@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon wrote:Other than in saying that democracies tend to be more peaceful, I really don't see how what you wrote is a response or rebuttal to my lasy post, which you quoted. Also, I can't see what your even trying to say, seems incoherent to me. As such, I will respond to the first issue only.
Democracies are not inherently peaceful. Considering history, they have been some of the more aggressive powers, Athens, Genoa, The United States, France, Britain, etc. Remember it is not fair to compare the number of wars begun by democracies with the number begun by autocracies or other forms of government, as only very recently has the former surpassed the latter. Democracy itself does not ensure stability; it is more a matter of prosperity. Again, turning to history, the greatest popular revolts and agitations, which often lead to war as a distraction, were caused not by lack of freedom, but lack of food, high taxes, etc. The french revolution is the perfect example. It is still bread and circuses my friend.
You were asking a question, so I guess I should have erased all not in your first line. So, Is there a just form of nation. Simply, it is those whe are related consanguineously, and who know each other, and their various personalities, and share their concerns, their courage, their determination; and even their cruelty if necessary in defense of friends and family. Are you sure you are not a dull afternoon? I know I dance around the fire a lot. I don't want to get burned saying what the truth is. But I guess I get close enough to smell like smoke and hot dogs. And I trust I am speaking English to the masses.
And btw. Bread and circus only works so long as there is bread enough to go around. Everyone I know is riding on empty. If people ever stop trying long enough to look around and see who has all their loot there won't be much to pick off their bones. Bankruptcy and failed expectations for a better life make revolutions. So how are you doing? It is nice in revolution to have a philosophy to guide it, perhaps a notion of the noble savage degraded from his state of nature to become your king or neighbor. Or an economic ideal. But these ideas are really counter revolutionary. And every revolutionist finds a point where he wants the revolution to end, and that is where many have died. But it is so much of nonsense. People do not have to revolt, they have to do something revolting, and that is to engage with their fellow humans, talk it out, cross the threashold with them as man and wife, so to speak, and this is a terror.
Our forms which should help us to engage very often serve to protect us from engagement, from too much of relationship, give and take, and so the form tells every man upon which square he should stand, and it takes great courage to throw away the board and the squares and have each make their own way. Yet, that is how forms should be built, from the relationship up, and if people have the relationship the form follows, at best, minimally.
