Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Is there any chance of Will's topic getting back on track?
|
I certainly wouldn't mind if we could.
I think a part of any debate about war includes the causes of war. But rather than discuss that directly, I would rather imply my thoughts on that through other ideas.
I believe a large part of the process of stopping war includes a mass democratization. I feel that strong centralized power is what ultimately has the will and the means to start war. Whether it is the White House/Pentagon behind the most powerful military in the world or perhaps a despot who has 15,000 loyalists who effectively run a third-world country, it is this kind of power that has the authority to start war, in a direct sense. I would like to see a further democratization in both of these examples. Although it is good that in America one can vote to put another in power, there are limitations. A true democratization goes beyond the masses authorizing centralized power. True democratization goes beyond politics; it also affects economics and society. Think of the Internet: it is one of the greatest democratizations of society that we have ever seen. Sure it has its problems, but it would be hard to deny its impact in this respect.
Examples of mass-democratization in each area would include the following:
Politics:
Not only authorizing power, but regulating it. If a vast majority of a population is
against a particular war, why does the authorized power maintain the war or, worse, intensify it?
Economics:
I gave a link in an earlier post:
http://www.kiva.org/. This is the best example of the democratization of economics that I've seen. If more of this kind of thing would happen, corporations wouldn't have near the amount of power they do now. This is our best hope of avoiding a global corporatocracy.
Society:
As mentioned above, I believe our participation in the Internet is indicative of the greatest democratization in society. No one is left out on the World Wide Web; everyone has a voice. (Even criminals, if that is any indication.) Though I admit there are those who are trying to control the Internet, I would say is nearly impossible to dominate it from any centralized power sources. The only exceptions would be those nations who haven't democratized their politics and/or economics...
...and here we come to this: these are all connected, and they are often without borders. When power over politics, economics, and society is centralized, the mobilization to war is an easier task, but if it undergoes and maintains a movement toward mass-democratization, perhaps war would not even be an option. For example, if a source of power becomes too much and shows signs of aggression--perhaps leading towards warmongering--there would be a pockets of power outside of that source that would render it impotent through various means, whether it be by shutting off their economic sources or removing their political clout.
A great danger of mass-democratization, I admit, is such phenomenon as tyranny of the masses. But I think this can be avoided. I believe that there will always be a source of understanding that can be achieved by enough people, avoiding the worst of things altogether.
What do you guys think of this idea?
Can you come up with any other examples of mass-democratization? It sort of popped into my head after thinking of this and other things over the past while. Am I being idealistic, or does this make sense? I can't help but think of this: People generally don't like war. Why do we go to war, then?