I think here's the variable causing the conflicting answers. Look what we are doing right now and the advantage it gives us. Hindsight is 20/20, especially with computers. Of course the choices of history WERE limited to those who lived it, but one of the main reasons was lack of information and communications technologies. Is the question "what would you have chosen, had you had the knowledge you have now", or "what would you have chosen, had you only had the best knowledge of the time"? And even then, what are the chances you would have had the best knowledge of the time? VERY SLIM indeed, I imagine. In other words, are "you" going back in time as yourself with your current knowledge, or going back in time as a person/brain/knowledge of the time? Big difference! The biggest limitation on any choice is what you know.
-Mark +++++++++++++++++++ On 1/19/07, David Macko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In real world in 1788, NOTA was not an option for the American people I think the choices you presented: "Would you have rather been ruled by the British, French or Spanish monarchies or the merciless Indian savages?" vs US federalized government were not the only choices at that time. In fact, many Amricans lived fairly free until Washington crushed them in the Whiskey rebellion (damn that Alexander Hamilton!!!) > ... > We will never restore liberty until we can successfully cope with reality. I take your point, and I agree, but not in the way I think you mean it. Think of this: facing the cold, savages may have only had the 'realitistic' choices of 'huddle in the cave, freeze, or wrap yourself in animal skins'. But some thought of more choices - and learned to control fire. Some thought of other choices - and learned to make cloth. Humans shape our own realities. We will never be really free until we can envision freedom in the way that the first savage to control fire envisioned a hearth and a firepit and fuel and the other things and skills neccessary to maintain fire safely. Our job - one of our jobs - is to help people look beyond the obvious 'realistic' choices to a deeper realism - the one man creates for himself. > This in no way implies that we should not have and > continue to promote ideals as you are doing quite well. Thank you, David. I enjoy your comments, and appreciate that you can have a heated discussion without becoming angry. -- Susan Hogarth http://www.colliething.com
