> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Erik Reuter [snip] > Actually, I believe I caught the point fully. You don't seem to grasp > the argument I am making. If Fukuyama can't conceive of an alternative, > HAVING THE FULL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE BASE TO DRAW UPON, then that is a strong > argument for liberal capitalist democracy being the ultimate, best > system. If Fukuyama uses the (to me) strange term "end of history" to > say that there won't be a significantly different system than liberal > capitalist democracy in the future, then there is a strong case that he > is right. I am having trouble imaging why one would choose to adopt this belief. It seems useful only to close one's mind to future possibilities and as ammunition with which to insist that the rest of the world must adopt the "ultimate, best system" or cease to exist. There's a word for the idea that the "ultimate, best system" is known and insisting that others embrace it -- fundamentalism. As Gautam pointed out, it's not a very nice label to apply to anyone these days, but it fits, completely. Every fundamentalist assumes that if his or her set of rules were fully adopted and implemented throughout the world, the world would be as good a place as it will ever become. No matter how well-dressed in intellectual arguments it might be, such thinking is arrogant and close-minded in the extreme... yet terribly seductive, since it offers a simple, "fundamental" explanation, while excusing one from the challenge to continually reinvent society and further understand the nature of things. For myself, I imagine that humanity can achieve even greater liberty than the revolution of 1776 created. I am not so sure if that will happen peacefully or not; I doubt it will make much progress in my lifetime. The Internet itself screams this to me, as it operates largely outside of established politics and economics, fitting into no historically established model of organization and regulation. It is neither democratic, communist, totalitarian or anything else invented by humans. I'm not saying that it is clear what this implies, but it is a strong hint that its underlying principles of self-organization and decentralization have broad implications. Nick
