|
|
|
|
|
by TGJ
5818 days ago
|
|
people have not thought very hard about the problems of running a society It depends on what type of society you are trying to run. Are you trying to run a society full of social benefits (handouts) or a society of individual accomplishments? My "argument" is What is your argument? The following sentence is simply a description of how we arrive at where we are and not why. |
|
Neither is a good characterization (both are shrill bullshit buzzwords intended in this context to limit discussion).
Trying to run a society with reasonable physical infrastructure (transportation, public utilities, public health, etc.), a functioning economy, a low unemployment rate, a decent standard of living, a lack of structural violence, a support for individual freedoms, protections against fraud and abuse of information asymmetries, a legal framework under which to peacefully resolve disputes, an ability to respond to disasters and foreign invasions, a government which is responsive to the changing needs and circumstances of its citizens and responsive at a local level to local differences, etc.
* * *
The why is in my opinion best described in Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy, Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws, Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, and Madison/Hamilton/Jefferson’s Federalist Papers (and you might look at Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, etc. too if you’re feeling extra ambitious). The complexities are somewhat longer and more involved than is appropriate for this venue.
If you haven’t read it, Tocqueville’s book is truly fantastic, highly recommended to anyone interested in democracy or American government, and just about as relevant today as anything written since.