Political Evolution: Which direction will it take?

At one time the world was largely dominated by royal caste systems, with emperors, kings, princes, and so on, ruling over lesser mortals called serfs or commoners. The Magna Carta of 1215, a document forced upon King John of England by a group of barons, may be the first recognized limitation of the powers of royalty, eventually leading to the parliamentary system. Today, according to Wikipedia, only Saudi Arabia, Oman, Swaziland, and Brunei, are governed by absolute monarchies in which the king has the final word on everything.
Absolute monarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remnants of royal caste systems also exist in most militaries and in some corporations in which commissioned officers versus enlisted men, and management versus labor, correspond to royalty versus commoner; however many organizations are moving away from this to more integrated workforces.

As the power of royalty diminished over the centuries, so did the size of the governed lands. Vast areas of the Roman, British, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Japanese, and other empires devolved into smaller kingdoms. The American Revolution, in which some North Americans revolted against the British Empire, may be the first revolution which did not go on to establish a new royalty headed by a king. Later, the royal caste systems in France, South America, and Russia, among others, fell, and the remains of most colonial empires dissolved in the 1950’s after WW II when such countries as India and Vietnam gained their independence.

Human politics is seemingly at a crossroad now. On one hand we have seen a continual increase in individual liberties among which are the emancipation of slaves, women, and gays; and world-wide there is generally more freedom to speak and write than ever before, extending now into the Middle East with the emergence of the Arab Spring. Technology has given people the world over the ability to rapidly communicate with others despite the efforts of some established political powers to restrict and censor the web.

On the other hand, technology has produced such things as security cameras, electronic eavesdropping, and killer drone aircraft, which have given nation states more potential power over individuals than ever before, invoking the scary scenarios generated by such works as Animal Farm, Brave New World, and 1984. Incongruously, individuals seem to have more liberty, while at the same time there seem to be more and more cumbersome authoritarian restrictions on what and where one can build, create, ingest, smoke, and what credentials are necessary to cross borders, or work in certain fields- medicine being a prime example.

Is the world headed toward totalitarianism, where a person’s every action will be controlled by Big Brother, or are we headed in just the opposite direction, where governments will continue to decline from empires to kingdoms to sovereign democracies, and then to individual sovereignty, where no one will be forced to pledge allegiance to Big Brother or to nation-state; where we will evolve from slave, serf, subject, and citizen, to sovereign individual; where no one in the world will claim the authority to prevent anyone else from smoking what they want to, defend themselves with what weapons they want to, or to travel and work anywhere in the world they want to?

As long as we keep voting for politicians who want more big government then government will get bigger, and with big government we will get more usurpations into our private lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

As long as we keep voting for politicians who want more big government then government will get bigger, and with big government we will get more usurpations into our private lives.

---

Yes, I agree. It seems that is what is most likely to happen here in the US, and that the only way it will fail to happen is if Big Brother goes bankrupt first.

An interesting question, the argument over government is a tough one, for without it anarchy reigns and sometimes with it comes enormous waste or corruption. Our system of elections and limits may just be the best possible as man is no angel. Consider a few recent events such as the Madoff scandal or the real-estate collapse as times when some sort of regulatory and oversight is required, and then think who would do it? Can these things be controlled internally if no external watchdog exists?

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Palven

Human politics is seemingly at a crossroad now. On one hand we have seen a continual increase in individual liberties among which are the emancipation of slaves, women, and gays; and world-wide there is generally more freedom to speak and write than ever before, extending now into the Middle East with the emergence of the Arab Spring. Technology has given people the world over ....

---

Very interesting thread Tom! Emancipation of private slavery is several generations old. Consider the measurable of government size as a % of GDP. Speaking and writing are trivial in comparison to the growth of government, which amounts to public slavery. Sure, sure, we are moving away from demographic discrimination (Black slaves, women, gays) but with the size of government no one has financial freedom - and not being the sole beneficiary of one's labor is what makes one a slave.

Read the Circle of Freedom, Fate of Empires by Sir John Glubb, and The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler. The crossroads is at the size of government relative to GDP. I recommend no more than 10%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midcan5

An interesting question, the argument over government is a tough one, for without it anarchy reigns and sometimes with it comes enormous waste or corruption. Our system of elections and limits may just be the best possible as man is no angel. Consider a few recent events such as the Madoff scandal or the real-estate collapse as times when some sort of regulatory and oversight is required, and then think who would do it? Can these things be controlled internally if no external watchdog exists?

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

---

Love that exit address ... it speaks to commonalities and benefits of union. Local discrimination's to be discarded have been replaced by nationwide attacks on the prosperity of the nation and peoples of the country by the government itself and a few vested interests. The touted benefits of union being siphoned by a few. Not so strange for Washington to think that what should disturb the union would be regional for his time ... he could not have anticipated a government attack on prosperity of its own nation and peoples.

With anarchy comes pain and suffering ... with government comes pain and suffering and no anarchy.

People are blinded by partisanship. You know that you are too partisan when your loyalty to your political party takes precedence over your loyalty to your country. In his farewell address, George Washington (who is considered the father of our country) advised against political parties. The rest of our so-called "founding fathers" had no hesitation to choosing sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

As long as we keep voting for politicians who want more big government then government will get bigger, and with big government we will get more usurpations into our private lives.

---

While that may be true now I don't think big government necessarily leads to them digging into your private life.
I think a government could have lots of healthcare, social spending and maybe also a large military but still have all the protections people expect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nemo

People are blinded by partisanship. You know that you are too partisan when your loyalty to your political party takes precedence over your loyalty to your country. In his farewell address, George Washington (who is considered the father of our country) advised against political parties. The rest of our so-called "founding fathers" had no hesitation to choosing sides.

---

Did Mr Washington say what his preferred alternative to political parties was?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

Did Mr Washington say what his preferred alternative to political parties was?

---

He was a fan of a one party state.

Isn't that a little communistic for a vaunted US historical figure?

I cannot help but laugh whenever someone resurrects the "founding fathers" for some improbable thesis in a vain effort to rewrite our history. (The “Tea Party” activists come to mind.) Our so-called founding fathers, when viewed candidly, were colorful enough characters without our adding varnish to them. Franklin, who is considered to be the "First American" came close to forsaking hearth and home for England. Even Jefferson, with all his slaves (he owned over 600 during his lifetime), was hardly the egalitarian we would have him be; and despite the efforts of modern-day Christians to convert him, in truth he was a deist, who had no qualms about revising the Bible to suit himself. See The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (1820). The "times that try men’s souls" bring out firebrands like Paine; who, if he was not a founding father, was certainly the midwife of American independence, and abetter to the overthrow of the French monarchy as well. Like Jesus, we would not be able to stand him. (Indeed, Paine was such a pain in the arse that he managed to make himself persona non grata in England, America and France!) Our perception of these characters is clouded by the dark glass of history, and distorted by attributions that represent so much wishful (rather than critical) thinking. It is like crediting Rembrandt’s paintings with depth of hue when their darkness is due to his having used cheap paint.