Even if we were the "best", and we aren't (just look at other first-world countries like Canada, Sweden, Amsterdam), there is nothing wrong with citing the horrible corruption and saying that it must be fixed. That kind of attitude halts evolutionary development among human beings. It's like a prisoner given a loaf of bread, and the other immates say "Well, at least it isn't moldy bread." Just because it's the "best" doesn't mean it's "good".
There are countries that are bad, many countries that are bad. However, it seems like their example is dragging us down. I call this the Could Be Worse (CBW) syndrome. Their example is proof that we shouldn't evolve, in many many Americans' eyes.
Both our military power and our corporate power is corrupting everything else. This is true. The US shouldn't be given this much power. No country should be given this much power. (What if one of those nasty fundamentalist governments has all of the power? Would you like it if Iran had all of the power?) When a UN operation goes down, it shouldn't compose of mostly US troops.
It's arguable on whether a nation that would put more money into education would affect the way the public votes, but it would definately help. Trying to downside the military and corporate power is a good start for that to happen. However, it's a paradox, since you need smart voters to vote for people who would promote them to be smart. As it is, the voters vote the very people who are keeping them stupid and gullible.
So, it's a downward spiral of ignorance and corruption, which begets more ignorance and corruption. Part of the problem is feeding into public greed, claiming for example that taxes are bad, you deserve that money, as if those taxes aren't doing anything. People seem to eat up tax cuts, no matter how much it is, how much is given to the rich, and what programs are cut. Other greed factors are the stock market ("Who cares what they do? As long as the numbers go up, I'm happy!"), and the climb to be "successful" and wealthy (Paraphrasing Chris Rock: "In order to become weathly, you have to do something immoral and evil to get that far.").
There is also the apathy factor, something that dominates a majority of our population, that destroys the rights of the minority or unpowered. This falls under the categories of blacks, gays, women, poor/middle class, and other smaller minorities that don't even fall in our radar. Remember the lesson of the monkeysphere.
Mental wrote:I'm one of those who thinks that the best sort of government would ultimately be none at all.
Anarchies don't work. They are too unstable, and it's a step in the wrong direction. Governments, communities, and laws are all designed to serve the public. Corporations are designed to serve their own interests. An anarchy is basically a "government" of corporations, where you buy your police protection, fire protection, etc., etc. And that's just basic survival. What about rights of speech or rights of equality? What's to stop somebody from shooting you? Is the police protection going to investigate the case? Could somebody with more money actually trump the police's investigation of your death so that the police corp's CEO can find his missing dog?
No, anarchies don't work because they are a much worse breeding ground for corruption than democracies are. Even a dictatorship is better than an anarchy. It's like going back to the apes. Communities and governments were started to meld some order from the chaos of animalistic instincts. Anarchies are a demostration of absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Mental wrote:The Bush administration can't run a deficit forever, and as the effects pile up, economic and otherwise, there will be more agitation for change.
A bit off-topic, but yes he can. He can run it until his successor takes over and takes the blame. (Just ask his father what Reagan did for him.) In the meantime, he can divert attention and shift the blame on other things. I think that was part of the reason why he invaded some country (any country), so that he could blame the war effort for his economic fuck-ups.
Mental wrote:Democracy was for the wealthy and educated white landowners. What you're advocating is a return to that type of government. It's taken us a long time to get suffrage this far, and I really don't think the right answer is to take a trip 200 years back in time.
I don't believe a test of that type would. I'm not talking about something so exclusive. I just want people who actually know the difference between the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, or people who know that the President and the Commander-In-Chief are the same person. Obviously, if you know information like that, you are at least paying attention to the news.
Overall, evolution is the key. We cannot evolve through the natural course of things. We will evolve through technology. All of the predictions that Ghost in the Shell is hinting at will come true. Becoming human is a liability, because the technology exists to better ourselves, especially memory. If we remembered more experiences and lived longer, we would understand the plight and emotions of other peoples through our more vivid experiences.
Curing apathy is our ultimate goal. Without apathy, you cannot become amoral or evil, and you see other people's POV more clearly.
