I find it humorous that so many people have so many different ideals for what would make a perfect system of governance. Derivatives of currently existing systems are meaningless because all systems at their core are in pursuit of one singular goal which is peace. The chasing after of peace and the attainment thereof are equally paradoxical as it can only come at the cost of war.
1) Human civilization works toward a single goal, i.e., peace. 2) The attainment of peace is sought via political systems. Note: the decision to refrain from adopting a rigid system of politics is in and of itself a political system. 3) Each political system will create problems within its borders (15th Century France) or encounter problems due to irreconcilable differences with other nations (20th and 21st Century America). 4) In either case, these trouble spots will invariably lead to outbreaks of war whether they be of a "civil" or "world" variety.
All systems are flawed not because humans are flawed. Rather all political systems are flawed because civilization can only be sustained at the cost of human lives.
Sometime in the course of human debacles there was a caveman who learned he could get a bigger piece of a kill by bonking his tribesman on the head. Other cavemen happened upon this practice either by firsthand accounts or synchronicity. At some point man learned to refine it's brutality when tribes began to unify and organize their violent tendencies. We can have more land if we kill the people living there. We can have more food if we kill other hunters. Man's first instinct always lay with the self-serving. It's not wrong, it's natural and morality does not exist in a natural state. In either case the moment violence became a solution it became the only solution and therefore the best solution. Violence is practical for the powerful, doesn't require much thought, and always gets results. Always. Of course I never said the result was always good.
Eighteenth century France sought to sustain its empire and had little issue raping the Chinese in its endeavor. Great Britain wanted to maintain its position as the world’s greatest existing superpower at the time and had no issue going to war with France and China to ensure it remained that way. When Colonial America sought to separate herself from The Crown the easiest way to do it was through war. And of course nothing stimulated the American economy as well as wiping out the Natives, raping the land, and destroying civilization after civilization of indigenous people.
The world is not leaning towards a war economy. The world is a war economy. When countries are in need of more money, more land, more markets, it is practical to acquire those things by any means necessary. War is always a an available means and if it becomes easy to implement then it automatically becomes practical and therefore the best solution.
Unfortunately, the opinions of the people as well as those of the soldiers fighting in war never enter into the equation when world leaders make the decision to war with other countries. Their lives matter yes but their opinions not so much. Why? Because in the eyes of each country's respective leaders, they are doing what is best for their country. If they have to rape, steal, pillage, destroy, or burn another country to the ground then they will do that. Other countries operate on the same principle and always have since people first learned how to organize. Like it or not, we've all profited from unholy wars, slavery, and ethnic cleansing in some way or another. It's an ugly world but it is the single, selfish act of each nation pursuing their own wealth that has allowed mankind to progress this far.
For example, during World War I, Germany aimed to establish itself as a superpower. A failed attempt yes but we haven't gotten there. In any case Germany allied with Russia and Japan in World War II as it continued this goal. The growing power of the Axis powers forced France, America, Great Britain, and the smaller countries in the Allied powers to unite. Interestingly enough, Japan which had long-since been closed to the ways of the west quickly assimilated to the west after World War II. Different ideologies spread across the world as alliances were forged and barriers were destroyed. The western influence in the Middle East can be seen via the media's affect on Middle Eastern politics and the revolutions wrought left and right.
Countless breakthroughs come about in areas of technology, medicine, education, agriculture, and so forth. Countries do not experience progressive growth during times of peace but during times of war. The current world in a state of unrest has not seen this much industrial growth since World War II. And of course the same economic issue seen there is prevalent today as well but I'll leave that matter alone for the moment.
Civilization exists in the current form due to centuries of advances attained through war.
1) Human civilization works toward a single goal, i.e., peace. 2) The attainment of peace is sought via political systems. Note: the decision to refrain from adopting a rigid system of politics is in and of itself a political system. 3) Each political system will create problems within its borders (15th Century France) or encounter problems due to irreconcilable differences with other nations (20th and 21st Century America). 4) In either case, these trouble spots will invariably lead to outbreaks of war whether they be of a "civil" or "world" variety.
All systems are flawed not because humans are flawed. Rather all political systems are flawed because civilization can only be sustained at the cost of human lives.
Sometime in the course of human debacles there was a caveman who learned he could get a bigger piece of a kill by bonking his tribesman on the head. Other cavemen happened upon this practice either by firsthand accounts or synchronicity. At some point man learned to refine it's brutality when tribes began to unify and organize their violent tendencies. We can have more land if we kill the people living there. We can have more food if we kill other hunters. Man's first instinct always lay with the self-serving. It's not wrong, it's natural and morality does not exist in a natural state. In either case the moment violence became a solution it became the only solution and therefore the best solution. Violence is practical for the powerful, doesn't require much thought, and always gets results. Always. Of course I never said the result was always good.
Eighteenth century France sought to sustain its empire and had little issue raping the Chinese in its endeavor. Great Britain wanted to maintain its position as the world’s greatest existing superpower at the time and had no issue going to war with France and China to ensure it remained that way. When Colonial America sought to separate herself from The Crown the easiest way to do it was through war. And of course nothing stimulated the American economy as well as wiping out the Natives, raping the land, and destroying civilization after civilization of indigenous people.
The world is not leaning towards a war economy. The world is a war economy. When countries are in need of more money, more land, more markets, it is practical to acquire those things by any means necessary. War is always a an available means and if it becomes easy to implement then it automatically becomes practical and therefore the best solution.
Unfortunately, the opinions of the people as well as those of the soldiers fighting in war never enter into the equation when world leaders make the decision to war with other countries. Their lives matter yes but their opinions not so much. Why? Because in the eyes of each country's respective leaders, they are doing what is best for their country. If they have to rape, steal, pillage, destroy, or burn another country to the ground then they will do that. Other countries operate on the same principle and always have since people first learned how to organize. Like it or not, we've all profited from unholy wars, slavery, and ethnic cleansing in some way or another. It's an ugly world but it is the single, selfish act of each nation pursuing their own wealth that has allowed mankind to progress this far.
For example, during World War I, Germany aimed to establish itself as a superpower. A failed attempt yes but we haven't gotten there. In any case Germany allied with Russia and Japan in World War II as it continued this goal. The growing power of the Axis powers forced France, America, Great Britain, and the smaller countries in the Allied powers to unite. Interestingly enough, Japan which had long-since been closed to the ways of the west quickly assimilated to the west after World War II. Different ideologies spread across the world as alliances were forged and barriers were destroyed. The western influence in the Middle East can be seen via the media's affect on Middle Eastern politics and the revolutions wrought left and right.
Countless breakthroughs come about in areas of technology, medicine, education, agriculture, and so forth. Countries do not experience progressive growth during times of peace but during times of war. The current world in a state of unrest has not seen this much industrial growth since World War II. And of course the same economic issue seen there is prevalent today as well but I'll leave that matter alone for the moment.
Civilization exists in the current form due to centuries of advances attained through war.
