|
True enough, but I guess that is the curse of the representative democracy. We elect people to do all the decition not neccecarily because they are über-mench with superior judgement, but because the decitions are too many and too versatile for any citizen to care about. The society we have created are simply too complex for any citizen keep track of every detail, so we appoint people to work as professional decition-takers. It's not a very good system but it shure as hell beats living in caves.
If we really are to achieve this liberitarian model or any other "perfect" the perfect system, we would probably have to decentrealizethe power to such a degree that the current system of nations would be useless.
My belief is that big and powerful nations or federations will never be able to adopt systems which preserves democracy and freedom for all. If the goal really is democracy, then you would have to aim for smaller, more easily-manageable societies. If the goal, however, is purely progress without a cause (as I believe FEL endorsed when he claimed that the US is superior on basis of their scientific achievements), then larger, less democratic nations are useful. As far as democracy is conserned, I read somethign a while ago about humans and happiness. Some scientists had stated that humans were at their peak in the bronze-age, when it came to happiness. There were enough rescources, few wars (they had the rescourses, why fight?), and people lived in peaceful communities. Now I am not saying we should try to go back there, but It's not granted that progress will always be the soloution. So far it mostly gives us chanse to breed more humans, until new problems arise because of the growht.
Jesus, that was long. Hope anybody cares to read.
Tl;dr: that's what you get when you drink too much coffee, son.
|