Did humans use to care more?

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

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.

Actually it does because the constitution is what guarantees your rights not what the majority or minority decide.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

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.

OK First of all no private person has owned the roads or the sky in recorded history. They have always been public goods used by both nobility and peasants alike so your argument is moot and irrelevant as it will never happen.

In regards to your so called resource based economy it seems to have exactly the same problem Socialism and Communism has that it offers no incentive for the individual to work whatsoever. Without reward there is no point in doing any job. That would be like going to a tribal society and telling the hunters they have to give up all their catch to a buro or something like that.