Changing people or changing government?

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, is it more desirable to change the people, e.g. make them more intelligent, either through education or genetics or whatever, to suit the needs of predetermined ideal political system or to change the existing political system to suit the needs of the people?

Or should both ideas carry equal weight?

Just a question that's been running through my head.

Systems that attempt to change people fail, and even imagining them leads to a nightmare. (see 1984 and Brave New World fr worlds where the person was changed for the political system) The political system is a means of organizing society, society is constructed to serve the needs and wants of those who comprise it. Governments should be built around the people they have to work with. Besides, it's easier to change the government than to change the people, so why would you bother changing the people?

If a political system can not succeed with the materials (ie people) available to it, then it can not be the predetermined ideal. If it fails in reality, it's a lousy system. Not much else to it.

Also, theocratic governments by nature do follow the idea that the populace must be converted, since a theocracy's ideals are already written in their scriptures, so its not like this isn't purely theoretical.

I doubt the question can be easily answered. Changing government can, on occasion, change people. The current US elections are at least partially the result of government enforcement of anti-discrimination laws elevating the capabilities of blacks to attain more equality. Obviously it is not a total change but these changes come slowly and must be insisted upon to accomplish results. And when people are oppressed beyond human tolerance people can change governments but, as demonstrated in many oppressive governments existing today, this does not come easily.

If you change people you automatically change government because goverment is made up of people. Changing people from the inside-out is the best kind of change. If you can inspire people to make changes in themselves rather than force them to change, this is ideal. If people in general strive to improve themselves, you'll have a grassroots effect which will find its way into every sector of society. Including goverment.

Both. I do think changing people automatically leads to changes in voting patterns. Of course to enforce change is practically impossible, maybe "educating society" is a better term than to change a society. It is pretty much a circle, a government needs to work on educating its people constantly but those changes in social norms will in their turn lead to a change of political establishment. It is an ongoing process or atleast it should be, lately I see very worrying changes as we take a step back to outdated conservative values

In the real world, you cannot change the nature of man through government or "inspiration". The Soviets thought they could create a "New Soviet Man" to help ensure Communism's success when it was starting out. They failed miserably at creating their new Soviet man despite all their indoctrination and "inspirational" efforts. If there is some general reason big, people may change on their own (i.e. we discover a cure for death), but barring that, most attempts to change people ultimately fail. You can influence people's marginal behavior through laws (for better or worse), but that is not really changing people, only influencing their behavior in that situation.

Sand, I highly doubt Obama is where he is right now because of some 40 year old affirmative actions laws (although people might be "desperate" to have a black president, maybe, but I wouldn't argue that is partially related to those old laws). People follow laws because they have to, not necessarily because they enjoy it, and people today seem to enjoy being apart of the cult of Obama. You could try and argue the law made people "like" blacks, but at the time (and to an extent, today for some people), it seemed to deepen their dislike.

If you think the civil rights movement and subsequent federal laws and operations to support them had no influence on Obama's capability to secure the Democratic candidacy for president then you are exceedingly stupider than I suspected.

A bit more bravery in our world which sends people out to murder each other for insanely stupid reasons is something I would much appreciate. I have a hunch the there are a lot less black people in the American South hanging from trees with barking idiots in sheets in the crowd than in the early 20th century.

When kids grow up seeing minorities amongst them doing as well as they are and liking the same things they do and being more or less on the same economic level there is bound to be an improvement in the social interaction. When I was in the army it was not integrated and all sorts of racial nonsense prevailed. These days I am sure there are racial incidents but not anywhere to the extent of when I served. People, like any other animal, can be trained to behave.

I live in Helsinki where lots of Africans and people from Asia live and work. But there is some discrimination. There has been some problems.
But any outstanding differences can bring resentment. Nepotism, connections, and just plain luck can be a factor in someone getting a good advantage and no doubt the losers will, if it is possible, bring race into the problem. Life is not always fair. But legal restraints firmly applied can be a strong factor in preventing open violence.