thenextbesthang
Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
In the beginning, the world was primarily a state of nature, where there was no civil society. From then on, there began to be the rise of civil society, and soon, there was such a thing called 'aristocracy.' In Europe, this aristocracy lead to monarchies. In these monarchies, the king was god, and everyone else was servile. Then arose the catholic church; a forum where even the poorest peasent could rise up to be the pope, and be more powerful than the richest king. Then came the rise of the merchants - traders, who acquired enough money through capitalism, to create a large influence on society; this, of course, depending on the amount of wealth one had.
Then came the 'enlightenment,' where people debated the role of government, and what should government really try to do, and how it was legitimately founded. The enlightenment spawned the American revolution, on the grounds that any government needed to rest in the hands of the people - a government was designed by the people, for the people.
Then came constitutional liberalism, a type of society where there is a continued goal to achieve more equality, thus flattening the old order, and levitating the new. The 'old order' refers to how things were in the past, and the 'new order' refers to how things are in the more 'equal' future.
And yet, throughout this, the nature of man has not changed. In the time of the aristocracy, no one thought twice of their role; the serfs served, the kings ruled, etc. In the time of liberal societies, people question the way that things are. They tend to hate things that are 'god given', or given from birth, and place more emphasis on 'person given', or how people act. Where one rises, the other must fall.
However, as there becomes more and more choices for people to choose how to live, their time is more concerned with how to live. They tend to value what is close to them, or what will help them live the best, or easiest. There is no artificial sense of what is important; that sense of importance derives from the individual. The end result of this is that everyone ultimately becomes more enclosed in themselves. Each persons decisions is their decision, each person is more and more, their own, distinct person.
If each person is their own distinct person, and less the collective 'serfs' of the aristocratic period, then they are more liable to other forms of control, besides the kings. Because each person seeks to levitate the self, the people who can help them levitate themself the most, command the most respect. One of the ways that society has helped in this manner is through helping people help themselves, whether through public education, labor saving devices, or depending on other people for my basic needs. It is a sort of 'perpetual childhood.'
But, how does this lead towards despotism? Because all sense of moral or societal wrongs of the old order have been abolished, and because people become more involved with maintaining the self, they become more ignorant to the wrongs perpetrated by the government. Something which may have been seen as 'morally' bad before, may now be ignored, or even forgotten, because people simply do not care. As long as they are able to maintain the self, and the status of the self, they do not care what the government does.
Now...what can be done?
Then came the 'enlightenment,' where people debated the role of government, and what should government really try to do, and how it was legitimately founded. The enlightenment spawned the American revolution, on the grounds that any government needed to rest in the hands of the people - a government was designed by the people, for the people.
Then came constitutional liberalism, a type of society where there is a continued goal to achieve more equality, thus flattening the old order, and levitating the new. The 'old order' refers to how things were in the past, and the 'new order' refers to how things are in the more 'equal' future.
And yet, throughout this, the nature of man has not changed. In the time of the aristocracy, no one thought twice of their role; the serfs served, the kings ruled, etc. In the time of liberal societies, people question the way that things are. They tend to hate things that are 'god given', or given from birth, and place more emphasis on 'person given', or how people act. Where one rises, the other must fall.
However, as there becomes more and more choices for people to choose how to live, their time is more concerned with how to live. They tend to value what is close to them, or what will help them live the best, or easiest. There is no artificial sense of what is important; that sense of importance derives from the individual. The end result of this is that everyone ultimately becomes more enclosed in themselves. Each persons decisions is their decision, each person is more and more, their own, distinct person.
If each person is their own distinct person, and less the collective 'serfs' of the aristocratic period, then they are more liable to other forms of control, besides the kings. Because each person seeks to levitate the self, the people who can help them levitate themself the most, command the most respect. One of the ways that society has helped in this manner is through helping people help themselves, whether through public education, labor saving devices, or depending on other people for my basic needs. It is a sort of 'perpetual childhood.'
But, how does this lead towards despotism? Because all sense of moral or societal wrongs of the old order have been abolished, and because people become more involved with maintaining the self, they become more ignorant to the wrongs perpetrated by the government. Something which may have been seen as 'morally' bad before, may now be ignored, or even forgotten, because people simply do not care. As long as they are able to maintain the self, and the status of the self, they do not care what the government does.
Now...what can be done?