> I stand corrected by your detailed knowledge of that
> history, Richard. I
> will accept that my quick recollection of history was all
> too facile, and I
> honestly appreciate your history lesson. I'm snipping
> it, because I do
> think it is an aside to the main thrust of my argument.
> But, if you find
> historical errors in what I am about to say, do not
> hesitate to shout out.
> Empires can last a long time. They do reformulate,
> different dynasties do
> exist. But, I think it is fair to say that regimes that do
> not place a great
> deal of value on individual human rights can last
> centuries, and when they
> are replaced it is often/usually not be a group that
> emphasized human
> rights.
> You also rightly said that these empires were not
> totalitarian. I agree,
> and never intended to imply that. Indeed, I used the
> example of restraints
> on the French King that did not apply to Napoleon because I
> had some awareness of that fact.
> Totalitarian governments are fairly modern. The tools
> needed for them
> probably didn't exist 300 years ago. My argument is
> that they have proven
> to be fairly resilient, falling only when faced with strong
> outside challenges.
> Indeed, the requirement for such challenges was planned as
> part of the final
> post I was going to write in the series I started a bit
> ago. In a sense,
> I've been building up to that point. But, that's
> for later.
> Dan M.
Dan, why do you say Richard's history lesson is an aside to the main thrust of
your argument? Because most ancient regimes did not place value on individual
human rights, and are often replaced with different despots? Of course some
despots are worse than others, what else is new? Wouldn't you agree that the
human race has been making progress since the enlightenment? What do you think
are the reasons for that?
Jon
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
