Carte Blanche

We applaud those who have achievement in their fields of study: business, philosophy, religion, science and politics. But achievement in one area doesn't give one super powers to understand every area. An actor or a singer might have achieved popularity due to their art but their opinions in areas other than acting or singing are no better than a person on the street who has also studied the subject out. This holds true for every area. A scientist who has achievements in one discipline may not have any more knowledge in another area than a bus driver. A religious leader who is good at speculating on eternal things has no more knowledge in secular issues than a common person who studies the subject out. Having a degree in education doesn't make one an expert in business. This is the fallacy of notoriety. Everyone is due respect concerning their achievement but we shouldn't give anyone carte blanche for all their opinions.

When we look at net worth, personal possessions are a small portion of it. A person who is wealthy will have their money invested. With investments the goal is to find someone who is managing their business well but lacks finances to advance. We give them money to get the equipment and personnel they need in hopes that they will succeed and share a small portion of the profits. Rich people, retirees and young people planning for the future will participate in investing. The recipients will do their best to keep the equipment and personnel working so the profits keep coming. These relationships are healthy and the personnel will be able to take care of their families and invest themselves. Having a high net worth means a person has helped a lot of others to succeed.

We all have a desire to feed both our ego and our compassion. Filling this appetite is good and gives us motivation. When running a country, business or a household, we have to set limits on these areas to avoid failure. A business that gives to charity but neglects it's worker's wages will have a hard time keeping good workers. A household that takes in more people than it can provide for will starve eventually. Managing things well allows us to achieve our dreams and there is always a point where we have to limit how much we help others. A prodigal is someone who uses up their resources for popularity. It doesn't matter if it is ego driven or compassion driven, when they end up running out of resources, everyone suffers. Profits that are earned on a business that is in debt don't really belong to the company but to the investors. To use these profits for play or charity is unjust. It is up to the investors to give these profits to whom they themselves choose. A country in debt is obligated to their investors. If they default, everyone suffers. If a country still has poor of it's own while owing debt, they have no business taking in more poor people. This is prodigal behavior and it risks the dreams of all its citizens.

Staying in Your Lane

Driving through a couple of towns I had grown up in, I became frustrated because traffic went so slow. The old four and five lanes I was familiar with had been turned into three lanes with bike trails. I have never seen a bike in one of the trails and it seemed unfair that slow drivers could control the road. The towns were so much more vibrant when I was young and living in them. A part of it was the dynamics of a five lane road.

On a three lane road, there are less accidents according to studies. The reason of course is that all the traffic is forced to go at the pace of the slowest driver. People who want to get somewhere, or fast paced people, are forced to slow to the pace of those who want to dawdle through life. People who have business to attend to or simply want to get from one end of town to the other must have their pace dictated by vacationers and Sunday drivers. This is a microcosm of the pitfalls of social control that applies to every area of life. Controlling the group with micromanagers always sounds good in theory but it kills ambition.

On a four and five lane road, the left lane is for fast paced and the right for slow. Some states value their fast paced people so much that they put warning signs up for the slow people to stay in the right lane where they belong. Good people respect that and the fast laners can wave at the slow people as they go by. Nothing wrong with going slow and on easy days a fast pacer might enjoy the slow lane for a while. Problems occur when slow drivers become controlling and want to control traffic by driving in the left lane. They end up getting their way all the time with three lane roads. The four lane system is the more vibrant and fun. I suppose left turners on a four lane can cause a bit more lane switching but it isn't a problem for alert drivers. Anything is better than being caught behind a slow driver.

In school it was the same way. The entire class went at the pace of the slowest learner. I enjoyed self paced classes for that reason. It can be hard for a fast paced student to sit still in a slow paced class. We have ambitious people in a society who work hard to get ahead too. Those who are satisfied with status quo and below will have the resultant lifestyle. Neither attitude is an evil to society but when social planners hold ambition back by championing status quo and demonizing ambition, incentive suffers. There are periods in our lives where we may become poorer and slower paced due to retirement or disability. But regardless the reason, each person should be respected and encouraged where they are at. We should make room for them; a right lane so to speak. Successful people should also be respected and allowed to continue uninhibited. Profits are the result of good management and a good demand for the service. None of this is evil. Lets give them a left lane.

There are always impatient drivers at one extreme and ornery slowpokes at the other. But this doesn't mean that every fastlaner and slowlaner should be characterized as such. Perhaps our kids should be taught tolerance and to enjoy differences in ambitions. We could call it pacial discrimination. Don't criticize those who are fast paced, step aside, and let them pass. Be patient with those who are slow, give them a lane, and let them enjoy.

I like the dynamics of having fast and slow lanes. Studies show that variety gives us longevity in life. Wave at me as I pass you going to work and I will wave back as you pass me on your way. I'll have fun enjoying the view and I hope you make it to work on time!

Masculine verses Feminine

I've recently read a book called "The Way of a Superior Man" by David Deida. It is more of a spiritualist's view on the dynamics between men and women. Although it is a bit lewd at times and neutral as far as gender and religion go, he still makes valid points concerning masculinity and femininity. It is hard to do a book justice with a summary, but we can hit on a few points.

Anyone can show masculine and feminine traits in their lives. Those who are in the masculine role in life will crave feminine energy and vice versa. When we embrace who we are and enjoy the energy opposites give us, we become satisfied. First we need to define these roles and not be ashamed of them.

The emphasis of the book is how a man can be masculine and meet the needs of his woman. This not only allows her to feel satisfied in life, but his needs will be met in the process. When two don't get along or when changes occur in life, problems in passions usually can be traced back to a lack of embracing roles in life.

The feminine characteristics are more emotional and yet are true for the moment. To the masculine, they seem chaotic at times. She is going to test the one in the male role to his limits. But what she is after is a man who is nonplused by it. There are also cool comforting feminine traits. These comfort a man especially when he is under a lot of stress in his life.

Masculine traits that the feminine desires are decisiveness and mission. She might want a role in decisions but becomes settled when her man makes them. She might have a broad spectrum of wants and desires, but likes it when a man makes plans to satisfy them. If a woman is bitchy and unsatisfied, a man has to look at two possibilities, either he isn't fulfilling his role or she isn't the right person for him.

When a man has a stressful and chaotic life, he will gravitate toward someone with the cool comforting traits. When things are going well and he is confident, he will gravitate toward someone who has more fire and is emotional. This is why a guy might get involved with an office girl when a job is stressful and why, after life has settled, he might crave an emotional person. When a female who has fire and is emotional becomes more confident and secure, she might become comfortable with a male who is more spontaneous and free.

One point he makes is that a sexual relationship is for two committed people. The "reach a climax and die" part of sex will leave both unsatisfied without the rest of the relationship. When life changes bring us to the point of different wants, it doesn't always involve changing partners. He gives ideas on how to get the traits we desire out of the person we are with. For instance, he says that doing everything together causes our traits to dull against each other and for contrast, women should be encouraged to go out and celebrate their feminity. Males should go out with the guys and party once and a while too.

There should be no issue with enjoying and drawing energy from those who have the traits we desire. We should drink it in and enjoy it as long as it doesn't complicate our lives. He gives advice to males on how to avoid turning the good energy between opposites into sensual desire. Of course this is only a quick summary, I think this is a book that every young man should read.    

Supreme Court

I like to keep this a forum of clear thinking without dogma. It is hard to make points using sarcasm and humor when writing because it is too easy for readers to get the wrong idea and think you are being mean. Another pitfall to avoid is that of tearing down structures around us to make ours look bigger. What is presented here should stand on its own merit without having to resort to characterizations.

In the past, we have gone over Aristotle's teachings and I am going to continue these of expositions on my other site therationalelement.com. There are good things stirring around there. This site is really for honest opinions that have a some thought applied. I am hoping it is nice for you all to step aside from the hype of our media culture for a bit and just look at things objectively and optimistically. 

With the recent Supreme Court decisions, we should spend a little time sorting them out. Regardless what laws are passed in a land, people who have good character and are willing to keep themselves sharp in mind and body will be okay. I am not one who ascribes to the decay of society teachings or apocalyptic notions. Our struggle is within ourselves to make the best of successes, failures, and random events every day. Things can happen at any time that turns a culture around from a perk based society to a survival based one. All we can do just work hard and enjoy the show. 

Both Court decisions are related in some ways. First concerning the subsidies for health care; they are a way to equalize the benefits of insurance for everyone. Those who can't afford insurance are forced to get it from exchanges and those under a certain income will have taxpayers paying part of their insurance. This is a boon for insurance companies and hospitals since not only do they get more insured people but they aren't forced to cover as many people who don't carry insurance. This makes every individual responsible to insure themselves. It all sounds good, but the problem is how to get the taxpayer base to pay for it all since we are already in steep debt. The only thing missing in the equation is much higher taxes. Allowing an impersonal entity make health decisions can also be an issue, but that happens already on a corporate level. The intention is to get healthcare as a right for everyone. This eventually will turn into a single pay system with the government directly paying for everyone to get equal health care. The next obstacle will be overcome through demonizing insurance companies. The methods will be unreasonable demands with little payback and then showcasing the lack of care while the supposedly rich insurance company executives live high on the hog. Wealthy politicians, however, will be presented with an angelic aura. We can only guess how long it will take to get there. But again we can stay healthy and live well while giving random tragedies our best efforts. 

Love isn't something that can be qualified by legal means. If it is there, it is there. People of like minds will be attracted to each other, sometimes cohabit, while some do so and have sex. None of this requires legal intervention. What is the benefit of marriage from a legal standpoint? It gives instant dowry rights where everything is shared and upon a death the other gets it all and makes medical decisions. But this can be accomplished through legal partnerships. There is also shared family insurance. This is where these two decisions are related. If anyone can go in and claim they are in love, marry and thus share insurance, the insurance companies may eventually be forced to eliminate family riders. Housewives will then have to fend for themselves. Our hero appears, "The Affordable Care Act". Housewives will be forced to buy insurance like any poor person since they have no income. We're back to equal care for everyone. The caveat would be if the household income is too high due to the husband, they may force them to pay the high premiums entirely. Quite a tax on the middle class. Subsidized things are always overpriced; just look at college tuition. But this is all conjecture at this point. I will admit that things should be nice for a while for the insurance companies and the medical industry as with any new program. Remember though, Margaret Thacher once said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money". 

Proceeding Past the Stop Sign.

With all this analyzation, I thought it meet to take a break and look at perspectives that transcend the natural and our rational minds. It is the area we are always reaching for and also enjoy. But I don't believe in dogmatic approaches to anything. We should use our faculties and passion in a relaxing and enjoyable way.

Pride to me is like a stop sign. A person who claims to know it all has arrived at a destination and is stuck in the mud. There are things we can know at certain levels, but it is never all there is to it. To make conclusions that there is no God or any other unseen thoughtful force is like putting a stop sign at material things when there is so much territory to cover.

Let's proceed past that stop sign a bit. Of course, there is no reason to blow through it. The things we can study scientifically consist of repeatable patterns that everyone can observe. The territory past the stop contains quite a bit of conjecture, but so do most things out in the passion and ambition realm. I can only tell you my own unprovable opinion on things.

In order for this organization of complex things we call nature to exist, someone had to think it up. It only makes sense since chaotic events, by in large, tend to disorder. It would take complex order upon complex order uninterrupted by any disorder just to make a portion of a cell wall, let alone a complete single living cell. It would have to know how to reproduce and get nutrition. That is just too much to give to chance.

I believe this person lives and of course since he exists above all that is natural we would have to say he is supernatural or God. He would have to be very creative, and exemplify love. Okay, I'm using he for convenience; although God wouldn't need a gender he would be the person who invented them. Just like a father or a mother would see themselves in their offspring, he put himself in every living thing. We are rational beings, and not only can recognize that still small voice but are also connected to each other.

Now base things are natural instincts he put in us for survival and reproduction. I believe that base things or appetites are the things when taken to extremes cause us to do things that hurt our lives. But when used properly, they bring us enjoyment, fulfillment, and health. We can lay aside the concept of evil for now but do leave room since I haven't experienced what others have in war and haven't been to third world countries. The only inhibitions I see toward good potential in my life and in the lives of others simply have to do with going overboard with appetites or having mistaken notions.

Mistaken notions are when we think we see patterns in things and make conclusions such as "Bad things always happen to me". We give ourselves this feeling of impending doom whenever we strike out on our own. These notions should be questioned from time to time, especially those that are hindering us. God, as any good father/mother, would want us to reach our full potential both in relationships and in our own creativity. It has to be a thrill to him to see us loving and living life to its fullness.

Each concept presented here is general and can have a book written on them, but I will stop here for now and maybe expand later.

Realistic Cooperation

Were taking a look at what makes a citizen. This would be the basic foundation of a state.  the difference between states, nations or cities, is that a state in a strict sense is built around a constitution. The inhabitants have come together to agree on a structure where law and justice are meted out. A union is formed in order to protect themselves from hostile outside groups whether they belong to another state or are based in a certain idealism. 

A citizen is someone who reveres the constitution and does their best to live up to the part they serve in it, knowing that it will benefit everyone. A constitution is also necessary to keep the inhabitants civilized by setting limits on behaviors. It is an agreement based on intolerance. Intolerance isn't a bad word but the one we use to define limits. We all on occasion tolerate bad behavior and we can either give people a break or let it annoy us. Some behavior requires intervention by ourselves. If it is extreme, depending on the degree, we invoke governmental authorities to help us. The point we no longer tolerate something is our point of intolerance. Everyone has points of intolerance to varying degrees in varying areas. To claim differently defies logic. 

The first criteria we have to examine is the qualifications of being a citizen. If the government has a tyrant or an elite class ruling, being a citizen is just a name only. It can be loose and general since it doesn't really matter as long as they support those in charge. For a serious constitutional government, citizenship is important and there is a certain reverence toward being a citizen. There will be strict criteria for citizenship since they are expected to run the country. 

What makes a good citizen? They will contribute to the whole and consider it dishonorable to be a taxation to the country they belong to. This general principle applies on the community level as well as for officeholders. The better quality the people, the better quality governing can be. What we are after is protection innovation for each person. Oppressive laws and relationships can stifle it. Some cultures spend more time chasing violations than encouraging innovation. This is a waste of time for lawmakers, enforcement, and the citizens alike. This can hold true in family relationships too. The more a person lives under another's shadow, the less of that person can shine in their own passions. But we need each other's help. So this is why we set criteria and limits yet still push them. The objective is to help one another get what they want out of life, but not use each other. It takes strong individualism along with realistic cooperation. We are working with humans though and wrong perceptions can be hard to break.  

Decisions Decisions

We've left our buddy Aristotle behind for too long so let's review where we were at: In the Politics, the second book, we find him examining the governments of different countries in his day. It is uncanny how similar things were then to the way it is now. After a quick review of the principles, we are going to move on the third book. The second and third book seem to be out of order since in the third he starts at basics and moves into more complex things. It is interesting nonetheless.

Having a single person in charge is the most efficient form of government but problems arise when the ego of that person gets in the way of the common good. A people pleaser can be just another variety of tyranny. What we are looking for is a person who is respectful to the laws the people have set up and considers himself a servant. He will fulfill his duties without thinking he is a messiah. The downside, of course, is the common tendency of people to let their egos get in the way. When a single person governs unchecked and goes bad, it is to the demise of the entire country. So we want to take advantage of single-mindedness in areas where it can be applied safely without descending into tyranny towards everyone.

Sometimes it is better to have a group in charge. We form committees to get an expert opinion on a matter. We still will utilize a single person as the head of the committee. Where this goes wrong is when the experts consider themselves elite and exclude the opinion of others. In governing they may even work things to give their group the upper hand in a society above all others. This is what is meant by an aristocracy. Ideally they should meet to give their opinions yet consider themselves common like everyone else. They should be humble and let other experts take the reigns when they have completed their job or tenure. When they form their own fiefdoms or non-experts get in due to association, the country suffers.

It is ideal that everyone is friendly to each other and make their decisions according to these friendships rather than according to laws. It always seems that the majority ends up bullying the minority though. Normal people have varying interests and hold jobs so they get representation to take care of those interests in their stead. This goes bad when their own interest is forced on everyone by forming factions. The more sway a government holds over everyday life, the decisions made by these people become more critical. We have seen the bad decisions people make when in a mob. So while this form of decision making best represents the people, it is still prone to making poor decisions through hysteria and inexperience.

This is the gist of the reviews of governments that Aristotle made. In book three we look at what constitutes a state. At its basic form, we have to start at what makes a person a citizen. Some make the qualification becoming a landowner, but that is too exclusive since some people move around and rent. A citizen would be someone who has the ability to participate in some way with governing. So in order to participate there still needs to be qualifications. We can head that direction next time....

Interests

Everyone has their own passions, ambitions and their own ideals. Some are oriented toward art and others toward sports; some are vegetarians and others enjoy hunting; some are liberal and others frugal; there is nothing inherently wrong with either view. We simply have things we enjoy and want others to enjoy them too. It is in our nature to want others to emulate us and to emulate those we admire. We hit a snag occasionally because each personality is different so we all have different heroes.

In the past, we looked at the desire some have for a certain kind of Utopia that meets their ideals. In another light, we looked at the practical view that champions personal interests above all else. Regardless of the political persuasion of a person, there are passions that influence their decisions. We have numerous passions and objectives in our individual minds. These passions need a governing part called reason so we aren't confused animals. A group of people also become dangerous when led by passion over reason. Everyone will have different passions and objectives, but they have to settle on common goals for everyone. This way of thinking has nothing to do with a majority but is concerned with benefits for everyone. What are the things everyone would want to be protected? The difference between suggestions and laws is that laws have enforcement for hire to make sure they are obeyed.  An idea in the private or free area of our lives in a free society, cannot be forced on others. We cannot be forced to give to a certain charity or buy a certain product. If we refuse, no one is going to come and force us with the threat of jail or fines. So laws are always a negative regardless of how they are presented. They must be limited in order to preserve individual freedoms to make our own choices.

When it comes to forming a government and making laws, the more areas that are addressed by law, the more divisive government becomes. Each area that is put under the authority and force of a government becomes an area of interest for special groups with those who have the associated passions. Rather than having areas of personal interest where personal drive can be applied, special interest groups are formed instead to protect their interests. The officials of the government, regardless how they arrive in office, have to pander to these groups. There are areas that should be addressed commonly and others left to the individual. The struggle is between individuality and commonality. What areas are best left out of the enforcement realm and what areas do we cede over to it?  As far as passions go, they are diverse and we should respect other's views. Views only become contentious when they become a part of the universal application of government ie. force. Laws that favor sports will be contentious to those who are interested in art so it is better to leave the specific interests of both out of our universal laws while preserving the interests of the general public.

That is the goal of politics although it is hard at times. We all want our way and have our causes but should they be given the iron hand of government or should we gather help on our own? The interests can be controlled by who we let in office. In every government that Aristotle examined, there were deficiencies also. Generally the struggle becomes keeping good people in office while limiting their influence so they don't become elitists. An elitist is only concerned about his own interests. These interests are expanded as a government grows. Focusing everyone's eyes back to a written constitution is how a republic is preserved. It is a common agreement for a society that isn't controlled by fads and passions.

Conventional Wisdom

Each society and within each social class there exists certain mindsets. We also see variations among different personalities. Conventional wisdom is what forms among people who share things in common. Some of this wisdom is good and useful and some notions are mistaken. People in different classes lean certain ways. Concerning those who would rule over us, or for a better word, manage our common affairs, we want representation of all the classes and yet this can make governing confusing also. Military rule is good for security but doesn't do so well concerning business. It is good to have the best and brightest in office but they too can have a disconnect with issues due to pride. That is one of the reasons why in the United States they came up with a three chamber system of lawmaking and a three-branch system of government.

When a country is free and peaceful, it gets harder to find those who have experience dealing with barbarism. Barbarism is a mindset that has lost civility due to an ideal or greed. Within a society, there are individuals who succumb to this and we have a domestic police force to defend innocent citizens. There always exists Utopians in a society who deny people can be that way, but it is a reality that has to be dealt with.

A society can become aggressive and convince themselves the world needs to conform to their rule. There have been wars declared between countries to settle disputes in somewhat of an orderly form but with barbarism there are no rules. It takes people who have experience with this mindset to deal with them. Barbaric people laugh at domestic principles of civility. Aristotle observed how vulnerable people can become when ruled by a domestic class and gave examples of countries that had been defeated due to a domestic based conventional wisdom. The women at that time made up a majority of this class so he appears sexist in this section. Although a household can be managed well by the use of grace, mercy and agreements, this doesn't work with barbaric people. They actually take pride in deception. This tends to get a country defeated when it comes to battles, invasions and terrorism. Historically, peaceful countries end up becoming servants to those who aren't afraid use aggression.

Stability

When forming a good government, the motive is to create something that is beneficial to everyone. This is a difficult task since everyone has different interests. A determination has to be made as to what areas we are going to give control, what people will have control and to what extent the control will be imposed. We start out by studying government and theoretical governments of the past. Governing is good but becomes despised when it isn't applied properly. When people don't perceive they are being represented, rebellion ensues. It is important that the citizenry be educated about the proper application of authority and appreciation for its proper use before a country can be peaceful.
It goes both ways since either common people or those in authority can be victims of mistaken notions.

There are a few good points we can touch on out of book eight of Politics. Concerning who should govern, we find that a military government ends up making slaves out of the common people. We see that today in some countries. The people end up farming and building for the benefit of the army and officers while they maintain an elite status. This certainly isn't a benefit for the people and is subject to abuses. A government should also have a mixture of white collar professionals. But to put business professionals in charge can also have the same effect. They will want to mold things for their own benefit and make slaves of everyone else. And blue collar workers would be concerned about their interests and not understand the effect legislation has on commerce and treaties.

Regardless the representation in governing, one thing needs to be common. Aristotle thought that having the ability to easily change laws is a great evil. Stability comes from having laws that don't change so people can understand them easily and get in the habit of obeying them. He makes a couple interesting remarks about the origin of man. Some believed that the people had come out of some kind of disaster while others believed that we came from the earth in barbaric form. He thought that either way, old laws will need to be improved occasionally as a society becomes more civilized and he quotes some ridiculous laws that these old civilizations had. Even with a nation a couple hundred years old we can do the same.

Constitutions and laws need a way to be amended, but this also needs to be very difficult since the goal is that any laws we pass will be for everyone's benefit and not just a certain class of citizen. They also shouldn't be changed to represent trends but remain as a solid foundation for a civilized society. Of course, there are always particulars that laws cannot cover that require judgment, but we shouldn't go down the road of trying to cover every spurious concern. The particulars are where we should be trained to have good discretion. We enlist judges and arbiters when two cannot agree on the proper applications and to apply penalties as needed.

Republic

We looked at and are going with the natural law. That is what we see working in the relationships around us. The best way for a group to get together is in a friendship setting; everyone gets along and we all agree. But these are based in a commonality such as sports, schools and proximity. We can only interact at certain levels depending on the type of relationship. Basically a community or group decide what areas they will share and what are out of bounds. This is normally done naturally between ourselves. If people want to formalize the relationship it can be done by charters, bylaws and various forms of contracts. The one that shares the most and is the most intimate is the marriage contract. The less intimate the contract, the fewer areas we want to share. We might let the neighbor borrow our lawnmower but won't let a stranger from another town do it. 

While establishing governing authority at different levels, we have to keep this in mind. While some free spirits are perfectly happy sharing and sharing alike, most people wisely are not. This isn't selfishness but is wisdom. The further authority is from whom they are supposed to attend, the more indifference there is.  We call it being out of touch. So we set up layers with county, city, state and federal responsibilities. Those closest to us take care of the more intimate details and the furthest away take care of things that pertain to national interest. These interests and areas we agree to share are where we debate details. Those who stick closer to natural law will want less federal and more local sharing. They like voluntary personal agreements the best and dislike compulsion. Those who haven't mastered natural life will want to cede more responsibilities over to a governing authority, hoping for a better outcome. 

The tendancy in ancient history was to find some kind of figurehead to trust in, hopefully with supernatural authority. This still goes on in countries today. The change that came with Greek philosophy was the concept of a republic. Instead of a figurehead for everyone to follow, a constitution was revered. The people would come together and agree on what areas to share in common, what class of people would run them and how to make changes as needed. A constitutional government ruled by laws is what makes up a republic. It starts out as a timocratic friendship; where for the most part, everyone agrees on the degree of collaboration and sharing laid out in the constitution. As people come along who want intervention and favors, it decends into a democratic party system where getting the majority on ones side is more important than taking care of the common interests of everyone. Poor decisions are made out of hysteria and mob rule. Leaders circumvent the constitution in order to please the mob. This is a history that repeats itself.

I still think it interesting to look at ideas about these ideas on sharing and authority but hope that it doesn't get too boring for you the reader. We have covered sharing lands and family structures. What kind of people do we want in charge? Are there advantages to a class system? We have touched on so many areas, lets go into a little more detail next time.  

 

Brotherhood

Politics become complicated when people try to justify violating natural law. The social structures that work best for us are self-evident and natural. They really aren't hard to understand. People will complicate things to get their own way but usually our own intuition is a good thing to follow. Exercising our understanding clearly without an agenda is a good practice and hopefully that is what we stick with in these discourses.  Since Aristotle spends time in the book "Politics", comparing Plato, Socrates and other's ideas of government to natural laws, it would be a good idea if we go over some of the principles we find in "Ethics". Obviously politics work best when we find common ground so everyone can be in unity. Natural law is synonymous with common ground. Everyone should be able to agree on it since it is self-evident. But we must have a common understanding of how governing works and what the limitations are. Keep in mind also that good people who make an effort at understanding these things have fewer conflicts and people of good character will have less conflict within themselves. Personal ethics is the foundation for a good nation. The fewer people of good character a society has, the more laws and subsequent law enforcement are needed since the law of the land reflects natural law.
The simplest form of authority is Timocratic. This is the brotherhood kind of organization and we are the most comfortable with it. When we like each other, we have common goals and everyone gets along with each other. There isn't much governing needed. But due to our nature, we all have different interests and goals. In order to reconcile the differences, someone has to give in while the others gets their own way. It is on this point a Timocratic government can digress to a democratic one. Those who want to stay in the group while getting their own way have to form alliances so they can be the majority. In this way, they oppress the minority. In a family or a school, we call this ganging up on the others. So first the parameters of the relationship have to be defined. Clubs have charters and countries have constitutions.
It is a good idea to have professionals in leadership. In a family, the mother and father are the ones that make the decisions. The children haven't enough experience or maturity to make decisions for the entire family. A timocratic form of government is ineffectual at managing complicated things. This where we need aristocratic form of government. We get a group of experts to make decisions about the bigger issues. This can digress into an oligarchy, where an elite group feels entitled to these positions. This what a grown child feels his parents have become once they become mature. An aristocratic form of government works well as long as its leaders step aside and let others take the reigns when it is time. In the same way doting parents are despised by an adult child, so are politicians that act superior to the citizens by entitlement and elitism.
Sometimes the family needs someone who has the final say. This might fall to the mother, father or grandparents in a clan setting. Cities have mayors, states governers, boards have chairpersons, schools have principles and the list goes on. This is a marnarchial form of government and it is necessary for decisions that have to do with the realm they are in charge of. The problems with this form of governing occur when people worship the leader and the leader forms a big ego. This enables this person to opress those who aren't his croonies. When the interests of this person such as wealth, honor and opinions exceed the the scope of the job, tyranny results. People become subjects rather than this person being a servant of the people. So pride and the resulting arrogence is the biggest danger with this one. A humble person is less apt to be worshiped, but in a culture of good character, it is the good character and not the person that is admired.

Old Works

I find it interesting how people never change over the centuries. It doesn't matter if you are reading Greek stories and philosophies, the Bible, old English literature, or poems, the struggles and ideas are similar to today. The good thing is that we can see how things turned out for them. Their feelings match ours and we can empathize with their struggles. Having so much less communication it took quite a person to get his word out. This gives me an appreciation for not only how old works were preserved but the content. It only seems right, after all the effort, the least we could do is read what they have written and enjoy it. Today we have email and texts.What comes from the heart and reasoning is important and gets lost in our world of superficial media.
What we have been looking at is Aristotle's Politics and I took a little detour into the book "Utopia". I thought it pertinent to the study of politics. With political study, we look at the best ways a society can be structured with the purpose of bringing the most happiness to the individuals. This builds on ethics, an earlier review we had here that pertained to having wholesome relationships with ourselves and others. In ethics, we looked at three areas of friendships, those for pleasure or fun; those for utility or fulfilling a material need; and those for commonality or closeness. Politics deals with utility areas. The lack of fun and romance makes it seems like a boring study. We don't have to enjoy these type of relationships or feel close to them, but we do want them to keep their word and fulfill their duty.
At the beginning of Politics, we saw that these organizations originate from family relationships. He spent some time on the role of women and interesting takes on property ownership versus private ownership. The rest of the book has comparisons between different states and their laws. We are going to review a few of them but not too much so we can keep this interesting. I don't want to fall asleep writing either...  

Fun and Fashion

Sir Thomas Moore starts out the book "Utopia" with a list of grievances against the elites of his day. He complained about those who raise sheep rather than farm because they used so little labor and put people out of work. The ending was about how he dreamed we could have a Utopian society. He claimed it is our Christian duty to lay aside pride and live simple lives. Numerous social engineers have said the same things and had the same vision of a Utopian society. But theories always have the luxury of being ideal. Reality has a way of dispelling them. If people wanted to live in a communal society they would voluntarily do so. Why can't everyone see the benefits? Let's look at a few reasons.
Fredric Bastiat explained it well in his book "The Law" in 1850.  He saw the mistakes made during the French revolutions and pointed them out. When we get down to basics, every person is an individual with his own talents, ambitions, passions and wants. We naturally want to use them to the best of our abilities and also naturally want to keep the rewards we earn with our diligence. Due to our nature of efficiency, we want the most reward for the least amount of effort. To some people, this becomes the vice we call greed, consequently they take it to extremes and become takers. Greed isn't confined to the wealthy; anyone who thinks it right to receive unearned benefits is greedy. The only reason to have laws is to protect ourselves from those who want to plunder what we have rightfully earned. Bastiat felt that government easily becomes a vehicle for these same greedy people to plunder but in a different way. He called it legal plunder.
Mr Bastiat had a good way of explaining social engineering. He wrote about the professors in that day that thought they knew what is best for society, much like Sir Thomas and his Utopia. He addressed the condescending attitude people like that have while they have no consideration of individual hopes and dreams. The fact is, we human beings are not a garden for others to tend. Those who are satisfied with the mundane have no right to demand it of everyone else especially by the force of the law. Every individual has the right to dictate where he will grow and what he will do with his own life. Laws exists to protect societies' rights to enjoy fashion, art, and ambition; all that is best about being human.  Using the term "Pursuit of Happiness" as a right wasn't a mistake in the Declaration of Independence. So we as we look at the best structure for a government, we can separate Utopian thought from what is practical and right.

Our Way is Better

We have been examining the Book "Utopia". It contains one writer's opinion of an ideal society. People say that most wars are produced by differences in religions or politics. But at the core of each one is a search for a Utopian society. It makes more sense to say that most conflict with mankind is based on forcing Utopian ideals on one another. Certain people or individuals throughout history have thought that as long as they are in charge, the whole of the human race would be better off. Acts of tyranny in a family through those of a government are always presented as being for the people's own good. We can see that numerous governments and societies have tried to use certain ideas contained in this book. After looking at this book, we can look at some of the realities.
The Utopians try to keep their cities at the perfect size of six thousand people so there can be no want. The way they accomplish this is through population apportionment. What they call families are groups of ten to sixteen to a household. They are mostly related. They have a hierarchy where the eldest are in charge of the younger unless an elderly person isn't in his right mind, then the next one down is in charge. The woman are married out when of age. The wives take care of the household. The children are apportioned. If one family has too many children, they give their excess to a family that is lacking children so that no family becomes bigger or more powerful than another.
If a city becomes too large, they send people out into the countryside to find good soil. If none remains in the country, they go out and colonize another country. Most countries welcome their abilities and organization and quickly assimilate into their new cities. If a country has ground that can be tended and the natives refuse, the Utopians feel that natural law entitles them to take over and settle the areas by conquering them. They do believe in slavery but as a means to keep violence down and a crime deterrent. Those who are dissidents or who have committed murder and heinous crimes are made slaves rather than put to death or punished severely. These are used as butchers since Utopians don't like killing animals.Those who commit adultery and fornication are penalized by being put into slavery. They treat their slaves well but keep the dangerous ones in chains.  If there is a plague or some of the areas of their native country are depopulated, they recall people from the colonies since it is a priority that their country stays populated.
There is no need for money in Utopia. Every day they go to a common square that serves a certain amount of people and get the things they need. There is always an abundance of goods there since everyone works. People simply drop off the things they have made and pick up what others have made that they like. This way there is no greed since there is no fear of want. There is no room for pomp, fancy things or excess in their laws. There is a leader over every thirty families and any problems are brought to him first, but there are few if any.
Food is managed differently and the families don't need to keep any at their homes. Crops are gathered and kept in these common places.  Meals are made in great halls that are at each street. So everyone always eats out. They despise eating at home. There are stewards that go to the common markets and pick up food for their group. Slaves do all the hard work while the women of the families rotate in and out to supervise the cooking. The women sit in one area so they can socialize and tend to small children or step outside if they are sick due to pregnancy. They have nice areas aside the halls for small children and nursing mothers. The men are seated so the older children are mixed between them so they learn to behave and be respectful.
The Utopians build big hospitals so people would rather go to them than stay home sick. This helps avoid plagues. The hospitals get first choice in food at the marketplace. In order to do this justice, we will have to continue with one more part..

The City of Amaurot

I thought it would be fun to go on a trip through Utopia. I had to finish the book but wouldn't expect you all to do it. Funny, I hated social studies in school. It is interesting that we always have the same ideas and dreams for a society during every generation. Each has to sort out what inhibits them from reaching potentials and what practical things can be done to improve those potentials. There are two kinds of potential for an individual, one of productivity and the other that concerns happiness. And there are social approaches for of each of these. The question becomes about whether the potential originates from a social structure or by individual character. And if both, how much is needed of each and what takes precedence.
Utopia is an example of improvement from a social structure and many of the ideas have been mentioned by social planners in the last century. So let's have a little fun and look at the lives of the Utopians. In the same manner as in The Republic, there is an application to different areas of social structure.  Let's begin with how their cities are laid out. We will skip the political discourses and character introduction and confine ourselves to the principles to keep this brief.
Interestingly, the country is an island shaped like a crescent. Their cities have no houses, but they have wide streets and the home fronts run continuously along both sides of the streets. They are set up similar to a large mall where all the back doors open up to an enclosed common garden that everyone tends while the fronts open up to the street. They take pride in their beautiful plants but have little use for the ornamentation of their homes.The doors are on hinges similar to a diner where they swing in or out. There are no locks on the doors, but families do have their own dwellings. Even so, anyone can come and go as he pleases. There is a lot of glass, but no one has a better home than anyone else since the entire city is commonly owned. The dwellings are rotated once every ten years by lot. The front started out as one-story structures, but they now have as many as three, with a flat roof out of materials that resist fire.
Now their government is elected every year and they have two hundred representatives. Out of every ten, a leader is chosen and they are the ones who choose the prince. They have to vow that they will choose the best person for the job using no favoritism. The prince is for life although he can be easily removed if he tries to enslave the people. The prince and leaders meet every third day and there has to be a couple representatives present that are rotated in every day to make sure the common people are represented. No one is allowed to meet anywhere else concerning the matters of the state upon penalty of death. This is to avoid factions and leaders that want to change the government. There has to be a proper meeting of officials for state matters and a completely public meeting if needed for things that will affect everyone. They send for all the representatives, then have everyone discuss the matters in their homes before calling the public meeting. No decisions can be made on the same day the issues are presented just in case the debate gets heated causing rash decisions. Personal conflicts are few and the prince decides them.
All the Utopians know agriculture very well and are employed in gardens or the field. They are also educated and have trades. The fashion never changes and everyone is dressed similarly. The families make their own clothes. Work is regulated to three hours before lunch and three afterward, a total of six hours. Everyone has to work, there are no excuses. The representative's main job is to make sure everyone works. You won't find anyone sitting around. The rest of the day is spent tending gardens, listening to music, engaging in discussions, education and of course everyone exercises since health is a top priority for them. Neglecting one's mind or health is disgusting to them. Their work clothes last seven years since they don't work too hard. If someone is interested in a trade, a family who knows it will adopt them as a member and raise them up in it.
Well, I thought I could make this brief but am only half way through. The next post will continue on how the Utopians have no need for money or barter. They reserve jewels so their children can enjoy the shine but think adults should mature out of the need for shiny things. Hope you are enjoying this trip through Utopia. More next time...

Utopia

It is common for people to have the tendency to look at the world with through Utopian ideals. The word Utopia comes from a book written by Sir Thomas More in 1516. It is an interesting work of satire based in Greek thoughts of government where he mocks his present day monarchy. With the popularity today of mini series based on that period, it seems appropriate. The word he uses for the country "Utopia" means "nowhere" in Greek and it goes along with the study we have been engaging in. Sir Thomas creates fictitious cities and extols the virtues of them. One for instance, requires all the people to work in the fields for six hours no matter what position they are in. He says that it cut down on the amount of preachers, idle woman, lazy nobles, and beggars who pretend they are handicapped.

Of course when we look at realities, it is a waste to use the sharp minds in a country toward manual labor. This is a conflict in ideas that is being fought still today. A person who is uneducated or doesn't have the skills of another shouldn't be consumed with equality of wages since wages are an incentive to excel. Absent capital, people become mediocre. A professional protester would fail as a CEO. There is work to do and prices to pay to get in those positions and to receive the amount of pay some people get. Concerning government, we want representatives from among the people and yet want people who are good politicians so they govern well. We don't want leaders who are always lame ducks; just waiting their term out. And yet career politicians tend to lose touch with the people. Many governments today use a combination of short timers and long term people so these areas are addressed. This causes gridlock at times but the purpose is to slow things down enough so every area is addressed. It causes making laws more of a sacred duty rather than a frivolous activity.

The concept of equality is pleasing to everyone but it is hard to define since every person has unique desires. Possessions don't fulfill them all. It is impossible to define what each person needs because it is different with each person. Some are given to obsessions and need temperance. It is healthy for them to expect less. Others could use encouragement to enjoy life a little more. We have to make adjustments ourselves concerning the ratio between work and play. It shouldn't be up to an outside entity what we do to satisfy ourselves. We call these areas our private lives and want to self govern them. It is a part of maturity and we feel good about ourselves when we make our own decisions. When an outside entity tries to dictate them however, we complain about tyranny. Those who are doted on become dependents. That is why dictating equality from an outside entity is inferior. Laws exist to protect liberty. The best way to help in the private areas of citizenry is to educate the population from their youth about having good character. In this way they manage their lives better and reach potential through their own vision. That is why I write these blogs.  

Rights and Responsibilities

When we look at ownership, we are looking at our responsibilities toward tangible things. People like to spiritualize this in different ways. Some say we belong or are owned by an ecosystem/mother earth, others by a god of some kind, yet others claim we are owned by chaos and random events. But we have to look beyond these philosophies since they deal with intangible things. Our passions are also intangible and allowing these to be the determining factor for ownership is too vague. Using intangible ideas to determine ownership for tangible things doesn't work out well. Making claims that things are owed to us because of affiliations to a god or a class of people upsets clear thinking.

At it's most basic form, we have souls and bodies that have desires and needs. We own them both and that is what makes us individuals. If we could be islands, nothing beyond that would matter, but we need others in order to be satisfied and to have a sense of accomplishment. But when another person is involved, we have to concede certain areas of our private lives. As a worker, we have to give a portion of our day and attention to work. This is in exchange with others for pay. If we live with someone, there is an exchange also. Sometimes we feel we give too much for the benefits we receive. This is a common human issue since we always want more for less effort and it can come from either side.

These principles also apply to governing. We have a need for order and protection because of the human tendency to take more that what is given. If we rightly assume everyone has greed, the question concerns how to approach this with the least amount of greed involved. The word "rights" involves the areas in our lives that we don't want to concede to another entity. Today the meaning has morphed into the concept of wants and needs, but then it is open to broad interpenetration. What does a person need besides food and shelter? How much transportation and entertainment are we responsible to provide for another? How much should a person be allowed to keep and how much work should be required? When the concept of rights is confined to what areas we are willing to concede to another entity, our ability to define parameters becomes possible.

When government is involved with wants and needs, greed becomes a problem. Those who are on the receiving end expect more benefits while those who are governing want more security and honor in their positions. They look for creative ways to extort payment from each other. The dynamic of wanting more for less on both sides is put into play. By laying aside passions concerning what we think people should have, the question becomes confined to freedom and insuring that people keep what they earn. This is important since ownership is what motivates people to do their best.

We have concluded in the past that sharing everything equally socially makes the participants feel less responsible for their actions. They easily pass the blame on others and honor is lacking. Actual close relationships have to exist before a concept of country can be comprehended. Without loyalty and honor established among his closest peers, a person will not practice it toward a country. Along the same lines, if we share everything material, there is little practice of benevolence. Neither the recipients or the givers have an appreciation for what is being done. With ownership comes responsibility. Responsible people are more apt to take care of what they have and give the proper amount to help others. A society based in good character will coincide with good stewardship. Prodigal behavior is that which wastes what is needed for everyone to survive in order to experience the pleasure being a hero. It becomes more complicated when the resources are compulsory from a governing entity.

When we cede over areas to another entity, they have to be well defined to prevent abuse. The benefits of having an ownership based society far outweigh one that is based in sharing by compulsion. But it has to be coupled with a culture of good character. Law and order will have to be enforced by compulsion. Even this can get out of hand without well defined rights.