In yet another of these metaphysical discussions with Aaron, Simon and others (Ryan, Andrew, and Patrick, in this case), another point that caught my attention was raised. Agriculture, monarchy, communism, corporations, what have you. I regard these concepts as a social technology, while Aaron was arguing that these are emergent properties of a system. That is, under a certain set of circumstances, people will organize themselves in democracies, monarchies, or oligarchies.
That there isn’t so much a choice that is made between capitalism, socialism, or feudalism, but that these things just happen as a natural consequence of the circumstances. Further, that any individual’s action or understanding is irrelevant over the long run (say, a couple of centuries). That, fundamentally, the individual cannot make lasting change in the world.
I don’t see a contradiction between his ideas and mine, and I do admit to finding his fatalistic view both repellent and appealing.
hmmmm.
Seems to me, the French, American, and Russian revolutions are evidence that individuals can influence the economic/political fates of nations.