Hey, this post was posted on the last dead thread...
I fear I misrepresented myself. A failure of the system preludes a failure of the people. There will be an assortment of good and bad in any system, but the system itself will allow succesfull passage of idiots who maintain the status quo... from embedded journalists to witch burnings.
We cannot control people, nor should we when it comes to their ideals and beliefs, however much we disagree. But we can reform a system, which is where I think the best effort can be pushed.
Think of it this way. Look at two systems of government, monarchy and democracy. Both, as we all know, are capable of entertaining absolute demogogues and fear-mongerers. However, in a monarchy these figures are dramatically expressed in a single ruler, sort of like winner-take-all. However, in a Democracy the hope is that a consensus will rule out such radical changes, for better or worse, and be more representative of the people's wishes and desires, for better or worse. Trying to control the people in both will not neccesarrily cure the ultimate ill, because the system that allowed their passage still exists. Rather, a far more enduring task is to reform the system.
And... this leads me to a tangent but follow me on this one... in European history the monarchs often ruled nations of 5 - 7 million people, be it France, England, or Spain. The populations were a great deal smaller back in the day. Now, a given Senator will represent 10 - 15 million people in the United States. Demographically speaking, how far off from a Monarchy are we? Is it possible that the struggles of this nation's founders were to be completely undermined by population demographis (or, arguably, driven by them)?
Do svidania,
Theus
Those that can make you believe absurdaties can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
™ Version 4.2
