all 6 comments

[–]Aureus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

How can you keep the structure of a society without destroying the fundamental things that cause it to function well in the name of being progressive?

This is a very important question, but it might be too broad to answer meaningfully.

In the context of a society that is already functioning well, I would say the preservation of incentives that keep everyone onboard with the nation's goals and values. For example, people will like capitalism as long as capitalism works for the vast majority of people. As long as there is still opportunity, and regular people can own homes and start families under capitalism, they will support it. Unfortunately, nowadays we are seeing a breakdown of that.

In addition, in terms of national unity, you have to make sure everyone agrees on the same values. Not too long ago, most Americans agreed that America is a positive development, its culture is ultimately a good thing, the Constitution secures freedom (and freedom is important), and the founding fathers were not evil. Today, due to open-borders policies and the subversion of education, we're seeing a trend away from that, where many people are not onboard with the national cause and indeed feel no loyalty to America at all.

So what about in the context of modern society, which is not functioning well? I'm working on it. I think the gist is moving people out of big coastal cities and out of blue states generally, setting up their own intentional communities, and striving towards self-sufficiency and co-sufficiency. Comment or message me if you're interested in discussing this further.

[–]Scot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that's what Aristotle was alluding to, basically we all have the same ancestry and live among the same people and share the same goals we'll prosper and be fine. But any kind of situation (accidental or deliberate) where swathes of people from all over the world arrive in one country, that collective desire then disappears. Julius Caesar pioneered the Divide and Conquer technique and it worked for a while...I always look at Rome when thinking of these things... that is what's coming whether we like it or not (I believe anyway)

[–]Scot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm sure it was Aristotle who said something along the lines of "no truly democratic nation can survive unless in the case of a truly homogenous population" something along those lines. Read into that what you will...

[–]PencilPusher55[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do you think that homogenous populations are inherently better off? See on one hand I look at Spain and I hear that the unemployment is really high but the crime is extremely low. And then I look at Africa and see that it’s clearly in really bad shape. I think if anything this is quite the anti-racist argument. Meaning that even the countries that are homogenous still have issues.

[–]Scot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It was a while ago he said it (small jest) no doubt a quote of it's time but regardless to what I think I can see his argument. I've never been racist or hateful towards anyone I just wasn't taught that any one was ever any different to me. Spain's an interesting one, being Scottish I want the Catalans to have their independence but that could be construed as agreeing with Aristotle I suppose, same token I want Independence for Scotland, it's a hard arguement without being pigeon holed into one side or the other. Africa? Well Churchills maps and the "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa" explains that atrocity, even now apparently in South Africa if you own land and you find gold or diamonds on it you aren't allowed to keep it

[–]Scot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Edit: added link