Democracy Questions

April 30, 2004 12:13 PM

Can a free people in a democratic country that has grown to such an enormous power remain to its historically told ideals of basic human rights, government from and for the people? Could the desire for control of that power be great enough to collapse a free society? Is humankind enslaved to war?
posted by the fire you left me to law & government (22 comments total)

not indefinitely
yes
probably
posted by mookieproof at 12:27 PM on April 30, 2004

What, no more inside?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:58 PM on April 30, 2004

You mean to say you could find the answer to this on Google?
posted by briank at 12:59 PM on April 30, 2004

Which country could you possibly be talking about? Don't leave us in the dark.
posted by PrinceValium at 1:17 PM on April 30, 2004

Could the desire for control of that power be great enough to collapse a free society?

If not matched by a desire of the citizenry too keep it checked, yes.
posted by weston at 1:19 PM on April 30, 2004

Every sovereign government in human history has eventually collapsed. Jared Diamond's work talks about how war and power have always been a part of human history, and Frans de Waal's work shows how they operate in our primate cousins.

I seriously doubt that any human being has ever lived an entire 70-year lifespan in a country without war or violent civil unrest. Can anyone point to a time and place with 70 consecutive years of peace and stability?
posted by fuzz at 1:35 PM on April 30, 2004

1. jury's out
2. yes.
3. quite possibly - other primates are.
posted by mwhybark at 2:11 PM on April 30, 2004

no, yes, and yes.
posted by ac at 2:15 PM on April 30, 2004

Your question is a sort of fallacy. I might restate it thusly: Can a democratic country not change?

The answer, of course, is that it can only not change if it stays the same. At which point we have a circular question.

And even beyond that we have some confusion in terms. While the U.S. has changed radically in the last 200 years, our government has remained largely the same. So have we stayed true to our historical ideals? Who knows. It depends on what you mean. Some would say yes. Others no. Our "historical ideals" probably didn't include women and minorities voting 200 years ago.

In short - As an AskMe post, this is ass.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:50 PM on April 30, 2004

MeTa
posted by scarabic at 3:11 PM on April 30, 2004

Is humankind enslaved to war?

Conflict is probably a better word to choose. The wars of today are incomparable to the wars of 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago, and are fought for very different reasons by very different societies. The wars or conflicts of 1000 years from now will also be very very different.

As for the rest of the question, you start from too great a bias to answer it in any meaningful, way. Perhaps a better question would be:


Is there a risk or will people that are granted a certain set of rights by a social contract that is widely accepted in a nation that is relatively powerful with respect to it's peers militarily and economically retain those rights and maintain its form of governing structure? Are there elements either domestic or foreign that can and/or would seek to alter that structure and restrict those rights? Will conflicts of interest between varying groups of humans always exist in some form, and will that form always be violent?

Maybe semantics, but perhaps phrases the question in a more academic and impartial way?
posted by loquax at 3:27 PM on April 30, 2004

fuzz: switzerland?
posted by biffa at 3:28 PM on April 30, 2004

Oh, by the way, my answers are maybe, maybe, and maybe to my phrasing, depends, depends, depends to the original.

I hope this doesn't get deleted and we can discuss the art and science of formulating proper questions! This has many applications, including polling, exams, journalism and more. But yeah, it's troll bait.
posted by loquax at 3:36 PM on April 30, 2004

the fire (etc.): I think you should use a pair of locking pliers. They do a good job of holding the workpiece in place while you're adding details, and it's easy to unclamp them and move things around (no need to loosen and tighten over and over again).
posted by tss at 3:40 PM on April 30, 2004

The complaint on Meta seems to be that its some vague reference to the US without specifically attaching a name to the US. Let's just take it as read that its the US we're talking about, (as I imagine that there's no one on MeFi that could have missed this), and just take any discussion from there?
posted by biffa at 3:44 PM on April 30, 2004

the fire: a couple of drops of three-in-one oil ought to quiet that down for you.
posted by quonsar at 3:53 PM on April 30, 2004

stay off the drink or don't post while drunk fire.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:23 PM on April 30, 2004

There aren't any historical parallels. What's going on now is happening for the first time.
posted by darukaru at 9:37 PM on April 30, 2004

You are right, for the most part, but the Peloponnesian War comes to mind for me, sometimes.
posted by y2karl at 10:28 PM on April 30, 2004

I seriously doubt that any human being has ever lived an entire 70-year lifespan in a country without war or violent civil unrest. Can anyone point to a time and place with 70 consecutive years of peace and stability?

Switzerland, probably.
posted by abcde at 12:03 PM on May 1, 2004

Sweden. No wars since 1810.
posted by hoskala at 3:31 AM on May 2, 2004

Could the desire for control of that power be great enough to collapse a free society? Is humankind enslaved to war?

You mean to say that only free societies can maintain "peace"? And only brutal dictatorships start wars?
posted by hoskala at 3:36 AM on May 2, 2004