MurderInc
3rd May 2006, 21:56
For the first time in the history of the world, everyone can speak with everyone else.
This is both literal and metaphorical. But the concept is more or less sound. Laarge numbers of people can have a more vocal and physical presence in the workings of the world's governments. Take for example the recent demonstrations in the U.S. regarding people illegally entering the U.S., or regarding Immigration reform, depending on your point of view. It isn't the nature of the U.S. to stop such protests. It can't anyway, too many court cases support exactly such free speech.
But let's say it wanted to.
30 years ago, to have such a protest, you needed a press. Ink had to go on paper.
Not anymore. Everyone has their own press in their homes, and it's far more successful and less wasteful than the original one thought of by the Constitutional Framers in 1787.
In the post-WW II era, the U.S. called a lot of shots and most of the world accepted it.
At about the same time, the USSR called the shots for the "communist" world (sic).
What was unavailable for the citizens of the varoius nations of the world was an amendment process. No one had the logistics, world wide, to argue a point with either major power. The Western powers could not be challenged with, "We like what you've designed here about the equal protection of citizens, BUT, large numbers of people without proper healthcare..." Same for the Soviet Bloc: "Commie Party, we like the idea that everyone's labor will be equally appreciated, BUT this nonsense about nearly no international travel..."
Niether Adam Smith or Karl Marx could have fortold the power of this tool, and its potential has yet to be fully exploited.
I wonder whether a third point of view that is not socialist, nor capitalist, will emerge from the collective views of the world's population.
This is both literal and metaphorical. But the concept is more or less sound. Laarge numbers of people can have a more vocal and physical presence in the workings of the world's governments. Take for example the recent demonstrations in the U.S. regarding people illegally entering the U.S., or regarding Immigration reform, depending on your point of view. It isn't the nature of the U.S. to stop such protests. It can't anyway, too many court cases support exactly such free speech.
But let's say it wanted to.
30 years ago, to have such a protest, you needed a press. Ink had to go on paper.
Not anymore. Everyone has their own press in their homes, and it's far more successful and less wasteful than the original one thought of by the Constitutional Framers in 1787.
In the post-WW II era, the U.S. called a lot of shots and most of the world accepted it.
At about the same time, the USSR called the shots for the "communist" world (sic).
What was unavailable for the citizens of the varoius nations of the world was an amendment process. No one had the logistics, world wide, to argue a point with either major power. The Western powers could not be challenged with, "We like what you've designed here about the equal protection of citizens, BUT, large numbers of people without proper healthcare..." Same for the Soviet Bloc: "Commie Party, we like the idea that everyone's labor will be equally appreciated, BUT this nonsense about nearly no international travel..."
Niether Adam Smith or Karl Marx could have fortold the power of this tool, and its potential has yet to be fully exploited.
I wonder whether a third point of view that is not socialist, nor capitalist, will emerge from the collective views of the world's population.