Comment: No redundancy...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: "As a species persists, its (see in situ)

No redundancy...

Revisiting the sentence:

"As a species persists, its development will evolve naturally towards more successful modes of survival."

I used the word development in the realization that there are always competing ideologies that work to shape the moral code. Over time, ideologies that are shown flawed will tend to fade away in an evolutionary sense.

When I spoke of slavery, I clearly qualified that I was speaking of that akin to the slavery of early America. It is obvious that new and more sophisticated ways to enslave people is an active area of research among power mongers. However, it supports my point that as experience adds detail to a moral code, that plans to defeat it must necessarily become more complex.

Despite your predictions of the deterioration of mankind, that's just your glass-is-half-empty Machiavellian side speaking.

Humans are a relatively young species. We are still in the early stages of tinkering with different forms of government. Just like any other research, along the road to success you discover many wrong ways to do things.

Certainly, the States currently governing the world are out of hand - including our own - but could Thomas Paine or John Locke have predicted the popular onset of Karl Marx? Only with adequate experience has Mankind began to learn that Marxism has fundamental flaws that will forever damn it to failure.

In addition, as a scientist, I assure that I'm sufficiently familiar with the principles of evolution. However, intelligence and the availability of information have placed Man in a unique position in the evolutionary process.

This is no longer a simple matter of two cavemen clubbing it out. Intellectual prowess is a valuable tool of survival in the modern world. Ideas are more mighty than the most advanced military.

You say:

To your question how it is going for the elites, very well. It is just false wishful thinking to imagine they feel more threatened today by us than they did by the Birchers in the 50s or the Buchananites in the 90s. Buchanan was more electorally successful.

Here, you improperly define success as winning elections. Who cares about winning elections in the long-run? All that is needed is to win hearts and minds. No State can last for long when the people reject its rule. You can't kill enough of the people to change their minds about your rule either. Just reflect on Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

I disagree that the people aren't changing their minds. Ever more often, the MSM is finding the need to address issues that the Liberty Movement has been pushing for quite some time. A recent poll shows that a record number of people (from all political persuasions) list "big government" as the number one threat to the US.

This evidence speaks strongly against your attempted points on the issue.