term solution. I am drastically less against what you propose in that context. In fact, I believe any govermental change to be inherent to the dynamic that constantly refines political practise for the benefit of us all. For example, the shift into fascism which created the second world war was the mother of great atrocities against humanity. But it also brought the awareness that such tragedy brings. This awareness then applies to all modern political thought, and it's memory steers humanity in a direction I find more efficient.
In that sense, your aristocracy, if applied (until it is replaced by the next thing) would provide more important political memory to the whole of humanity.
As to your suggestion that history moves in circles, I adhere to the Marxist (boo! shame!) refinement of this idea, that history moves in a spiral. The direction of this spiral, if any is debatable, but this spiral geometrically narrowing in diameter I believe to be fact. Thinking in this way, humanity IS growing, working towards a something, even if the majority of men fail to acknowledge this, because they dissagree with it or because they're not equipped to make such judgement all-together.
Two steps forward, one step back as it were.
As to a more long-term solution in forms of goverment, I believe a form of libertarian (not nec. in the way you americans use the term, the more traditional concept of maximum freedom) anarchocommunism would eventually be applied when the balance of geopolitical power is no longer a pressing issue (by means of stellar expansion, most possibly), and the nature of man as an instinctual beast has been adequately leashed. Obviously, such a system of goverment would rely much on self-control and moderation, but I believe those qualities to be universally attainable given the proper education, genetic conditioning and gradual readjustment of the collective unconscious.
Edit: Oh and to say that Plato is an idiot is to brand yourself as someone who hasn't read his collected works. I might dissagree with 90% of what was attributed to him, but I believe words such as 'idiot' should be used in describing people such as Vincezeb, and not one of the most influental philosophers of all time.
Linear Mode
