Mary > The problem with it, of course, is that it doesn't make provision > for limiting or satisfying basic greed or territoriality in human nature. > The weakness of every social level construct we've been able to think up is > an inability to adequately address basic biological level motivations.
Exactly. Intellectual theories about governing societies do not understand "human nature" very well. Of course individually we're not much better. I think on the Western side we could trace this all back to this dualism. > Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning "equal"), has two > distinct definitions in modern English.[1] It is defined either as a political > doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the > same political, economic, social, and civil rights[2] or as a social > philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people. And this in course can be traced "Romantic Primitivism" the reaction to the angst created when Europe made contact with "Noble Savages" particularly in the "New World." In the wake as all the new intellectual forms of governance emerged we find: Democracy accepts the first half of definition, rejecting the second. Socialism rejects the first half, accepts second, imposes it and finds out that in the end they get neither. Fascism can't make it's mind up. It accepts a little of both, decides it's neighbors don't get it, without warning attacks them, and get's it's ass handed to it. But not without a lot of suffering by a lot of innocent people. Many of them their own. Ungovernly Your, Dave Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
