@ChrisMayLA6 centuries. It is of course difficult to put ones finger on one thing, but a few that come to mind in recent decades is instant gratification, and an educational system in free fall.
From this you can trace hedonistic and egoistic tendencies, and perhaps those are contributing?
I must also point out the difference between individualism and egocentrism. I do not think they are the same thing. You can be an individualist and still care for other individuals, but if you are ego
@ChrisMayLA6 centric, your ego takes precedence over all others.
Do you think that distinction makes sense?
The reason I am trying to high light it is of course that I am a libertarian and an individualist, but I do have the capability of caring for others, and I do.
In heated debates online, this fact is very often forgotten.
@ChrisMayLA6 This sounds like the theme for another book! ;)
Do you think there was a high point of democracy?
I imagine that when monarchies fell, citizens and the public had a new "toy" and a new world, and I imagine that idealists then remembered only too well the evils of monarchy and royal secret services and what they did, to prefer democracy and someone else in the lead, over their own personal power.
But it seems to me, that the democratic spirit has faded over the past two
@ChrisMayLA6 centuries. It is of course difficult to put ones finger on one thing, but a few that come to mind in recent decades is instant gratification, and an educational system in free fall.
From this you can trace hedonistic and egoistic tendencies, and perhaps those are contributing?
I must also point out the difference between individualism and egocentrism. I do not think they are the same thing. You can be an individualist and still care for other individuals, but if you are ego
@ChrisMayLA6 democracy? Or are their effects neutral, or could it be argued that with all the surveillance technology, nudging and marketing, that our modern knowledge actually serves to dismantle democracy and turning it into some kind of modern aristocracy?
Democracy needs to be built & then maintained, but when those in power do not want to maintain it (or maintain parts of it) then the technologies you mention (& others) can be used against it.
If we wanted to protect democracy we could use the same tools to do so.
So, for me its the other way round; how is a modern aristocracy has been able to (re)gain control of the levers that democracy had shifted to others (or perhaps they never really did let go)
@ChrisMayLA6 This is the truth! Modern democracy is one of the youngest systems of governance we have. Perhaps it can even be argued that the few "anarchic" or libertarian attempts that have been made in history have lasted longer than modern western democracy? As such... it has not been as battle tested as monarchies, oligarchies, theocracies and aristocracies.
I find this to be a very interesting insight! Has our technology, culture and knowledge developed in such a way as to enable
@ChrisMayLA6 democracy? Or are their effects neutral, or could it be argued that with all the surveillance technology, nudging and marketing, that our modern knowledge actually serves to dismantle democracy and turning it into some kind of modern aristocracy?
@ChrisMayLA6 and at that point, distributed and decentralized private services will completely replace it.
At that point in time, the public servants and the political nobility will have to live on less, or become more draconian in order to secure the continued revenue from the tax milk cows.
Hmmm.... but in one sense that would be pretty much the system that the modern state was developed to shift society away from; if politics is cyclical then we might expect that to happen, in a sort of analytical way. However, what then remains is the reasons that the system was regarded as politically unacceptable in the first place, surely?
@ChrisMayLA6 This is one of the problems of modern democracy. Its legitimacy decreases year after year, and ultimately, it will become a show for public servants, for the benefit of public servants. Since their incomes are directly dependent upon taxing the productive classes, ultimately they are the only ones who will care.
The productive classes will either become unproductive, or they will evade taxes.
My hope is that ultimately, people will jist lose interest in the government
@ChrisMayLA6 and at that point, distributed and decentralized private services will completely replace it.
At that point in time, the public servants and the political nobility will have to live on less, or become more draconian in order to secure the continued revenue from the tax milk cows.
h4890's Posts
h4890 has 66 posts.
h4890
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6 centuries. It is of course difficult to put ones finger on one thing, but a few that come to mind in recent decades is instant gratification, and an educational system in free fall.
From this you can trace hedonistic and egoistic tendencies, and perhaps those are contributing?
I must also point out the difference between individualism and egocentrism. I do not think they are the same thing. You can be an individualist and still care for other individuals, but if you are ego
@ChrisMayLA6 centric, your ego takes precedence over all others.
Do you think that distinction makes sense?
The reason I am trying to high light it is of course that I am a libertarian and an individualist, but I do have the capability of caring for others, and I do.
In heated debates online, this fact is very often forgotten.
by h4890 ;
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0
h4890
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6 This sounds like the theme for another book! ;)
Do you think there was a high point of democracy?
I imagine that when monarchies fell, citizens and the public had a new "toy" and a new world, and I imagine that idealists then remembered only too well the evils of monarchy and royal secret services and what they did, to prefer democracy and someone else in the lead, over their own personal power.
But it seems to me, that the democratic spirit has faded over the past two
@ChrisMayLA6 centuries. It is of course difficult to put ones finger on one thing, but a few that come to mind in recent decades is instant gratification, and an educational system in free fall.
From this you can trace hedonistic and egoistic tendencies, and perhaps those are contributing?
I must also point out the difference between individualism and egocentrism. I do not think they are the same thing. You can be an individualist and still care for other individuals, but if you are ego
by h4890 ;
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0
h4890
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6 democracy? Or are their effects neutral, or could it be argued that with all the surveillance technology, nudging and marketing, that our modern knowledge actually serves to dismantle democracy and turning it into some kind of modern aristocracy?
What do you think?
@h4890
that it is natural or organic.
Democracy needs to be built & then maintained, but when those in power do not want to maintain it (or maintain parts of it) then the technologies you mention (& others) can be used against it.
If we wanted to protect democracy we could use the same tools to do so.
So, for me its the other way round; how is a modern aristocracy has been able to (re)gain control of the levers that democracy had shifted to others (or perhaps they never really did let go)
by Emeritus Prof Christopher May ;
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0
h4890
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6 This is the truth! Modern democracy is one of the youngest systems of governance we have. Perhaps it can even be argued that the few "anarchic" or libertarian attempts that have been made in history have lasted longer than modern western democracy? As such... it has not been as battle tested as monarchies, oligarchies, theocracies and aristocracies.
I find this to be a very interesting insight! Has our technology, culture and knowledge developed in such a way as to enable
@ChrisMayLA6 democracy? Or are their effects neutral, or could it be argued that with all the surveillance technology, nudging and marketing, that our modern knowledge actually serves to dismantle democracy and turning it into some kind of modern aristocracy?
What do you think?
by h4890 ;
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0
h4890
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6 and at that point, distributed and decentralized private services will completely replace it.
At that point in time, the public servants and the political nobility will have to live on less, or become more draconian in order to secure the continued revenue from the tax milk cows.
@h4890
Hmmm.... but in one sense that would be pretty much the system that the modern state was developed to shift society away from; if politics is cyclical then we might expect that to happen, in a sort of analytical way. However, what then remains is the reasons that the system was regarded as politically unacceptable in the first place, surely?
by Emeritus Prof Christopher May ;
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0
h4890
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6 This is one of the problems of modern democracy. Its legitimacy decreases year after year, and ultimately, it will become a show for public servants, for the benefit of public servants. Since their incomes are directly dependent upon taxing the productive classes, ultimately they are the only ones who will care.
The productive classes will either become unproductive, or they will evade taxes.
My hope is that ultimately, people will jist lose interest in the government
@ChrisMayLA6 and at that point, distributed and decentralized private services will completely replace it.
At that point in time, the public servants and the political nobility will have to live on less, or become more draconian in order to secure the continued revenue from the tax milk cows.
by h4890 ;
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0