3 ms·
> From those few all secretly want to switch to 1). Unless each of those has learned that 1) always ends poorly and has decided they're better off with strong
by MarkPNeyer 10y ago
> From those few all secretly want to switch to 1).
Unless each of those has learned that 1) always ends poorly and has decided they're better off with strong allies comitted to the ideals of justice.
Yeah, we quibble over the details. But there is a direction we all want to go - safety and personal freedom are universal ideals.
Even dictatorships fake elections.
- dgudkov 10y agoWe want safety, personal freedom and justice enforced by some agreement because we're weak and we need the agreement to protect us. Powerful ones are looking for more power because it's the power that protects them. The idea of safety is universal. The means to achieve it are not.
- candiodari 10y agoSo either everyone gets along and agrees the western worldview is the best one, and the strong protect the weak as opposed to getting bought of or silenced, or the whole thing collapses ? I believe the economic analysis would be: it's not a Nash equilibrium, and therefore it cannot exist for any length of time, because the cost of it rises exponentially over time. So can I just say: Good luck with that, and I, personally, would like to opt out if possible.