Did humans use to care more?

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Well we have never really lived in an actual and thank God for that because it would mean being ruled by the whims of whatever the majority choose at that time, so if the majority wanted to take your kids and everything you have away to be turned into fertilizer (an example) you would have no way to protect yourself from that and that's why what we have is a Republic in which a constitution grant individual rights that cannot be taken by the force of the majority.

Yeah right, so it is better to live in a system where not the majority, but a minority decides such a thing? This is completely devoid of any logic! Having a constitution or none has zip to do with what kind of government you have!
And if you want an example that a "better democracy" is possible (even though it is still not perfect) look at Switzerland. It is the prime example of a bottom-up democracy. Yes, it may lead to strange stuff like people prohibiting mosque towers, but what use would it be to deny people such a decision? The only better system would be something called consensus decisions, where you'd need a 90% agreement on important decisions, but this may be hard to reach on a national level and still be effective. Still - constitutional changes in many countries require a 3/4 or 2/3 majority already. The two-party system of the US is a joke when it comes to democracy. To represent the different opinions of the people, you have to have a multitude of parties and they all have to work together. That would be a working representative democracy.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

@ AuroraGlaclialis: I take from what I've seen of your views that you do not believe in self ownership but in that people and their lives must be owned by a Buro or the state to micro manage everything in their lives except maybe what socks they choose to wear and other small irrelevant insignificant stuff.

SRSLY? That is just plain stupid! Just because someone talks some socialist ideas or tries to find the origins of the social problems we face, people jump into the images of the bad examples of it in the past. Soviet Union and China are not seriously communist or socialist states - even less so than America is a true Democracy. I believe in self-ownership, but I do not believe common goods beeing in the hands of private persons. If you have private persons owning the roads and the sky above you and everything else - money becomes even more important and money and the need for it (or rather the inequality in chances to aquire it) drives what makes this society so insane and unequal.
What you describe is this: Planned economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - and it is not at all the only economic system that works in a more social political system. Gee - why do people always have to think black and white. Basically I only want to have a certain paragraph in our constitution to be realized to the fullest extent: "Ownership obligates to benefit the public good". But yes - a non monetary system like a resource based economy would even be better.