Democracy
The issue is not capitalism versus communism or democracy versus dictatorship, but the concentration of power at all. There are some things that are just true. Self evident, demonstrable and true. 'Mankind will abuse power' is one of those. An example of a generalization that reinforces a point there; not all people will abuse power, but the average will. You can dress up this fact in many different ways; the belligerent dictatorship, corrupt communism, or the diplomatic democracy.
Diplomacy; letting people have it your way. The humorous quote that underpins the inherent human spirit that breaks any system with a distribution of power. Democracy is just the more modern, evolved, underhand method of abuse. America's drive to spread democracy to the world has never sat easily with me. The idea of sending men with guns to enforce the rights of the people they are attacking was a juxtaposition I was aware of, but honestly didn't grasp until recently. Democracy has come to mean a hierarchy of power. Not the pillar of power that a dictatorship is, but a pyramid of power, with some people at the top making decisions for the people below to live by. But whether a pyramid or a pillar, it is a concentration of power. You can imagine how the British democratic pyramid of power - Houses of Parliament - came about; hundreds of years ago it was impossible to get a national consensus on an issue because of geography - an individual in Lothian could not easily send a message to an individual in London, let alone converse with them. With every additional member of the conversation, the difficulty increased; add in individuals in Portsmouth, Kingston-on-Thames and York and it was actually impossible. And so there was one individual chosen from each area to represent the views of the local people in a central forum; a member of Parliament was elected to talk on the behalf of their constituents in the House of Commons. Many-to-many communication was impossible. One-to-one communication was possible. It was a good system at the time. However, once a decision was made in the Houses of Parliament, communicating that to everyone was easier; we had an entire infrastructure set up for 'broadcast' media, for one-to-many communication. Douglas Adams talks about the ages of sand in a debate in Cambridge University, 1998. It is here in full, and a recommended read (http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams) In it he succinctly explains what the Internet is so revolutionary. It allows many-to-many communication. Suddenly the descendants of these individuals in Lothian, London, Portsmouth, Kingston-on-Thames and York could all converse simultaneously. "Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day."
- Benito Mussolini to Edwin L James of the New York Times (1928) So we have the beginnings of the next stage in our evolution; a revolution can bring us closer to a theory that works in practice. Remove the concentration of power that is a hangover from days gone by and replace it with many-to-many communication.
Diplomacy; letting people have it your way. The humorous quote that underpins the inherent human spirit that breaks any system with a distribution of power. Democracy is just the more modern, evolved, underhand method of abuse. America's drive to spread democracy to the world has never sat easily with me. The idea of sending men with guns to enforce the rights of the people they are attacking was a juxtaposition I was aware of, but honestly didn't grasp until recently. Democracy has come to mean a hierarchy of power. Not the pillar of power that a dictatorship is, but a pyramid of power, with some people at the top making decisions for the people below to live by. But whether a pyramid or a pillar, it is a concentration of power. You can imagine how the British democratic pyramid of power - Houses of Parliament - came about; hundreds of years ago it was impossible to get a national consensus on an issue because of geography - an individual in Lothian could not easily send a message to an individual in London, let alone converse with them. With every additional member of the conversation, the difficulty increased; add in individuals in Portsmouth, Kingston-on-Thames and York and it was actually impossible. And so there was one individual chosen from each area to represent the views of the local people in a central forum; a member of Parliament was elected to talk on the behalf of their constituents in the House of Commons. Many-to-many communication was impossible. One-to-one communication was possible. It was a good system at the time. However, once a decision was made in the Houses of Parliament, communicating that to everyone was easier; we had an entire infrastructure set up for 'broadcast' media, for one-to-many communication. Douglas Adams talks about the ages of sand in a debate in Cambridge University, 1998. It is here in full, and a recommended read (http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams) In it he succinctly explains what the Internet is so revolutionary. It allows many-to-many communication. Suddenly the descendants of these individuals in Lothian, London, Portsmouth, Kingston-on-Thames and York could all converse simultaneously. "Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day."
- Benito Mussolini to Edwin L James of the New York Times (1928) So we have the beginnings of the next stage in our evolution; a revolution can bring us closer to a theory that works in practice. Remove the concentration of power that is a hangover from days gone by and replace it with many-to-many communication.
