Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: weikel
That precisely shows how provincial the argument is. It's based wholly on European experiences within a rather limited time frame. Take Russia, China, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Ancient Near East, the Aztecs and Incas into account and you may come up with a different picture.

The argument has much to do with the modern development of technology, which enables governments to be more distructive and intrusive. It also has much to do with the "decadent" characteristics of monarchy after the Wars of Religion: Monarchs no longer sought to compel their subjects to think or believe in a certain way, and they were increasingly uncertain about the security of their thrones and, hence, more inclined to compromise.

When a form of government is not too sure of its authority, it's also not inclined to do much damage, but it shouldn't be assumed that that form of government is inherently and essentially less dangerous.

42 posted on 01/10/2003 5:06:41 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: x
bttt
43 posted on 01/11/2003 1:30:20 AM PST by f.Christian (Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson