> Um, one small point. What is "right" and "wrong" is quite fluid and
> situational. What if in the 17th century I was to make the statement:
>
> "Of course, the fact that aristocracies work as well as they do points out
> the fact that, most times, the ruling class is not in the "wrong". We
> clunk along, and get most things right."
>
> Creepy huh?
I'm quite sure that they actually said this, too. Things change. Truth
is relative. All one hopes is that our truth is, at least in a small
way, better than their's was. We all think so, I know, but what real
*reasons* do we have, other than meme infection?
> What if there's something beyond democracy that's as powerful and
> frightening to us as democracy was to the 17th century aristocracy? Would
> we even be able to embrace it or would we fight tooth and nail screaming,
> "Democracy ain't great, but it's the best there is!" all the way down?
If it really was better, I doubt I'd fight. But it would take quite a
convincing argument, methinks, to win us over.
Although. I've often heard it said that in the sciences, old ideas are
never really replaced in the minds of the scientists. They remain
there, and the old ideas really only become "old" ideas when those
scientists who grew up under them finally kick the bucket. Then the
newer generation, who was raised with the new as well as the old, are
free to fully embrace the new. I'm betting a similar thing would happen
should something better than democracy come along. (say, rule by
intelligent machines... I could not accept this, but it is conceivable
that this could be better)
ERiC