Power and Change

[foodchain]

When thinking of being Patriotic at time its often spins into various other concepts.

 

One I think is if being Patriotic is like being ignorant basically. I mean to explain on it goes like this. Do you think that because a nation has an established set of social laws and or customs, such as being democratic, that such a system should be viewed outside of ever changing?

 

I think the constitution of America was a grand achievement for humanity really, the concepts themselves helped lay the groundwork for some kind of notion of universal human rights outside of anything prior to it that I know of.

 

Yet I wonder if in all things possible that its so good it could never be changed. I know that you can alter the constitution, something that gives it the title of a living document in many ways. I am more concerned though on real change. Say just some other new way of life came about just like democracy once did, could one argue for real radical change to a nation, such as switching from being capitalist to some other system?

 

The philosophy behind it is simple. If something gets so powerful, can you argue for it to radically change, or is such behavior always futile? Furthermore would such behavior always be viewed as wrong in any context or environment that it takes place.

[The Bear's Key]

I think the constitution of America was a grand achievement for humanity really, the concepts themselves helped lay the groundwork for some kind of notion of universal human rights outside of anything prior to it that I know of.

Don't forget that back in the day, several places around the world in general had minor stirrings toward Democracy as we know it. Our forefathers borrowed some ideas that had already emerged, built on them, and crafted their own bits as well -- so in the U.S. that democratic process sped up. I think it's healthier to view it as a step forward, instead of a one-time revolution and change. Further steps will occur.

 

There were roots in England nearly a hundred years before the U.S.

• Bill of Rights in 1689 England

 

And hints/wisps of liberty stirred in the late 1800s Japan.

• Freedom and People's Rights Movement in 1870s Japan

• The Rights and Duties of Subjects in the 1889 Constitution of Japan. (scroll down to Charter II)

 

Russians in 1905 were demanding (and granted?) the freedom of speech and assembly.

 

In my view, societies evolve naturally towards more justice and liberty for its citizens. Plus a more diverse/widespread access to knowledge seems to facilitate that. It's a key variable likely.

 

So it follows that keeping people in the dark allows for tyranny. Keeping people ignorant has the same effect. i.e. unquestioning.

 

 

Yet I wonder if in all things possible that its so good it could never be changed.

Our system wasn't made to never change, just not to do it on impulse so easily.

 

The philosophy behind it is simple. If something gets so powerful, can you argue for it to radically change, or is such behavior always futile?

Why radical change? Just a step forward*

 

*(though a powerful one)

[Sisyphus]

I think the constitution of America was a grand achievement for humanity really, the concepts themselves helped lay the groundwork for some kind of notion of universal human rights outside of anything prior to it that I know of.

 

Not at all. The United States was founded essentially as an experiment in all the fashionable philosophical ideas of the time of European liberal intellectuals. Locke and Rousseau and all that. It was unprecedented in scope of "putting their money where their mouths were," so to speak, but the ideas themselves were not revolutionary (except in the literal sense of requiring a revolution!).

 

Further, concepts of rights and limited powers of government had been gradually evolving for hundreds of years in Europe, and of course were fundamental to various ancient societies, like many Greek city-states, or the Roman Republic.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

To address the actual question, I don't see why you couldn't argue for radical change. Why might that be considered wrong in all circumstances?

[foodchain]

It was unprecedented in scope of "putting their money where their mouths were," so to speak, but the ideas themselves were not revolutionary (except in the literal sense of requiring a revolution!).

 

Further, concepts of rights and limited powers of government had been gradually evolving for hundreds of years in Europe, and of course were fundamental to various ancient societies, like many Greek city-states, or the Roman Republic.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

To address the actual question, I don't see why you couldn't argue for radical change. Why might that be considered wrong in all circumstances?

 

A major shift in European governance took place along with American influence. The road there is not one way I guess is all.

 

TO my topic its more or less that all major shifts are heated, or polarized. Be it in the U.S with any issue, such as civil rights for example. I furthermore think this can be found going over recorded history. Maybe human nature has this wired into it, and that one of our greater success is finding a way for humans to change in a more civilized manner.

 

Not to say no one ever tried to do such before, or that thinking was somehow absolutely novel in regards to the constitution, just that its workings were radical in how they applied to people at that point in history. That this radical nature was simply finding a way for resolve conflicts within a society by virtue that conflict itself is guaranteed within people. Such change itself is packed with conflict, and in the end all of it can be framed as people that argued to change. So is that very act applied to some certain criteria like above always to be automatically met with resistance for more primal reasons, like a human nature issue.

[ecoli]

I agree with the OPer. The implementation of European enlightenment ideas definitely required a new kind of power.

 

I wonder if anybody has studied the American revolution and the power balance between the colonies, England and France from a game-theoretic perspective. Could be interesting approach.

[Sisyphus]

I wonder if anybody has studied the American revolution and the power balance between the colonies, England and France from a game-theoretic perspective. Could be interesting approach.

 

That would be interesting. It seems like situations where a powerful country allies with a weaker one because it opposes a stronger rival is repeated countless times throughout history, but it almost never seems to work out as planned. France supports the colonies to curb English power, but in doing so creates a monster that by its very existence calls into the question the legitimacy of the French monarchy. Doh!

[ponderer]

 

Why radical change? Just a step forward*

 

*(though a powerful one)

 

We have a fundamental problem.

 

It goes like this:

 

Continuing automation of job functions allows for higher productivity and a reduced work force.

 

The people who are removed from the work force do not go to state supported liesure activities. They must find work or make money in some fashion.

 

In order to work they must provide a service or sell something.

 

So people make up new crap that was never needed in the first place, consuming more energy and natural resources and causing more pollution.

 

Continuing automation of job functions allows for higher productivity and a reduced work force.

 

The people who are removed from the work force do not go to state supported liesure activities. They must find work or make money in some fashion.

 

In order to work they must provide a service or sell something.

 

So people make up new crap that was never needed in the first place, consuming more energy and natural resources and causing more pollution.

 

Continuing automation of job functions allows for higher productivity and a reduced work force...