The Philosophy of the Governance of Man

[Samuel Adams]

I find that 'politics' or 'political debate' today is pretty much a niche discussion. Even the method of breaking down political sympathies is totally defined- Socialist, Libertarian, Anarchist, Communist, Republican and Democrat, so on so forth.

I stand with Jefferson that Philosophy is a much better method of justifying the governance of men. We must not ask ourselves about this law and that law, but why have laws altogether? What is the purpose of the governing, in relation to the governed?

Certainly there is merit in government; how else would society stick together, other than in perfect Anarchy? I put no stock in politics, but in government I can place more faith. In theory Anarchy works, but in practice even I feel that we must institute government.

However, I can not allow myself the ability to accept laws as a way of life. I am forced to ask "Why do we have this law," and urge myself and fellow humankind to live with a healthy distrust and fear of their government.

In my opinion a government is a body of representatives of the people. Their sole duty is not to restrict their citizens, but to serve them. A Socialist, Communist, Monarchist, or Republican can identify with these sentiments. What else is there, but to serve the people?

Governments are instituted for this purpose. The very worst of revolutions is fought for by people that are under the impression the new government will be better than the last. Why else are they fighting?

Yet today we find that we are separated from this common goal by the demagogues of tyrants, who's will it is to divide us as they maneuver themselves into positions of totalitarian power. As humans, can we not decide to govern ourselves to the best of our abilities, and live as neighbors without constant war or bickering?

I often imagine a confederation of smaller states who are allowed to govern themselves. In theory, let us use the United States, where a large difference is seen in views of how government should be.

The Sovereign States of Washington and Oregon have become socialist. They have implemented a system where the people are being represented by their decidedly socialist governments- they are taxed highly, but reap those benefits by having social medicare, a government controlled or highly regulated economy, and so on.

Meanwhile California has instituted a Socialist Republic, much less restrictive than Washington or Oregon but not a true, free Republic. And that is good, as her citizenry have elected for that governance.

In New Hampshire, there is a Government of Laws, a Republic with a free economy and who's governments sole income is taxation on import/export. The people are left to fend for themselves in the private healthcare industry, and must work to eat- however, they are well prepared for this and want it this way.

The list could go on and on.

instead of political wrangling, pre-defined by a specific standard of who's who and who's throat you're supposed to jump at today, why do we not ask "why?"

The Governments today are so caught up in "the way things are," we find that insanely retarded laws are passed with the decorum of being the greatest event in our nation.

All in all you will always reap what you sow. To use my over-worked parallel, why would you set sail in a rusty ship, when you could pay less for a new one than the cost of repairs would be on your old vessel?

In closing this chapter of my argument, I will plead- Do not look at the laws of today, but rather use your intellect to ask why, and to come to your own conclusion as to what 'good laws' are. And finally, ask yourself- What is the relation of your government to their people?

[Djûn]

Before I go and post something totally ridiculous and off topic, is the crux of your argument that the current Democratic Government (of the United States I beleive?) is ineffective in terms of its own Democracy, and that a Confederation would serve a better purpose, if not perfect Anarchy?

[Maverick]

I'm all for State Sovereignty if only to divest the power the megalomaniac politicians and technocrats can achieve.

As for the Market... well I'm not sure I see a coherent argument there but it would probably be over my head anyways.

As humans, can we not decide to govern ourselves to the best of our abilities, and live as neighbors without constant war or bickering?

It's not in our nature but I think it's possible... by force most likely.

I was watching Oliver Stone's Wall Street the other night and it got me thinking about the sly Gordon Gecko's out there who we know are out to get us but in the takeover boom of the '80s the vilified corporate raiders were small time players compared to the pension funds. The reality was blue collar pensioners took control of many large companies and "downsized", a euphemism for massive layoffs in order to drive up the share price and earn a quick buck at the expense of blue collar workers.

Granted I don't know much about economics but I know enough to see that regular Joes and not just slick Wall Street types rationalized putting their friends and neighbors out of work if it meant a profit for themselves.

Anyways I have to run, I will come back to this later.

[Samuel Adams]

Before I go and post something totally ridiculous and off topic, is the crux of your argument that the current Democratic Government (of the United States I beleive?) is ineffective in terms of its own Democracy, and that a Confederation would serve a better purpose, if not perfect Anarchy?

To be honest I bit off more than I could chew, and compressed what should be volumes into a few scanty paragraphs.

I personally believe, on an anti-federalist note, that the notion a socialist in the Northwest can determine by vote how a republican lives his life in the Southeast, who in turn determines how a democrat lives his life in the Northeast, is flawed.

Also, we are not a democracy. We are a Democratic Republic, a nation of Law based on the rights of man and dictated by the people. A democracy can see 51% of the population vote the other 49% into slavery. I have never heard of a more instable form of government than a true democracy. One needs only look at the bloody French Revolution to see how the demagogues can sway the intolerant masses quickly and perversely.

However, my point was not biased to the United States, rather it is a human-wide concept.

Why, for instance, does Germany have the Government it has today? I would argue that post-WW2, nations that have had large US involvement in the construction of a governmental body were not based on ideals or ideas, but rather a concrete example reflecting the host's current practice.

Do Germans love their government because it reflects them- their values, their ethics, their day-to-day ideas? If not then the greatest disservice we ever did to Germany was to make Western Germany a US semi-clone, because Germans are not the same as US citizens.

Hence why I always argue against the US Military and Foreign Services establishing "Democracy" in Iraq and Afghanistan. If these nations' peoples had wanted democracy, they would have fought for it!

Who governs YOU should be based on you and your neighbors.

Will we always be happy with our governments, 110%? No, and it is right that it is so. A Government with 100% of the people being 100% happy with the government will always be able to use that as an advantage to further their own power- always at the expense of the people, and their individual rights.

However, I suppose a simple answer would be yes, I support a more confederate United States. I do realize the initial articles of confederation failed. However, if a federalist of 1788 saw today the ramifications of his actions, I daresay he would go back to his own time and be instantly converted to anti-federalism.

My idea pushes not the idea of pre-existant government. Rather, it pushes the idea of a revolution of the mindset we use to determine how we are governed.

We take for granted our US methods of law and governance, taking little policy changes as "change." Of course there will be "change" after the next elections, and the next, and the one after that. Everyone, from the State Assemblyman next door, or even the school board member, to the President of the United States, will instigate some change from what was, and that in and of itself is human nature.

What I am talking about is questioning all of this- the methods, the standard operating procedures, the little machines of government we all think are commonplace.

I think a confederacy would be much more suited for today than anything else as far as the US is concerned, as this would allow the philosophers and the common man to invent a government for themselves that best represents them.