Directional History

History does seem to be directional. Slavery/Subsistence Agriculture yields to Theocracy, then Monarchy/Feudal Aristocracy and finally, Liberal Democracy. Simplification. But liberal democracy combined with capitalism does seem to be the end point of the evolution of systems of governance or at any rate an extremely stable combination for keeping a nation powerful, its citizens farily docile and flush with goods. Whether a society survives or not will be based on whether there are any inherent “contradictions” [perhaps of a logical nature, but more often one which threatens the survival of the society] in it. For example, fascism has less reason to exist after a fascist country takes over the rest of the world and so it is in a sense unstable. Communism is unstable because the incentives problem leaves it exposed to economic domination which undermines the survival power of the ideology, and reliance on central governance creates incentives to be a government worker, promoting inefficiency and inequality both of material goods and of the ability to influence the system...again undermining the system. We can project which problems might come to the surface for any system with the dialect, or implement the system and simply note which problems arise naturally.

So then, what, if any, are the remaining problems with the idea of liberal, capitalist democracy? The destruction of the environment or overpopulation necessitating that our rights become restricted (Environmentalism becoming allied with socialism)? Or severe inequality leading to political unrest? Or will the competitive pressures of the market eventually cause too many social structures and human bonds to decay, causing popular unrest and rebellion?And if liberal democracy is combined with technocratic capitalism, what kind of ‘hostile’ society could over-run the liberal democracy? Technology does seem to naturally force authoritarians to lose their grip on power, at some point. And technology can't be permanently lost, as at the very least the memory of the scientific method and its discoveries would survive a prolonged natural disaster. I’m talking long term here --- how can anything other than liberal democracy be the final stable system?

And what other directions might liberal democracies take over a long period of time, if any? Presumably the liberal democracy would continue to incorporate more elements of what humans want over time (although there might be periods in which this isn’t the case), and solve its problems through market mechanisms. Technology is continuously providing for our wants (albeit only by creating more). Nevertheless this situation is stable, despite a permanent gap between what we have and our desires. It is the steady state of always wanting something else. And it is ridiculous to suggest ‘freezing’ technology, not only because countries which do not will move ahead, but 1) there are lots of people who don’t have what they want 2) it simply cannot be administered (especially information – how could a dictatorship ultimately prevent modern flows of information without isolating itself and hence becoming vulnerable to takeover by less hostile societies simply because it becomes technologically inept. 3) there’s no reason to suggest that freezing technology in its present state would make anyone happy. That is, people aren’t particularly satisfied with what technology can do for them today.

I've tried to think of other stable outcomes, and they all have problems. And all of them lead to eventual destruction.