Forum:Empirical strain
From Campaigns Wikia
The rules for behavior of Human Beings are decided by the structures of law and morality that are enforced by a government of some kind. Human Beings function within groups or societies for the benefits that are derived from collective living. Leadership or government of some kind is a necessary utility for a collective as it increases in complexity. Simple societies do not require a distinct leadership role because the level of cooperation does not need to be very high. The level of cooperation between the agencies that provide the essential services in a modern society reflects the essential function of a government. A government sets the standards not only of Human, but of physical interaction as well. Governments in the modern sense represent the highest and most comprehensive authority over the activities of Human Beings. Government is such a extensive concept that it is difficult to think of Human Beings not acting under the guidance of some kind of central authority. This authority arises from the consent of the members of a particular collective. The consent can take the form of popular endorsement or acquiescence. To live within and obey the edicts of any authority is to validate that authority. Whether or not Human Beings are ruthlessly oppressed or not, a government can only exude authority through the complicity of its members.
If this were a series of essays studying political science, there would be a number of configurations that a government could assume within the historical context of Human activity. For the purposes of this discussion I will not be discoursing on each individual variation of government, but rather on the essential features and primary functions of this Human invention. The style of government depends for the most part on the number of people involved in making decisions for the collective. The range of possibilities run from a dictatorship, which has a single Human Being making the decisions, to a democracy, in which the entire populous is actively involved in the running of a society. Neither of these extremes exists in the modern world. Governments referred to as dictatorships are controlled by a small organization of people who answer to an individual authority. A modern society, even a very poor one, cannot be controlled by a single Human Being. A society that is under the rule of a dictator does not fail in the event of a coup. The infrastructure of their government that operated under one person can operate under another. In the case of a democracy, it has been a technological, not social, dilemma that has prevented its ideal implementation. It has been impossible for every member of a society to communicate their preference on a decision in the period that such decisions must be made. At this time, there are certainly some societies capable of true democracies, but other factors have prevented its implementation.
The influences of our cultural and societal standards of behavior are manifest at the time of our birth and are subject to only very slow change. The possibility of change in government is both more likely to occur and easier to achieve. In this country, it is possible to completely change the members of the legislative and executive branches of government in six years within the rules of law. This has never happened in our history and will probable never happen. In countries that are less stable than most of Western society, change can occur in a day. It is physically easier to topple a regime in which one group of people has control of the government. The process by which a government changes when a small group of people are involved is usually violent. This type of change in government often exchanges one kind of oppression for another way of oppression. It brings into power leaders who view violence as a problem-solving tool. In democratic systems, regimes can be toppled without the use of violence. The same principle described above applies to changes in leadership in democracies as well. The leaders who can effectively wrest control from a government will be those well versed in the art of persuasion. They will be able to convince the voters of a change that would be advantageous over the previous regime. These leaders will view persuasion as a problem-solving tool.
Persuasion and violence are currently the most popular way of attaining high public office. One of the most popular ways of becoming a ruler throughout history was to be born into a ruling family. It has only been recently in historical terms that leadership has been decided by popular approval. The invention of society required that decisions be made on an understanding that they would affect the entire population uniformly. The simplest way to accomplish this is by allowing one individual to make the decisions. The voting records of Congress illuminate the problem with more than a few people attempting to decide the course of a collective. Human Beings established the dictatorship type of leadership role in order to effectively streamline and authenticate the decision making process. It is the selection of this type of ruler that runs the course of mysticism. Very often the ruler of a particular society validated authority by appealing to the religious beliefs of the constituency. Power to rule was often seen as the intervention of the creator of the Universe in the affairs of men. If such an authority could be established, the actions and the legitimacy of the ruler were not questioned. There is no evidence for supernatural forces playing any role in establishing the leadership of any government at any time. There is ample evidence for greed, nepotism, violence, and narcissism in the rise to power of the leaders of government.
Nearly all governments past and present have an individual leader of some kind. The advantages include decisions can be made quickly and an undisputed hierarchy of authority. A leader of great intellect would be able to employ that intellect for its greatest possible use. The power that members of royalty and dictators have wielded in the past points to the incredible changes that can come from a society obeying a single leader. Up until the middle of the nineteenth century, the overwhelming majority of the members of any collective were illiterate. The masses of Human Beings were not capable of understanding the seemingly complex relationships involved in running a government. It was perfectly reasonable, therefore, to assign the decision making process to those Human Beings with an access to knowledge and information which would facilitate their survival and progress. The intellectual differences between the average citizen and the ruling class made popular decision making incomprehensible. Leaders were chosen for their portrayed superiority over the people who would either benefit or suffer under their guidance. The alleged superiority of the ruling class resulted from opportunity, not genetics. The submission of the underlings of a society results conversely from the lack of intellectual opportunity and physical repression.
The surviving monarchs and dictators of the latter part of the twentieth century are still able to command from the populous no small amount of royal worship. Dictators are often represented as deities. This sort of representation provides the allegiance necessary to implement policies that would otherwise be viewed as preposterous. With the resource of fanatical compliance with policy, a king or despot can often achieve rapid and remarkable successes. The leadership of this type of government is usually not replaced except in the event of catastrophe. It is only through overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that the followers of any type of ruler or dogma are able to discern the truth. The process of convincing a populous of divine rule has become more difficult with advent of popular literacy, but not impossible. In the absence of popular literacy, myth and the abundant use of physical force can ensure the survival of the most brutal regimes. In order to replace a remove the power structure of a dictatorship it becomes necessary to wield as much power as the government. This is the main reason kings and despots are able to control a society despite the evidence that such an authority is responsible for severe oppression and degradation of its citizens. Those in power tend to stay in power. There isn't a government I can think of at this time in history without some physical means of maintaining its power. The royal families of the Middle Ages and the dictators of the twentieth century used paid armies not only to gain control of a collective, but also to maintain that control. Human governments and societies often reflect a hierarchy of repressors and repressed. All modern societies evolve toward this stratification based on economic and cultural bias. The use of ideological or dogmatic reasoning is worth precious little without the ability to physically enforce authority. It may be that the lower classes of any society do not necessarily believe in divine rule. When it becomes a life or death or even a quality of life decision, it is far more prudent to believe in kings and queens than to resist against incredible odds.
The history of civilized Human Beings is rife with examples of assassinations, betrayals, and gross criminality among the ruling classes. To remove an authority that rules by force requires a greater amount of force. The populous of any collective are usually far removed from the processes that create and dispense with their leaders. With the numerical growth in Human population, it became much more difficult to control societies through force for any extended period. With the advent of widespread literacy and education, it became nearly impossible. Popular literacy and education dissipates the information and skills that were usually reserved for the ruling classes and provides their access to the public. This dissipation of information and skills reduces the effectiveness to which it can be utilized by an oppressive authority. Public education dissipates power. It is the most effective force for the prevention of despotic rule.
Placing the power of government across the entire population is the essence of democracy. It has never been implemented in its pure form by any collective of substantial population. Small groups within societies often practice a pure form of democracy in making decisions. All the members vote on policy for the entire group. There are certain physical barriers that prevent the practice of pure democracy for large populations. Communications, even in the most advanced countries is not yet at the point where the government could easily extract the opinions of its people in a timely manner. The advances have been made in communications and transportation that have made pure democracy difficult to attain. The problems and situations that arise are often met with instantaneous reaction. Information is also instantaneous but deliberation will always take some time. We are physically not prepared at this time to implement what is usually considered the most equitable system of governing Human Beings. At such a time when we are able to effectively poll the members of a society on every action of government, there will still be problems with its implementation.
The foremost problem with instituting pure democracy in the United States is that the best selling periodical in this country is the National Enquirer. If pure democracy is achieved there is no guarantee that the decisions made by the members of a collective will be better than those achieved by any other form of government. Dictators and royalty have generally poor records for achievement but there have been some notable exceptions. It depends on the person making the decisions. A dictator can produce a model nation when the leader is capable of providing the leadership for such a nation. A democracy is only as good as the decisions the collective is able to make. A pure democracy might mean catastrophe for the nation that is functionally illiterate. A democracy is viewed as fair in as far as the results of any action taken collectively are realized by the collective itself. The benefit or detriment of each individual depends on their own choice rather than the vagaries of a single authority.
