After many threads, many posts, and many, many digressions and tangents, it has come to my attention that there are some who are grossly misinformed as to why Governments do the things they do. I shall endeavor to explain the method behind the madness as best as a teenager can. While this explanation deals primarily with foreign policy, the same basic principles can be applied in all forms of decision-making.

The first thing one must understand about the Government is that it is soulless. Now, this definition will undoubtedly be linked to the quality of being evil. This is a mistake. Governments are soulless in that they do not have any emotion whatsoever. Emotion has no place in politics; it will only prove to be an obstacle in every situation. Good and Evil are emotional terms which are hopelessly inaccurate to describe this entity. Governments are not evil nor are they altruistic. Everything a leader or governing body does is a calculated move so that it may gain and retain power.

With that said, a new grading system must be developed. For this, the quality of effectiveness of a government proves most apt. Effectiveness of a government can be measured by many standards such as the happiness of its people, economic prosperity, or rank in the world order. Wherever possible, it is best to look at all of these measures as parts of a whole. Focusing on one while ignoring the others is only folly.

When dealing with foreign issues, nations and governments look at 4 factors in any given situation, ranking in the following order: Defense of the Country, Economic Prosperity, Favorable World Order, Promotion of Values. Each of these works in part to strengthen the others, so not one can be disregarded for another.

This is just a base categorization. Each of these interests is then classified according to their intensity; Survival, Vital, Major, Peripheral. Survival interests are ones that have the potential to destroy the nation where it stands. An example would be the secession of the South during the Civil War. For a time, the Union was actually destroyed. A Vital interest would be one that would be severely crippling to the nation, but not necessarily cataclysmic. In WWII, the Japanese dependence on oil was a vital interest, and when the US enforced embargos, they had little other option than to go to war. Major interests are those that are important, but would not be worth going to war. However, other forms of pressure would be used such as economic sanctions. Finally, Peripheral interests are those that are hardly worth rocking the boat. The most pressure that would be exercised here would be political.

I stated in the previous paragraph several forms of pressure which can be applied in certain situations. Another term for this would be instruments of national power. National power is given by the formula W(P+I+E+M)

P- Political Power. This would encompass diplomacy, agreements between nations, the number of allies a nation posesses, and short term and long term coalitions.
I-Information Power. This includes control of the the media, public opinion, intelligence technology, various intelligence gathering abilities, the ability to withhold damaging/unfavorable information, covert action, espionage, or psychological warfare.
E- Economic Power. This is based on trade, foreign aid, sanctions and embargos, and Most Favored Nation status. It also includes the national economy, industrial power, natural resources, and standard of living.
M- Military Power. Pretty self-explanitory. How able you are to blow shit up.
W- Will. The most important factor. This is how strong the people's support is with the government. This is the only instrument which is purely domestic.

By taking into account all of these factors, nations are able to have a system for determining the situation and forming strong responses in which each action reinforces other actions, and do all of this in a very limited amount of time.

By our very presence here, we have accepted the roles of critics and commentators. With those roles, we have the responsibility and obligation to look at situations rationally and to have in mind what exactly the people upstairs are thinking and not get hysterical about it.

Just my 3 cents.

First of all, good post. I'm guessing you are laying the groundwork to further develop your 'nations behave in their own self-interest' idea, so I'll save that for later. For now, I'll just take issue with a few points.

The first thing one must understand about the Government is that it is soulless. Now, this definition will undoubtedly be linked to the quality of being evil. This is a mistake. Governments are soulless in that they do not have any emotion whatsoever.

Governments are made of and by people. People have emotions and perhaps souls. You can not completely divorce what a thing is, from that of which it is made. You can argue, for example, that an automobile is made by people but has no soul and can not be evil. But a government is not an automobile. It is made entirely out of people, their ideas and to a great extent, their emotions. It is within this context that governments can, indeed, be evil: when they are made of, and controlled by evil people.

Emotion has no place in politics; it will only prove to be an obstacle in every situation.

You could not be more mistaken. Progress in human politics is driven by two primary factors: thought and emotion. For a government to progress toward a more free society, as an example, the underlying philosophy must be developed intellectually; potential institutions must be conceived before they can become realities. This is not enough, however, to compel a government to change. The status quo plods dutifully along the line of least resistance, it's inertia as yet unaffected by philosophical advance. This is the point where emotion takes the stage. The idea of freedom by itself is insufficient to realize itself, but the yearning for freedom, an emotion, becomes an irresistable force. In other words, you need the likes of Montesquieu and Locke to lay the foundations of the American Revolution, but without the likes of Jefferson, Adams and Washington, men who would pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors to see it done, you have nothing.

Passion is the very fuel of politics. Without it America would never have seen an Abolitionist or Civil Rights or any other great number of movements. The entire history of the human race is populated by the passionate who, for good or ill, have made the world in which we live. To think otherwise will not advance your other ideas of political philosopy.

I agree, the government of people, and as such, is almost a living breathing thing. However, a key point is that the government operates almost independently of any one person. No one is really in control. Perhaps I did go to far with my point, for even the political goal "Promotion of Values" is mostly based upon emotion. However, this point is reactionary against the sensationalism which accompanies today's world in which every action is seen as emotionally driven, and people are so quick to jump to conclusions. Nobody thinks with their head anymore...

Second, I believe that passion is more of a place for political debate than actual politics. People will often make decisions based on cold reason, but use passion, zeal, and fervor to make their argument and gain support. Often, the logical reasoning and the passionate reasoning are very similar if not identical; however, also common is the fact that actions need a little extra spin to get them on the table.

To use your examples of Abolitionism and Civil Rights: These movements were not started in the government, and the government avoided dealing with them for as long as possible. The people in the government knew that these issues were dangerous and destabilizing, and chose "flee from the meteor" as it were. If the practice of Slave-Holding truely did keep America afloat, I have no doubts that the US Government would have sided with the southern slave owners. Scary thought huh?

Going further with the Emancipation Proclamation. This document was not designed to free the slaves on any moral ground. In fact, the morality of slave owning is never brought up. Lincoln used this document as a threat against the South to try and coax them back into the Union. Also, this document was designed to prevent any alliances between the Confederacy and any foreign powers which had already abolished slavery.

So I was wrong to say that emotion has no place in politics. Emotion can be a very powerful tool, especially in strengthening the W part of the equation. The government will only deal with moral issues so long as those issues do not hinder the survival and growth of the government's power.

Do not mistake my argument for cynicism, for it is simply just logic.

Just my 3 cents.

Going further with the Emancipation Proclamation. This document was not designed to free the slaves on any moral ground. In fact, the morality of slave owning is never brought up. Lincoln used this document as a threat against the South to try and coax them back into the Union. Also, this document was designed to prevent any alliances between the Confederacy and any foreign powers which had already abolished slavery.


.

Other reasons too--even during the second year of the War, the North was fighting for, and only for, the restoration of the Union. Doing away with slavery was not the objective. Lincoln, tho firmly against slavery, refused to free the slaves themselves. He was too afraid of driving the border states into the Confederacy. If that happened, many Union soldiers would quit the ranks, and the war would be lost. Another reality was that the slaves were beyond his reach. He really couldn't free them until the Rebels were driven from the field.
Ah, politics...many many reasons for everything usually.

A few more comments, then.

However, this point is reactionary against the sensationalism which accompanies today's world in which every action is seen as emotionally driven, and people are so quick to jump to conclusions. Nobody thinks with their head anymore...

I think the kind of situation you're trying to address when you speak of 'jumping to conclusions' would be, for example, when someone does not like the President, and sees everything the President does through a filter of distrust and enmity. No matter what the President does, that person will find a way to see that action as part of a larger, more sinister agenda. This may appear to you as a modern phenomenon but I don't think it is. Human nature hasn't changed significantly these past few millenia, although from your youthful perspective I can understand why you might think it has.

There have been many societies in the past (and still quite a few in the present) where the largest part of our daily existence has been taken by the need to survive, leaving small room for any thought beyond the next meal, let alone politics. Primitive man thinks almost exclusively with his head, there being no other alternative. The sensationalism you decry is a natural consequence of our cultural and technological advancement, and while I agree it is often unseemly it is not altogether a bad thing.

Second, I believe that passion is more of a place for political debate than actual politics. People will often make decisions based on cold reason, but use passion, zeal, and fervor to make their argument and gain support. Often, the logical reasoning and the passionate reasoning are very similar if not identical; however, also common is the fact that actions need a little extra spin to get them on the table.

I agree that for passion to be reasonable, logic must precede it. And yes, there are times to get people riled up to demand change (debate), and times to settle everyone down and make the deal (actual politics). This does not mean, however, that passion has no place in 'actual politics'. In its subdued form it can become commitment to ideals like justice and integrity. In its more base form passion can lead to envy, greed, and lust for power.

If the practice of Slave-Holding truely did keep America afloat, I have no doubts that the US Government would have sided with the southern slave owners.

The government will only deal with moral issues so long as those issues do not hinder the survival and growth of the government's power.

I would agree with the first statement had you said "If the US government had perceived that slavery would hold the Union together, it would have sided with the southern states." Similarly, I would agree with the second statement if you had said "The government will only deal with moral issues so long as those issues are perceived to not hinder the survival and growth of the government's power." This is why I disagree with your idea that 'governments and nations act only in their own self-interest'. They don't. They act in what they perceive to be their own self-interest, and quite often they are short-sighted or just plain wrong.

Ah beautiful semantics, how I miss thee. But you're absolutely right. Perception is just as important as reality, even if the perception is wrong. As you said, governments are made of people, and people can make mistakes too. They're only human.

But they (the early government)perceived slavery as an unwanted evil when it's not - it's the way one treats their slaves that is wrong. And doesn't it seem that we're all slaves to the government? We're free to pay taxes or go to jail, right? We have so many laws that we build new building to hold them all and they're government buildings and the folks who work there are government employees and all of this is paid for by us. I'm feeling a little depressed.

We always have the freedom to leave.

And the theory behind taxes is that it gets paid back to the people in the form of government services. While that's not always the case, in general, it proves true.

Evil Homer

You write very well for someone your age. No one writes well without reading alot, so I'll take that as a given. I'm wondering if you've had good teachers or if you've worked at it or maybe even if you have talent. What gives?

But they (the early government)perceived slavery as an unwanted evil when it's not - it's the way one treats their slaves that is wrong.I would like to hear your reasons for thinking that slavery is not evil.

Well as I said it's the manner of how you relate to your slaves/people. Thomas Jefferson had slaves - Abraham had slaves. I think they were referred to as servants and the 'slave owner' as a master. If you didn't care for them and treated them like dumb animals then yes, your treatment of them would be considered evil.

We always have the freedom to leave.

And the theory behind taxes is that it gets paid back to the people in the form of government services. While that's not always the case, in general, it proves true.

Well that's true - I told you I was depressed!

A few more comments, then.

However, this point is reactionary against the sensationalism which accompanies today's world in which every action is seen as emotionally driven, and people are so quick to jump to conclusions. Nobody thinks with their head anymore...

I think the kind of situation you're trying to address when you speak of 'jumping to conclusions' would be, for example, when someone does not like the President, and sees everything the President does through a filter of distrust and enmity. No matter what the President does, that person will find a way to see that action as part of a larger, more sinister agenda. This may appear to you as a modern phenomenon but I don't think it is. Human nature hasn't changed significantly these past few millenia, although from your youthful perspective I can understand why you might think it has.

There have been many societies in the past (and still quite a few in the present) where the largest part of our daily existence has been taken by the need to survive, leaving small room for any thought beyond the next meal, let alone politics. Primitive man thinks almost exclusively with his head, there being no other alternative. The sensationalism you decry is a natural consequence of our cultural and technological advancement, and while I agree it is often unseemly it is not altogether a bad thing.

Second, I believe that passion is more of a place for political debate than actual politics. People will often make decisions based on cold reason, but use passion, zeal, and fervor to make their argument and gain support. Often, the logical reasoning and the passionate reasoning are very similar if not identical; however, also common is the fact that actions need a little extra spin to get them on the table.

I agree that for passion to be reasonable, logic must precede it. And yes, there are times to get people riled up to demand change (debate), and times to settle everyone down and make the deal (actual politics). This does not mean, however, that passion has no place in 'actual politics'. In its subdued form it can become commitment to ideals like justice and integrity. In its more base form passion can lead to envy, greed, and lust for power.

If the practice of Slave-Holding truely did keep America afloat, I have no doubts that the US Government would have sided with the southern slave owners.

The government will only deal with moral issues so long as those issues do not hinder the survival and growth of the government's power.

I would agree with the first statement had you said "If the US government had perceived that slavery would hold the Union together, it would have sided with the southern states." Similarly, I would agree with the second statement if you had said "The government will only deal with moral issues so long as those issues are perceived to not hinder the survival and growth of the government's power." This is why I disagree with your idea that 'governments and nations act only in their own self-interest'. They don't. They act in what they perceive to be their own self-interest, and quite often they are short-sighted or just plain wrong.

But...everything went hairwire after the Emancipation Proclamation was instituted. The price of cotton went up and many countries couldn't afford to buy it anymore. Many people died in that war and who knows what good they would have brought to society. The slaves that were freed had no idea what to do or where they could live. They were left to fend for themselves in a very hostile environment. A few did very well - PBS had a documentary not long ago on the history of some African Americans. I think there was a better way to accomplish freedom and equality for them.

Well as I said it's the manner of how you relate to your slaves/people. Thomas Jefferson had slaves - Abraham had slaves. I think they were referred to as servants and the 'slave owner' as a master. If you didn't care for them and treated them like dumb animals then yes, your treatment of them would be considered evil.

You mean the simplistic "owning of another human being" isn't in itself an evil, just the treatment of said people?

No one writes well without reading alot, so I'll take that as a given. I'm wondering if you've had good teachers or if you've worked at it or maybe even if you have talent.

Balderdash!

And also, good posts Homer :drinktoth

Balderdash!Poppycock!

From Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia (1781):

QUERY XVIII


The particular customs and manners that may happen to be received in that state?

Manners

It is difficult to determine on the standard by which the manners of a nation may be tried, whether _catholic_, or _particular_. It is more difficult for a native to bring to that standard the manners of his own nation, familiarized to him by habit. There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to his worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor patriae of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labour for another: in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavours to the evanishment of the human race, or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With the morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest. -- But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm

Poppycock? How so?

Evil Homer

You write very well for someone your age. No one writes well without reading alot, so I'll take that as a given. I'm wondering if you've had good teachers or if you've worked at it or maybe even if you have talent. What gives?

Thanks!
Well, you're right, I do read a lot, but as for my writing, it seems that words and I just get along. It's really really really really....good.:thumbs:

Poppycock? How so?You first, Mr. Balderdash!

You first, Mr. Balderdash!
:(

Very well, I was just referring on the "No one writes well without reading alot" comment, and just prodding you. :D

Alrighty then.

I suppose you have examples of poorly-read good writers?

I suppose you have examples of poorly-read good writers?

I don't suppose I do, but I'd challenge the notion that one must be well-read to be eloquent and expressive. In any case, I'm sorry for "jacking" your thread, Homer. I'll stop now. ;)

Tryin to think of things to say for part 2.

In the mean time:

What's your favorite kind of cookie?

In our house, chocolate chip cookies are a food staple. My wife bakes lots of other kinds. One of her best is made of 2 peanut butter w/chocolate chip halves pressed together with chocolate frosting. Her strawberry cookies are also outstanding.

I stated in the previous paragraph several forms of pressure which can be applied in certain situations. Another term for this would be instruments of national power. National power is given by the formula W(P+I+E+M)

P- Political Power. This would encompass diplomacy, agreements between nations, the number of allies a nation posesses, and short term and long term coalitions.
I-Information Power. This includes control of the the media, public opinion, intelligence technology, various intelligence gathering abilities, the ability to withhold damaging/unfavorable information, covert action, espionage, or psychological warfare.
E- Economic Power. This is based on trade, foreign aid, sanctions and embargos, and Most Favored Nation status. It also includes the national economy, industrial power, natural resources, and standard of living.
M- Military Power. Pretty self-explanitory. How able you are to blow shit up.
W- Will. The most important factor. This is how strong the people's support is with the government. This is the only instrument which is purely domestic.

I would fine-tune this a little bit. There should be a hierarchy of sorts to your variables. Military power, for example, is derived from economic power while political power is derived from both. Informational power is more a function of your political system, quite different in a democracy than in a totalitarian state. And how you measure the effect of the internet I have no idea. I agree that Will is a multiplier. Zero will negates all other factors while tremendous will, like that of the Russian people during WWII, can achieve fantastic results. General George C. Marshall was of the opinion that democracies are ill-suited to fighting lengthy wars for precisely this reason.

You sure that wasn't George C. Scott?

It wasn't. General Karl Malden told him to stuff it before his big mouth got him into more trouble.

General Karl Malden

LOL, one of my favorite films.

"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Ok, Round 2:

Nations behave oddly given the fact that even though they are tools of men, they behave more in the manner of beasts. Tapping into the ideas of Hobbes and Locke and the "Social Contract", it can be seen that no one individual or group can control it. While a ruler can control the direction of a nation, this is only under the condition that the ruler's direction does not interfere with national harmony. If that happens, the people rise up and reorganize to find a ruler who will agree with the nation. We are all both pawns and players at the same time.

If this idea is accepted, then it would seem idiotic to criticize a power for acting in it's own self interests. After all, it is just acting upon the instinct of survival, a necessary trait found in any sucessful organism.

As it was astutely pointed out earlier in this thread, nations do not always act in their self interest, but rather, what they percieve to be in their self interest. This statement comes with the obvious conclusion that nations are often wrong in their assumptions and decisions and must face the detremential consequences. But what does this all mean?

I see this as merely the byproduct of macroscopic evolution. This evolution is no longer physical, but intellectual. Starting from the very birth of civilization, groups of people have gathered together, much like cells/bacteria, for the purpose of survival into governing bodies. Over time these bodies grew larger and more complex. Also over time, these bodies have seen their downfall and gone extinct only to give rise to a different form. This is what the Darwinists call Punctuated Equilibrium. As long as a system of government works, it will continue in its current form until that form no longer functions properly. Then, due to a rapid change in the enviroment, in this case, characterized by either war or revolution, new forms previously dormant will thrive.

This evolutionary timeline can be seen as follows: Individuals band together to form tribes. Numerous tribes grow and thrive until they become too concentrated to exist peacefully. Warring among the tribes will lead to two branches; a confederation/alliance or one tribe rising above and dominating the others. As it happens, both of these lead to the same end as the confederation will either splinter or form into one body.

This leads us to the age of Religious Dynasties. These proved to be powerful and effective for thousands of years among several empires. While it should be noted that Ancient Greece did posess a state with a republic, in no sense was it strong enough to be a major world power. The time had not yet arrived for democracies and republics. Also worthy of note is Rome under Agustus Caesar. Prior to him the senate ruled, but had been failing miserably. Under Agustus, the Senate still existed, but it was pretty much a tiger with no teeth; a front of democracy. At this point, a strong dictator was needed to effectively lead the endless conquest for glory and to quickly shape the empire in question.

This proceded for a while and was universally accepted as the most effective mode of governing from Ancient Egypt to Post-Renaissance Europe. However, with the Individualist movement and the intellectual revolution following the Renaissance, new ideas began to form as to the nature of government. At the time, the positions of the European powers remained fairly stable. While warfare was a constant reality, under the monarchs, none of the nations ever really gained a dominant hand over the others. But this is a digression.

New political thinking placed more emphasis on the individual and on the people as opposed to monarchs and religions. The Death Of God spawned The Birth Of Man. While France experienced the power of the people most intensely, the result of the English revolution was much more lasting. The results of the English transformation were from a Monarch and an aristocratic parliament to a hybrid government where power was split among all of the different parties.

This brings us to America and the gradual formation of a truely democratic society. I say gradual, for it was not until the 1900's that everyone was able to vote regardless of either race or sex. Still, worldwide, there was a split in forms. First, when the US started up, the world was still made of monarchs. Then there was the rise of fascism and communism which were ultimately defeated. Today, there are new conflicts developing. The major stems now are Democracy, represented by the US, Communism, represented by China, and the bodiless Fundementalism. While all of these seem completely different, they share the common trait in that they do not depend upon one single person to survive. Presidents are replaced, as far as I know, there is no clear "master ruler" of China, and the unifying force of Islam has transcended the political bounderies to become a sort of poltergeist of the world order.

So, the question remains, What caused this evolution of government? Some will contend that it would be military power, technological advancements, or even simply an increase in population. I grant that all of these did play significant roles, but I believe that the main catalyst is information. Each major shift can correspond with an expansion of information and/or a new and more effective method of distribution. Just look at the development of all of the protestant sects of Christianity. None of this would have been possible without the advent of movable printed type. In today's increasingly interconnected electronic world, ideas travel and are synchronised at unbelievable speeds. More now than ever has the world become a living, breathing, and most of all, unpredictable creature. This ability to create, express, and understand deeper and more complex abstracts is the lifeblood of political change. While this may be far-fetched to most, I see the future as one where every person is inextricably linked with every other person in the world. This collectivism will eventually spread all out to form one "hive mind" of human consiousness.

Just my 3 cents.

Take a Penny, Leave a Penny...

Edit: Whoo! Post #1000!

Well, Homer, I think the first democracy was recorded in the Bible in the book of Judges - that didn't work either. I think what's right in one persons' mind is not always right in another persons' mind. I've been reading 'making a good brain Great'. Tis an eyeopener!!!!

While a ruler can control the direction of a nation, this is only under the condition that the ruler's direction does not interfere with national harmony.

A rule that has some notable exceptions, men whom Hegel would call 'world-historical souls'. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte - all are characterized by their apparent ability to transcend 'national harmony' and impose their will upon it. Abraham Lincoln, it could be argued, is a 'world historical soul', though not perhaps in the Hegelian sense.

I see this as merely the byproduct of macroscopic evolution. This evolution is no longer physical, but intellectual. Starting from the very birth of civilization, groups of people have gathered together, much like cells/bacteria, for the purpose of survival into governing bodies. Over time these bodies grew larger and more complex. Also over time, these bodies have seen their downfall and gone extinct only to give rise to a different form. This is what the Darwinists call Punctuated Equilibrium. As long as a system of government works, it will continue in its current form until that form no longer functions properly. Then, due to a rapid change in the enviroment, in this case, characterized by either war or revolution, new forms previously dormant will thrive.

Tolstoy, rejecting the ideas of Hegel, thought that if calculus were the mathematics of physics, then so too should history have a mathematical description. Unable to clearly formulate this 'calculus of history', he settled for a deterministic view of history. Napoleon was not a 'world historical soul' but rather an opportunist who rode the crest of events he could not control. The destruction of Le Grande Armée on the steppes of Russia was the result of inevitable historical forces, a kind of Newtonian reaction to previous actions. Kutuzov was the better general because he understood this, and Napoleon a fool to think otherwise.

From what you have written so far I'm inclined to think you agree more with Tolstoy than Hegel. Your idea that governments can be mathematically defined and that history is a kind of macroscopic evolution place you more in the determinist school of thought than those who espouse free will. And while there is no question that governments evolve through an historical timescape I would caution you not to underestimate the tremendous influence that individuals can exert on the historical process. In his book The Duel, historian John Lukacs explores the mental states and perceptions of Churchill and Hitler during the summer of 1940, and argues persuasively that the thoughts and actions of these two men in those crucial days had greater effect on the subsequent course of the Twentieth Century than any other set of circumstances or events one can name. He makes an observation that stands out in my mind:

"All this gives the lie to the determinist and social-scientific (and, at least in one sense, democratic) philosophy of the modern world, according to which history is 'made' by material conditions and institutions and their organization, and no longer formed by the thoughts, words, and actions (in sum, by the character: itself an old-fashioned word, eschewed by political scientists and sociologists) of outstanding men."

Also worthy of note is Rome under Agustus Caesar. Prior to him the senate ruled, but had been failing miserably. Under Agustus, the Senate still existed, but it was pretty much a tiger with no teeth; a front of democracy.

Just to nit-pick here, the Roman Senate was never 'a front of democracy' and would have been universally aghast at your accusation.

Presidents are replaced, as far as I know, there is no clear "master ruler" of China, and the unifying force of Islam has transcended the political bounderies to become a sort of poltergeist of the world order.

'Poltergeist of the world order!' I'll borrow that sometime, if I may.

So, the question remains, What caused this evolution of government? Some will contend that it would be military power, technological advancements, or even simply an increase in population. I grant that all of these did play significant roles, but I believe that the main catalyst is information. Each major shift can correspond with an expansion of information and/or a new and more effective method of distribution. Just look at the development of all of the protestant sects of Christianity. None of this would have been possible without the advent of movable printed type. In today's increasingly interconnected electronic world, ideas travel and are synchronised at unbelievable speeds. More now than ever has the world become a living, breathing, and most of all, unpredictable creature. This ability to create, express, and understand deeper and more complex abstracts is the lifeblood of political change. While this may be far-fetched to most, I see the future as one where every person is inextricably linked with every other person in the world. This collectivism will eventually spread all out to form one "hive mind" of human consiousness.

You may be right. I was watching '60 Minutes' the other night and they did a story about this Silicon Valley couple who multi-tasked to an extreme. Two cell-phones apiece, blackberries, lap-tops - they'd IM each other if they were in seperate rooms of their house. I found myself thinking "Just implant the brain-chip already and be done with it!". Kids today seemingly cannot function without their cell-phones and it's only a matter of time before the always-online society emerges. Whether this enhances or subordinates the individual remains to be seen.

Asimov, BTW, thought individuals to be unpredictable, groups more predictable, and large populations to be the most predictable.

A rule that has some notable exceptions, men whom Hegel would call 'world-historical souls'. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte - all are characterized by their apparent ability to transcend 'national harmony' and impose their will upon it. Abraham Lincoln, it could be argued, is a 'world historical soul', though not perhaps in the Hegelian sense.

Tolstoy, rejecting the ideas of Hegel, thought that if calculus were the mathematics of physics, then so too should history have a mathematical description. Unable to clearly formulate this 'calculus of history', he settled for a deterministic view of history. Napoleon was not a 'world historical soul' but rather an opportunist who rode the crest of events he could not control. The destruction of Le Grande Armée on the steppes of Russia was the result of inevitable historical forces, a kind of Newtonian reaction to previous actions. Kutuzov was the better general because he understood this, and Napoleon a fool to think otherwise.

From what you have written so far I'm inclined to think you agree more with Tolstoy than Hegel. Your idea that governments can be mathematically defined and that history is a kind of macroscopic evolution place you more in the determinist school of thought than those who espouse free will. And while there is no question that governments evolve through an historical timescape I would caution you not to underestimate the tremendous influence that individuals can exert on the historical process. In his book The Duel, historian John Lukacs explores the mental states and perceptions of Churchill and Hitler during the summer of 1940, and argues persuasively that the thoughts and actions of these two men in those crucial days had greater effect on the subsequent course of the Twentieth Century than any other set of circumstances or events one can name. He makes an observation that stands out in my mind:

"All this gives the lie to the determinist and social-scientific (and, at least in one sense, democratic) philosophy of the modern world, according to which history is 'made' by material conditions and institutions and their organization, and no longer formed by the thoughts, words, and actions (in sum, by the character: itself an old-fashioned word, eschewed by political scientists and sociologists) of outstanding men."

Just to nit-pick here, the Roman Senate was never 'a front of democracy' and would have been universally aghast at your accusation.


'Poltergeist of the world order!' I'll borrow that sometime, if I may.

You may be right. I was watching '60 Minutes' the other night and they did a story about this Silicon Valley couple who multi-tasked to an extreme. Two cell-phones apiece, blackberries, lap-tops - they'd IM each other if they were in seperate rooms of their house. I found myself thinking "Just implant the brain-chip already and be done with it!". Kids today seemingly cannot function without their cell-phones and it's only a matter of time before the always-online society emerges. Whether this enhances or subordinates the individual remains to be seen.

Asimov, BTW, thought individuals to be unpredictable, groups more predictable, and large populations to be the most predictable.


I would disagree on the point of those historical figures as being able to transcend national harmony. All of those people were unifyers and forged their respective nations into mighty empires, and Abe Lincoln dedicated himself to preserving national harmony. That was the whole point of all of his actions prior to and even during the Civil War.

On the point of Agustus Caesar: Yes, I did exaggerate my point as to say the senate was totally innefectual, but honestly, who do you think really had the power in the government? Who would the people follow?

Now, I haven't read much on either Tolstoy or Hegel, but from what you have described of their philosophies, yes, I would definately be in line with Tolstoy. However, I don't see the universe as formulaic as that. I see progress as the massed result of a long and broad series of random occurences. It's kinda disquieting to think that everything has already been planned out for us... On the subject of literature, do you have any recommendations?

Yes, by all means, you are welcome to use it.

Finally, large groups of people are always the easiest to predict. Each individual is complex and unique and has limitless potential. However, in a group, that individuality is curbed to fit in with a mob mentality. This uniformity brings people back to a primal level where the most likely actions are those that are based upon fear, rage, and basic survival. Pessimistic? Yes. But it's pretty well known that when a large group of people gather together with no distinctive leader, bad things tend start happening...

Just my 3 cents.

On the subject of literature, do you have any recommendations?Tough question. I'll just throw out a few you might like.

The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. The atheist bitch trashes socialism.

Down and out in Paris and London by George Orwell. He argues in favor of human decency.

One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey. The great American novel.

The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Cool aliens.

Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter. Very thought-provoking.

The Education of a Poker Player by Herbert O. Yardley. Not very well-written but you'll never go hungry.

All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarche. Best war novel ever.

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess. Poor little Alex.

I could go on forever. Science fiction is my favorite genre. I've read everything by Heinlein, and like Starship Troopers, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Time Enough for Love the best. Believe it or not L. Ron Hubbard has written more than a few worthwhile books, Battlefield Earth (infinitely better than the movie) and The Lieutenant among them. Orson Scott Card is probably the first successful sci-fi writer who is also a truly great writer. Try his Alvin Maker or Ender's Game series. Lots of other good ones.

Mainstream writers that I like include Larry McMurtry, E. L. Doctorow, Tom Clancy and (again, believe it or not) Stephen King. Colleen McCollough has completed her series on Ancient Rome - she put over twenty years of research into it and it shows (Robert Graves' I Claudius and Claudius the God are still the best, though). Of the Russians my favorites are Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.

I'll stop now while I still can.

I'll stop now while I still can.

Phew, we're saved children! What's your discord with Mrs. Rand about?

I've read The Fountainhead, One Flew Over The Cukoo's Nest, A Clockwork Orange, All Quiet on the Western Front, and The Ender's Game series. All pretty good. However, I was wondering for your suggestions of works by Tolstoy and Hegel...

The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Cool aliens.


A truly excellent story. Worth reading many times. Sorry for butting in, Homer. Nice thread.

Phew, we're saved children! What's your discord with Mrs. Rand about?I recommended her, didn't I?

Seriously, though, she's a very good writer and I consider The Fountainhead to be an important work. My problem with her is that too many readers (especially young ones) uncritically accept her simplistic view of the world. Most outgrow her thinking as they acquire real-world experience but some never do and grow up to be Libertarians! I think of her more as a stepping-stone on the path to political awareness rather than a be-all-to-end-all. That's why I think a shot of Rand is best taken with a chaser of Orwell.

I've read The Fountainhead, One Flew Over The Cukoo's Nest, A Clockwork Orange, All Quiet on the Western Front, and The Ender's Game series. All pretty good. However, I was wondering for your suggestions of works by Tolstoy and Hegel...My appreciation of Tolstoy grew as my understanding of Russian history progressed. I didn't really get very much out of War and Peace the first time I read it. A class on 19th Century Russia made a huge difference. I learned that Tolstoy did not originally intend to write the novel; he had wanted to write about the Decembrist Revolt instead. His research into the causes of the revolt made him realize that a prologue was necessary. That became War and Peace and it's sequel, The Decembrists, was never written. With the historical framework in mind, the novel revealed more layers of meaning to me and I became a fan. I've since read it several more times, as well as Anna Karenina and The Death of Ivan Ilyich. This last I'll have to try again someday as I still don't think I get it.

As for Hegel, I've only read his The Philosophy of History. Again, a class on 19th Century German Philosophy was responsible. Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Shopenhauer and Marx. Glad I did it, but I can't say it was much fun.

With my thoughts now down on e-paper, I'd like to pose some questions to all of you. First off, why do you think certain systems of government were successful when others were not? In other words, Why choose ________?

Second, what would you think was the trigger for these periods of reconstruction? I know it didn't just happen overnight, but what really caused everybody to become so disillusioned?

Finally, even though this is very open-ended, what is your vision for the future of government, assuming that democracy is now on the decline?

With my thoughts now down on e-paper, I'd like to pose some questions to all of you. First off, why do you think certain systems of government were successful when others were not? In other words, Why choose _______'democracy'________? 'Because we can choose to do right or we can choose to do wrong - we're not forced to do either. At least until we're caught.'

Second, what would you think was the trigger for these periods of reconstruction? I know it didn't just happen overnight, but what really caused everybody to become so disillusioned? 'What reconstruction are you talking about?'

Finally, even though this is very open-ended, what is your vision for the future of government, assuming that democracy is now on the decline? 'I don't think democracy is on the decline - I think our society is.'

With my thoughts now down on e-paper, I'd like to pose some questions to all of you. First off, why do you think certain systems of government were successful when others were not? In other words, Why choose ________?

I think for the most part governments that allow humans to be humans are the most successful. Men don't like to be governed, we simply recognize its neccessity. The best government is the smallest one that can get the job done with the least amount of interference in people's lives.


Second, what would you think was the trigger for these periods of reconstruction? I know it didn't just happen overnight, but what really caused everybody to become so disillusioned?

Social change happens for a great many reasons. Economic crises, mass migrations caused by political upheavals or even natural disasters are some of the causes. I doubt there is a single cause for the evolution of political thought, or even the sudden revolutionary changes we occasionally see.


Finally, even though this is very open-ended, what is your vision for the future of government, assuming that democracy is now on the decline?

I don't see democracy declining so much as evolving to meet our needs in the future. As we become more educated as a species, I can't see humanity embracing less participation in government. At least not willingly.

'I don't think democracy is on the decline - I think our society is.'

Two questions. :)

Why do you think this is true?

And.

Is this based on your political views, or your religious beliefs?

Two questions. :)

Why do you think this is true?

And.

Is this based on your political views, or your religious beliefs?

I think our democracy works for us because we as a people are becoming more aware of what goes on in high places because the media is free to tell us and we can decide to elect someone else and we can get lots of info on the candidates from lots of different places. I do think the federal government is getting too big though and I don't think we're learning/gaining from history what we truly ought to be. It's not necessarily based on politics or my religious beliefs but more on common sense. It just makes sense to do what's right for mankind and not just self. Do you watch the news? There's just lots of indications that people are becoming degraded/resorting to violence. I'm sure this has gone on for ages but it seems more people are becoming more violent. Too much stress/mental disturbances. Capitalism has a lot to do with that, I think, but many mental problems are coming to the fore. :drive:

I think that while perhaps the practice of democracy is not declining, the ideal is. Democracy starts to break down as soon as people realize they can vote themselves money. People don't act on what's best for mankind, they act on what's best for themselves.

First off, why do you think certain systems of government were successful when others were not? In other words, Why choose ________?Here's one of my favorite quotes from Orwell:

Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.

For the most part I agree with this. I have trouble with the 'planned economy' because historically these economies perform poorly. However, I very much agree with the restoration of right and wrong, and above all, decency to politics. I think this is best achieved by a social democracy guarded by a free press. Socialism in a free society should be built from the bottom-up through educational opportunity, universal health care and retirement pensions. But it should never advance to the point where the incentive of profit is taken from business and individuals. Government participation in the market is not, as some believe, a necessarily evil thing. Japan is a good example of how government and business can co-operate effectively. Similarly, the market can not be trusted to regulate itself anent environmental issues or long-term energy policy.

In Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers he postulates a future society wherein only veterans and those who have performed equivalent public service are given the franchise. This hypothetical society proves to be very stable. When asked to explain why this is so, the protagonist struggles with the answer. Is it because veterans are smarter? Is it that they are willing to sacrifice? No and no, he is told by his instructor (in History and Moral Philosophy!) the reason is more simple: it works. Heinlein's point, of course, is that any arbitrary number of government forms can be imagined and implemented, but only those that work will survive.
Second, what would you think was the trigger for these periods of reconstruction? I know it didn't just happen overnight, but what really caused everybody to become so disillusioned?In chemistry class you have probably done the titration experiment, where one drop past the saturation point turns the previously clear solution in your beaker red. I like this as an analogy for revolution because while the change appears sudden, we know the causes for the change have accumulated over time. Invariably, revolutions stem from root economic causes. They manifest themselves along pre-defined cultural proclivities and may have religious overtones, but at the end of the day it is one group taking wealth and/or power away from another. Again, I would stress the role of the individual in the historical process. Marx, for example, thought that the communist revolution (when it came) would be a spontaneous reaction to the injustices inherent in capitalism and that therefore it would occur in England, the most capitalist of nations. Lenin, however, correctly saw that the chaos of WWI had created in Russia a golden opportunity to manufacture a revolution. I find it ironic that Marxism, essentially a determinist philosophy, needed an Hegelian 'world historical soul' to bring about it's physical incarnation as communist Russia.Finally, even though this is very open-ended, what is your vision for the future of government, assuming that democracy is now on the decline?I am very optimistic that the internet will serve the interests of protecting individual freedoms in the future. Our 'free press', which has so often been marginalized in the past by powerful interests, is undergoing a massive revolution even as we debate here. I think the unfettered dissemination of information throughout the world may be what saves us from ourselves in the end. As for what form a future government takes I really don't know. It will have to be one that works, or we'll all be history.

Actually, that hypothetical society existed in ancient Sparta. The government was very stable because all of the participants fully realized the consequences of their actions, having lived through them themselves. However, their society was very unstable due to the disproportionately high population of helot slaves. Most of their energies were thus directed towards keeping strict control of the masses.

I don't know guys - our democratic society has turned to capitalism very strongly. This should not be a dog eat dog and the dog with the most money wins, country. I really think the tax system should be changed. Rent paid should be taken off your gross income - interest paid should be taken off your gross income - those two should be considered as wages paid. We're supporting other folks.

I think that while perhaps the practice of democracy is not declining, the ideal is. Democracy starts to break down as soon as people realize they can vote themselves money. People don't act on what's best for mankind, they act on what's best for themselves.
Truer words have never been spoken.

PAC money comes to mind.

People don't act on what's best for mankind, they act on what's best for themselves.

Ironically, by acting in there own self-interest these people may be doing what's best for mankind.

How do you figure?

Correction, by acting in their own self-interest they do what's best for the majority (and often the minority) of mankind. Remember, there can't be winners without losers.

Prae, the only one who knows best for a person is that person themself. Telling people to focus on others to the exclusion of pursuing their own happiness contributes to general unhappiness. If what makes a person happy is helping others, they are going to find that out eventually. That is what makes me happy, incidentally.

Prae, the only one who knows best for a person is that person themself. Telling people to focus on others to the exclusion of pursuing their own happiness contributes to general unhappiness. If what makes a person happy is helping others, they are going to find that out eventually. That is what makes me happy, incidentally.
I would say that when it comes down to the individual, you're right, but nonetheless, you've missed my point. When politicians pander for votes to the detriment of our country, they're not making our "life" any better. Quite the contrary, actually. If you're on the board of directors at a large public firm, and you own a company that sells business widgets, you're typically forced to abstain from voting on business widgets because there's a conflict of interest that arises due to your "elected" position there. This dynamic is entirely absent in congress because of PAC money, them voting on their own pay raises, and illegal immigration. In essence, they're voting to fuck us so they can gain power, money, and influence.

Yes. Politicians act in their own best interest. That is the whole nature of the political game. It comes down to this. Ruling a country is fucking hard. Few people actually have the inclination to do it properly. I sure as fuck don't. So we have to find people to do it for us. Being that our society rewards "go-getters" more than people who can stop and think and act in everyone's best interest, those are the people who society will reward with the positions they want. It all comes down to a broken society. Our entire society is based around zero-sum game thinking.

Zero-sum games are games in which somebody wins and somebody loses. One person wins an election, the other person loses. And he loses everything. That very fact is what limits participation in politics to those more likely to do everything it takes to win. Because people aren't going to waste time and money on losers. Lot's of great people are turned off to politics by that very reason.

Until society itself changes its focus, the political players will continue to be the ones who are the least caring about doing the job right.