Dauphin365N

If we look deeply into ourselves we cannot fail but to question a great number of the axioms upon which both religions and democracies are built.
Educated minds will certainly perceive many flaws in the whole logic of both.
In what regards religion the constant contradictions between its dogma and scientifically proven facts are well known.
Throughout history religions have, in one hand, brought solace and moral comfort to populations living in abject misery, but on the other, actively cooperated in herding these same populations into a state of submission in the hope of a hypothetical paradise.

In both cases to question or to dissent is regarded as a moral crime. In what concerns religions excommunication, death or proscription have been dissuasory measures.
In the case of the Democracy the most effective method is to cast anathema on criticism. Anyone who criticises democracy must surely be in favour of dictatorship.
Given the, still present, post world wars trauma of Western societies this method of self-preservation has in fact prevented an open discussion of the failures of modern democracies.

Since men has first started to organize himself politically that the idea of the subject or serf as set in as a basic political notion.
Populations were attached to the land and “owned” by whoever ruled the land. If possession of the land was transferred by legal or violent means, then the population also became subject to the new lord.
Still, today, this concept remains active in society’s political subconscious.
Even at this day Governments change by legal or violent means and the common citizen has no choice but to obey the new rule.
At no point in anyone’s life are we given the choice to accept, or not the, rules of the game. If we are born in the land we automatically become subject to the rule of the land.
This is the conclusion of a millennial philosophy that looks at men as groups or categories and disregards each person as an individual.
Perhaps the concept was coined first by the Sun King but we can say that in a certain sense each individual is the true Sovereign State. If he is to give allegiance to other larger State then it must be on a basis of formal and legal consent. At some point in everyone’s life we must formally surrender part of our Sovereignty to the big State.
The cornerstone of a new Democracy is the acceptance of the primacy of the individual over the State.
The one man one vote rule denies the individual any influence over the events that shape his own life and forces him to surrender his own voice to the faceless and more controllable mass called the “people”.
This state of affairs has brought into the social scene a new class, the professional politician.
This is a group of people that having perceived the flaws of Democracy have decided to make a career for themselves by living off of it.
Since this class actually controls the machinery of the State they can take all necessary measures to perpetuate and increase their hold on power.
This is accomplished by ever increasing the State apparatus and therefore the number of posts necessary to reward the supporters.
A party leader needs support to ascend trough the ranks of the Party. But support is not free or in other terms “there is no free lunch”.
When elected to Government a leader has to pay the supporters by creating more posts within the Administrative body to accommodate his followers.
It is a never-ending process that year by year swells the administrative machinery at the expense of the ordinary citizen helplessly caught in a vicious circle with no end in sight.
It should be interesting to find out what is the trend ratio of the cost of running the State versus the gross internal product in our modern Democracy’s.
It is not difficult to predict that, if we do not break free from this state of affairs, at some point in time the system will implode violently. No better example than the collapse of the Soviet Union to illustrate the danger we face.


There are a few basic questions that need to be answered.

Are elected governments the best and most apt group of citizens capable of managing the country in order to attain the best possible results with the available resources? (Of course these results are not to be evaluated only within the duration of the election span but in it’s intrinsic contribute to the long-term advancement of the Society.)

Does the people in fact retain real power over the conduction of their destiny? Or is that power limited to the brief moment whilst the ballot slips from the hand into the box?

After the election is over what safeguards prevent a government from straying away from it’s campaign marketing promises?

We have seen that when government’s interests collide with those of the population or sectors of it the only course left is street demonstration, which governments have the power to restrict.
Therefore, the ultimate resource of the governed to demonstrate it’s dissent is, in fact, to break the laws, which in turn are passed by those whom they try to demonstrate against.
Once a Government is elected it can raise taxes, change retirements pensions, declare war, raise it’s own salaries, grant benefit’s to it’s supporters and what have you whilst the governed have the “power” to calmly wait another 4, 5 or 6 years to again cast their vote to again elect a government, that again, will act according to the interests of it’s constituents.
Of course these interests may or may not coincide with the best interests of the Society whose faith is in the hands of these elected representatives.

And why, are government’s interests not exactly coincident with the best interests of the Society upon which they rule.

Certainly not by a wilful intent of causing hardship on the electorate but surely because their actions have the underlying objective of self-preservation.
Evidently those who govern do so in the belief that what is good for them is good for the recipients of their governing.
But, in the end, the objective of the Government and of the Party that supports it is to be re-elected.
Now, if a party wants to be re-elected it has to plan their actions so that a favourable view of its performance prevails at the time of the election.
Therefore Governments are constrained to adopt harsh measures in the initial phase of the term and apply more popular actions closer to the election date.
Of course this will have a negative impact in the overall performance of the country’s capability to provide for the well being of its citizens.


To govern is to manage and at any given moment there is only one good policy to govern a country. That policy is the only capable of obtaining the best overall results within the constraints of the available resources.
There cannot be, simultaneously, a good Left wing and good Right wing policies.
Given the actual circumstances, resources, international environment, quality and education of the labour force and so on only one set of measures will return the best possible results.

Therefore the practice of parties nominating themselves according to Left, Right or Centre ideologies is a formal declaration that once elected they will preserve the interests of the Social sectors that elected them and in doing so will not Govern in the best possible way in what concerns the Country as a whole.

Do we call this good governing?

Is this how Organizations greater than most Countries are Governed?

Of course not.

Is the Pope elected by a majority of Catholic’s?

Are Generals elected by a majority of soldiers?

Are the CEO’s of major corporations elected by a majority of its workers?

Certainly not, but do we call these organisations dictatorial in nature?

Of course we do not.

If we were to define and quantify sectors according the performance of individuals as members of a society we can in a broad sense estimate that 25% are good, 50% are average and 25% are mediocre.
We can confirm this by simply looking at the grades of schools.
The top 25% are in general the best educated minds and thus able to clearly see trough electoral promises.
This is the sector that will not be fooled by vague promises or unrealistic ideals. I would risk that absenteeism and atheism is, as a percentage, higher in this sector than on the other two.
Therefore the campaign strategies and marketing in use in our days are not very effective in convincing the brightest minds in a Society.
Political parties know that to win an election they must capture the centre sector and as much as the lower sector as possible. (The recent reelection of President Lula da Silva in Brazil is a prime example).
In order to capture the votes of the centre and lower sectors parties must shape their policies in order to address the interests of these sectors, which can be broadly defined as “ To obtain the most possible benefits from the State with the least possible amount of effort “
That is why we see a disproportionate concern of politicians with “low return” political issues such as caring for drug addicts, lowering school standards so that failures do not feel rejected, comfortable prisons, unemployment compensation, free housing, providing for illegal immigrants and so on.
On the other hand we do not see the same emphasis on issues such as rewarding excellence and productivity. No party would win an election if it were ever to announce tax cuts for the most profitable and best managed Companies and by a majority of reason to the most productive citizens.
We can imagine the impact of something like a decreasing income tax for salaries above € 60 000.
Was this not the failure of Communism? Do we not know that in any human enterprise, be it an army or a factory, success is the result of leadership and example. And do we not know that without the expectation of profit man loses his drive to excel?
Would Alexander the Great have taken his army so far and for so long had he not promised his generals and his soldiers the riches of the Persian Empire?
Would he achieve what he achieved by promising good care for the wounded and mild penalties for deserters?
The major flaw of modern politics is that the emphasis is on the unproductive and not on the productive. Politicians fail to perceive that the more the output of the productive sectors then the more resources are available to care for the less productive.
In any successful factory, bank or airline the emphasis is “au contraire” to reward the best and penalise the worst and that is the fundamental reason of their success. But of course managers can only apply these policies because they are not bound by the electoralist system that modern societies drag like a prisoner’s ball and chain. Their success is a measure of the profit generated throughout the year.

Therefore the conclusion is that the choice is not between Democracy and Dictatorship but between a Democracy of competency and a Democracy of electoralism.
The difference being that the former is oriented by results and the latter by self-preservation.

But it is important, at this stage, to define success as the result of political action. And political success is nothing but the coordination of the resources of a Society in order to achieve the best possible results. And what are these results? None other than to progress on the path to the perfect society.
And what would be a perfect society? One without Police Forces, Armies Organised Religions and a state worth every cent of taxpayer’s money. A society that guarantees means of survival for all but also rewards excellence and achievement.
No Police and Armies because citizens had reached a stage of civilization where they cannot act against moral and ethic rules.
No organized religions because citizens are educated enough to communicate with God on their own and not trough “intermediaries”.


The present system of parties is a major obstacle to a Democracy of competency and gives no option to the elector except to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Governing under the present system is like someone having difficulty in paying his credit card bill and opening another credit card account to borrow money to pay the previous card and so on.
Because of the threat of elections politicians abstain from adopting the right policies because these are the hardest. Most of the time the solution to a problem is to delay it hoping that it won’t turn into a crisis in his “watch”.
Let me give an example. Is there anyone that can deny that Education is unquestionably the one and foremost priority of any Government be it in Siberia or Tasmania?
Is it not the advancement of knowledge that brought mankind to this stage of development? Is it not evident that since the introduction of writing and printing mankind began an ever-increasing pace of development in technology and social organization?

But is Education the number one priority of Governments? No, but many Candidates for office do proclaim it as so, although it is a seldom kept promise.

And why? Very simply because the benefits of such policies will only be felt in 15 or 20 years.

Therefore politicians are more interested in “visible” policies with results that can be seen before the next elections. Buildings, mega projects, the Moon, Mars, etc.
In the meantime only a few have access to quality healthcare.
State Education is ever increasingly lagging in quality behind private Education.
Security is a thing of the past with the imminent threat of gangs, terrorists, cyber crime and so on.
Our foods are poisoned, the air we breathe is unhealthy, our forests are being decimated, viruses are uncontrolled and we are producing garbage at ever increasing rates to the point that Nature can no longer reprocess it.
But of course dealing with these issues will not attract votes.

The Political party system is, in a way, like a stock exchange.
Individuals cast their votes under the same rational as they buy stock.
We vote in a certain party because we expect to benefit from that party ascension to power. We have reasonable expectations that the policies of that party will be in favour of our particular interests.
In the past poor workers, all over the world, registered in Communist Parties in the belief that the wealth would be stripped from the rich and redistributed amongst them so that they would then enjoy the good life they so criticised.

dahermit

Alas Babylon, it is so. But what do you propose?

Dauphin365N

Nowadays, lower income classes still “buy” Socialist “stock” hoping that their salaries will increase, that the State will provide for a more comfortable life without requiring more work in return.
Then we have social Democrats with mixed interests. Middle class, middle income, no longer receptive to Socialism but with no benefit in hard line right wing philosophies.
Right wing is normally associated with favouring Capital.
Of course there are still the parties calling themselves centre, which is nothing, but an euphemism for right wing “sweetened “ with a touch of social.

We can thus see that, in a broad sense, the party system reflects the various sectors of a Society according to its income status.
If we remove “the make up” of this rainbow of political colours we will end up with just two basic philosophies Social and Capital. Each one trying to goad more investors into buying their stock

These are the basic and deeper forces driving political change. On one side we have leaders and on the other followers. This, of course, has not any qualitative judgement. Like in any other aspect of the Universe progress is the result of two conflicting and driving forces.
Mankind advancement has been, throughout history, the resultant vector of new ideas balanced by the prudence and wisdom of the past.

Whenever an unbalance exists then turmoil and social violence erupt. The 1789 and 1917 French and Bolshevik Revolutions are examples on one side, the German Nazi and Italian Fascist regimes on the other. Each event took place as a correction to society’s internal unbalances so much like earthquakes are the result of the collision of tectonic plates or plagues are a result of overpopulation and lack of adequate food supplies.

We can then infer that, if the internal unbalances are corrected, mankind can concentrate their resources in the pursuit of the perfect Society. A Society that is fair, that brings out the best in its citizens and rends it’s worst harmless to others.

In conclusion, the present political party system does nothing but perpetuate and even stimulate the political “faults” that lie beneath the “surface”. Like in a vicious circle parties have to stir the cauldron of political emotions in order to assure their own survival in the hope that they will benefit from every little crisis they create.
In every election campaign we watch in dismay as insults are hurled, as social differences are exacerbated as a war climate is created in which a side will “win” and the other will “loose”.
When the results are known one side exults with victory as if something momentous has just been accomplished while the other sulks in the gloom of defeat like all their life prospects where suddenly wiped away .
In another 4 or 5 or 6 years the whole process repeats itself but nothing really changes at least with the pace that we, the Governed, expect.

At this time, in the course of mankind, when man has been to the moon and tremendous military might has been achieved how is it that criminals can live off orderly and law abiding citizens like leeches draining the blood of it’s prey?
How is it that a great majority of people cannot pay for health services and live miserably with its ailments only to be relieved at the moment of death?
How is it that so many bright children are robbed of a brilliant future for not having access to quality education?
How is it that a majority of old people have to face the autumns of their lives with resignation and despair instead of blissfully contemplating the springs and summers gone by?
How is it that our quality of live degrades by the day as pollution is rampant, as we are bombarded with all types of radio magnetic energy beamed at us by cell phones, radio waves, micro waves, radars and what have you.
These are, amongst many others, the failures of our societies. Is there a reason why these problems have not been corrected?
Yes there is. Because those we appoint to deal with these matters become so entangled in the “big game” of political survival that they loose sight of the common citizen plight.

Are these failures idiosyncratic of mankind or just a failure of the system? Undoubtly the latter is the truth.
Are there not successful, just, balanced human endeavours where it’s participants feel they are treated in fairness and justice?
Certainly there are and the world is full examples of mankind at his best be it successful businesses, enterprises, organizations dedicated to Science, and so forth.
The conclusion is then, that man has in itself the ability to organize himself in society but has, so far, allowed for the structures of decision to be taken over by a class of unproductive elements thriving on the naivety and ignorance of the others.

Then, the path to a better society is clearly to ridden ourselves of the party system.

Easy to say! And replace it with what? Many would think and rightfully so.
But is it that alternatives have to be of a dictatorial nature?
Not necessarily.
The alternative is to revamp democracy. Ridden it of its flaws and shortcomings.
Rebuild it on the principles of competence, hard work and virtue.
Ridden it, above all of the party system, which is the main cause of its inability to deliver a just, fair and equitable, society.

Then how can we, the governed, change the system so that we elect the most competent and not the best marketeers?
Three basic rules will go a long way to guarantee the primacy of competency and prevent electoralistic policies:

1) Any organisation that declares it’s intent on Governing a Social Structure, be it a Soccer Club or a Government has to produce a formal document stating the guidelines of it’s Governing action.
And these will not be vague statements of intentions but hard and fast operating rules.
For example statements such as “To protect the needy” cannot be accepted but “to dedicate a X% of the yearly budget to Social action” is what is required.
In the end parties must publish a matrix of the yearly budget and will not be allowed to deviate without submitting to voter’s agreement.

Above of all, parties must exactly declare the taxation policy. This then becomes a sacred Covenant between voters and the Government elected.

Taxation is where the ultimate power resides. And this is the power that must stay with the electorate.
There cannot be any “real” democracy if the so-called people have no control over its earnings.

Of course anyone can be elected by promising to raise all salaries by 20% and reducing workdays to 4 a week. But he would also have to prove how it could be achieved.

There is no better example than the recent fall of Communism. Its ideology was, of course, very appealing to the poor, destitute and uneducated.
To take from the rich and give to the poor is certainly a heavenly ideal but not an earthly one.
If Marx had had to demonstrate with numbers how he was going to provide good healthcare, good housing, good education, cheap and plentiful food supplies, safety, security and so on he would never had sold a copy of “Das Capital”

2) Voting is the practical expression of the power of a Society.
Would criminals and tax evaders vote for a prospective Government that declares it will actively combat crime and tax evasion. Certainly not.
Then, a prospective Candidate that omits any declaration on this subject will benefit from perhaps a 2 or 3% voting advantage against the Candidate that declares it will enhance the Budget of Police and Taxation Services to a fixed X% of the yearly budget.
Do we the law-abiding citizens want that?
No. We do not want individuals bent on benefiting from the inherent naiveté of Democracy to have any influence on governing.
What can we do then?

Very simply:
Anyone convicted of a crime will forfeit it’s electing right’s.
On the other hand a citizen has to obtain a minimum education before he can achieve an understanding of the Society in which he lives.
This minimum of course would have to be defined and submitted to a nationwide referendum.
Voting cannot be a simple matter of one head one vote but it has to be calibrated by a measure of the citizen’s aptitude to understand the Society in the light of the best interests of the community and not of the individual.
Does it make any sense that a drug dealer a rapist or a pederast has the same voting rights that the head of the State?
No one can possibly argue with that.

3) Like any applicant to a job a candidate or candidates must publish their curricula.
This document will prove the individual/s have the necessary knowledge, experience and moral background to lead a Country. To be the head of a Party is not enough. It only says he is the person most appealing to the interests of that Party but it has nothing to do with competency to govern.
We cannot elect somebody because he looks a nice person (on TV) or because he has an appealing demeanour.
We all would prefer an awkward unappealing leader then a sweet-talking incompetent. (Antonio Guterres of Portugal was a perfect example).
When the shareholders of General Motors appoint a CEO they will scrutinize in minute detail the candidate’s records in order to ascertain as to the capability to obtain results better than all the other applicants.
Experience in management and leadership of large organisations must be established beyond question.

How would we then be represented without parties?

The citizens of a State are bound by common interests.
These interests are stratified from Nationwide to local.
For instance Defence, Foreign Relations, Security concern people throughout society in a more or less uniform way. Everybody agrees that our borders should not be trespassed. Everybody agrees that we should side with countries with which we share a common culture and way of living. And everybody agrees that criminals must not threaten our property and ourselves.
Then on a local level we have Education, Health, Transportation and so on.
These issues have, respectively, a Nationwide, Regional and local scope.
Wherever we look at human Society since man walks upright we see stratification. We see layers of skill, layers of power, layers of wealth and so forth.
Therefore the political system has to exactly mirror the Society it represents.



Its constituents elect municipal assemblies on a personal basis. When we vote on people we personally know we are able to make a fundamented evaluation of the candidates ability to perform with competence and integrity. We are also able to closely follow the performance of our elected and take early action should deviations from the electoral program occur.
Municipal assemblies will then elect a representative to a regional assembly and the latter will then, in turn, send their representative to the National legislative body. Depending on the size of the Country another intermediate level or levels could be introduced.
This body will, then supervise the functioning of Government.
But ministers are not to be elected. They simply join a career of public servant with very strict standards of competence and education and from then on prove themselves in ever more demanding functions until they reach the top in the area where they specialize.
As a basic rule the power of the people lays with its ability to pay taxes. In the end that is the real power.
Therefore our vote should follow our money.
This means that we must decide whom do we entrust with our contributions to the state finances.
The problematic of tax collection will be object of further reflection but in the meantime we can certainly agree that taxes have to be collected at a local level and then passed on the following level after the adequate and proportional share is retained.
In the same fashion we vote for those who will administer our taxes and the latter these will then elect those who will administer the following level of governing and tax administration.


Guidelines for good governing.

As previously stated to govern is to manage. Within a given political theatre only one set of measures will achieve the best results. A policy is evaluated by its tangible accomplishments and not by it’s intentions no matter how lyrical they may sound.

The ultimate goal of governing is to improve the quality of living of citizens. But this is accomplished not by a provider state but by a guiding state. We can see the role of the State as the conductor of an orchestra or the coach of a sport’s team.
Its role is to devise and implement policies that will bring together the available resources in a harmoniously orchestrated flow.

Like the sections of an orchestra all sectors of a Society must be finely “tuned” and synchronized in order for the final result to be as close to perfection as possible.

To split Society in Labour and Capital is one of the major faults of today’s politics. There is a split in Society, yes, but between Competent, hardworking, educated, productive citizens on one hand and incompetent, lazy, uneducated, unproductive citizens on the other.
This is the real cleavage in Society. But of course these basic factors never came to the forefront of Politics.
Since the French and the Bolshevik revolutions that these factors where, instead, “sublimed” into “Freedom, Brotherhood and Equality”. And very rightfully these revolutions delivered their promises by a “ground zero” levelling of Society. Surely better results would have been achieved by an intermediate levelling.
But to classify these momentous social events as a victory of mediocrity over excellence would then and perhaps still today be considered sacrilege.
One actual example is the Portuguese 1974 Revolution.
Hailed as the victory of Freedom it was nothing but the taking over of the state by the least capable sectors of Portuguese Society with disastrous results only comparable to the French invasions. So much so that at the root of Portugal’s actual problems lays the philosophy of mediocrity that has set in since 1974.

Dauphin365N

Then to govern is to “synchronize” the pace of all the sectors in the Society so as to end up with a “profit”. Not a purely financial profit, of course, but an overall advancement in the quality of life within a Society.
In very simple terms a Society has to, no matter what sacrifices, generate more wealth than what it consumes.
Only then a surplus of resources will be available for investment in mankind’s intangible riches such as education, knowledge and art.

Education

The function of education in a Society is not to teach but to form. Schools are in a way the “greenhouses” of character.
More important than advanced mathematical concepts or complex scientific equations is the learning of ethical and moral values. Once those are firmly rooted in the child’s psyche then he is on the way to contribute to the betterment of the Society he is part of.
For that reason Teaching must be the most selective career in the whole of Society. Teachers have to be the best of the best. Not only in knowledge and teaching aptitude but, above all, in the model and example they portray.
Teachers must have irreproachable moral and ethical standards.
Teachers and schools have to be a beacon of self-discipline, hard work, character and integrity.
When the individual terminates his student years he is to be endowed with a strong ethic code.
Of course Teaching should also be one of the best rewarded professions within a Society.
But a lot more is necessary than good teachers.
Schools also have to display order, method, rightfulness and justice so that they can provide a quality environment for the development of the child’s character.
The schooling system must adapt to the individual and not the other way around.
We cannot waist precious years of a brilliant mind by forcing him to the pace of lesser capable intellects.
The schooling system has to be built in a stratified fashion caring for all levels and capabilities of the individuals it receives.
Technical knowledge must be administered simultaneously with character forming activities such as sports.
Religion teaching must be an extra school activity on a purely voluntary basis.


Taxation
This is the crux of Democracy. The ultimate power in all forms of human association resides with the control of the wealth generated.
There is no real Democracy if citizens are forced to part with their wealth and definitely loose control of it.
Of course we agree that we all must pay for the benefits we expect from the State. But, the important factor is that the State must remain accountable for every cent of taxpayer’s money.
Long gone are the imperial days when the established powers would do away with the wealth of the country in any manner that they saw fit and without regard for the fundamental rights of the contributive citizen.

As a matter of fact a certain notion that taxes paid become the property of the State as set in since men has first organised themselves in productive communities.
Nothing could be more wrong. Tax monies are, in way, an investment that the citizen applies with the expectation of a return with interest. Of course the interest will not be paid in currency but in the form of better roads, better public transport, better schools, hospitals and so forth.
The ultimate truth in this aspect is that taxes paid do not become property of the State. On the contrary the State is entrusted with wealth generated by the productive citizens and has the sacred responsibility of wisely administrating the product of the citizens toil.

Taxation has to submit to some basic and Democratic rules. And the most important is that the system must be impersonal. If Democracy is to be Democracy then we must put an end to this continuous invasion of the individual’s privacy.
The State must not be allowed to know what each citizen possesses and not possesses, what he as sold and what it has bought, what he has earned and what he have spent.
The methods of wrenching out of private citizens the product of their labour is founded on the same premises of threat and fear that political polices such as Gestapo and Cheka where notorious for.

In a just fair and Democratic society the State will collect it’s revenue from the activities but not from the individuals. That is to say that transactions may be taxed but not the property.


As an example if one sells his house the exchange of property should be taxed but never the possession of the said house.
In addition the State has to charge the citizens for the services it provides, not at a profit but the necessary to maintain and better the quality of the Services.
Consideration must be given to those “unable” to provide for themselves (Of course this concept of inability has to be very clearly defined so that productive citizens are not exploited by parasites of society).

Therefore the yearly ritual of filling tax return forms has to cease if we want to live in “real” freedom. Otherwise Democracy will only be a dictatorship of the majority.

Tax collection has to be totally impersonal and totally automatic.
It must happen simultaneously with the exchange of property, goods or services.
The technical means of accomplish this are better left to the experts but the underlying philosophy has to be founded on willing consent of citizens.
Of course every responsible citizen knows that the Services provided by the Sate have to be paid for. But he also wants to make sure that every cent he has “invested” in the State was spent in a wise and accountable manner.
So much so as if the People were the shareholders of the great conglomerate called the State.


On Justice
The notion of justice was always associated to the idea of retribution or vengeance in a cruder sense.
We often use the expression “to pay for a crime” because deep in our conscience our animal self still rules. Our survival instinct still dictates that the fundament of all justice is an “eye for eye…” This is the basis of all human relations. This notion is what balances our innate propensity for aggression whenever our interests are threatened.
We see this in foreign relations; the balance of power, deterrence etc.
At a smaller scale this is the logic upon all judicial systems are based.
In a certain way all our complex penal system is nothing but an elaborate refinement and systemization of the “jungle law”.
In the place of the simple eye for eye we now have a complex code that goes from a nail for a nail to a head for head. Because the nature and quality of crimes became so diverse no longer could we apply disproportionate penalties to minor offences. Therefore a complex penalty system ranging from community service to pecuniary punishment to prison terms and in some cases to the death sentence was put into place.
We are all proud of our modern justice and convinced that our animal past is buried under millennia of evolution. Not so, deep down in the recesses of our self the human beast still lurks.
Occasionally when prodded by threatening events this beast will rise to take charge of our behaviour.
This happens whenever the threat or for that matter the prospect of an advantage overrides the social constraints that were programmed into our minds during our long “out of the jungle” evolution.
We are all aware that our best friend can become our worst enemy if it’s either his or our survival.




The human mind can in a certain way be compared to a computer. It receives a lot of information that is then stored in various levels of access. Some is ready at hand for routine management of our daily affairs. Some is archived deeper in the recesses of the mass of nerve cells that constitute our brain.
At each instant our brain computes a situation analysis and determines the adequate actions to ensure our ultimate goal in existence (like any other form of life) the survival of the species.
But we have evolved, we have become a social animal. Some patterns of behaviour are accepted as social and some are rejected.
Throughout our evolution since we left Africa some hundred thousand years ago these patterns were assimilated and became “filters” within our minds that block primitive inputs from reaching and influencing the decision centres in our brain.
This assimilation is what we call education. The more distant we are from our animal past the more “educated” we are.
Therefore a normal “educated” mind will “almost” always output a behaviour that is totally conformant to the social guidelines.
Let us imagine a new neighbour moves in with a beautiful young wife whereas our own is way past her prime.
Who wouldn’t fantasize? Let’s be honest now. But who would act on the fantasy. Those whose behavioural “filters” are not capable of blocking these inputs will succumb to unacceptable social behaviour.
To help stem these impulses we have put into place a judicial system to help boost the action of the mind “filters”.
The judicial system with it’s array of penal paraphernalia becomes a factor in our decision making process. Whenever we evaluate our situation in life and try to chart a course of action we take into account the penal consequences that this or that course of action may bring about.
Of course we would park our car by the entrance of our office where it not for the inevitable parking ticket. But if the chances of getting a ticket are one in, say, 10 000 then some will probably park the car right at the door. But some (more educated or with stronger filters) will still abstain from doing so.
Our behaviour is the resultant vector of the perception we have of the surrounding environment evaluated against a “database” of knowledge we have accumulated in our mind. This immense wealth of information we have, stored in our brain, includes hereditary information or, in other words, information we were born with and information we have acquired in our maturing process.
A normal well “educated” mind will only act outside the accepted social patterns as a last resort. All things being normal the behaviour of such an individual is totally conformant to social standards. For such an individual to deviate from the accepted norm will require an extraordinary threat or prospect of benefit.
The level of intensity of the required threat or prospect is a measure of the quality of the education of the individual.
Some are capable of stealing 100 Dollars others will only do it if the prize is 1 million some (few) will never do it. And why? Because their “behaviour filters” are strongly rooted and effectively block erroneous impulses from ever reaching the surface.
So we have it that a normally (well educated) functioning mind requires an extraordinary set of circumstances to commit a crime whereas an abnormally (lower educated) functioning mind will need very little to engage in unlawful behaviour.
Then we can conclude that we call a crime is an act committed as a reaction to a wrong evaluation of the situation. Therefore a crime is not really a crime but a failure. A failure of the mind to generate a behaviour that is conformant to socially accepted patterns.
Like a computer our internal sets of programming can have bugs resulting in erroneous outputs. But, if our computer fails, do we lock it in a dark room in hope that it will repair itself?
If we put away a so called criminal do we really expect that he will come out of the prison term without the “bug” that caused his wrongful behaviour.
He will come out with the same flaw and with the violent experience of loss of liberty. That is to say that he will come out all the worse.
As a conclusion crime should not be considered as “crime” but as a symptom of a disease that must be first rendered harmless to others and then cured.


The function of the Law and all it’s enforcement mechanisms is twofold:

1-To protect citizens from harm inflicted by flawed minds.
2-To “cure” these flawed minds.

How to accomplish the latter is best left to the specialists of the brain but the more is achieved in this area the easier it will be to guarantee the former.



At this day and age concerned citizens watch in dismay as generation upon generation of low calibre politicians come into power.
The political scene no longer attracts brilliant minds and great leaders such as a Roosevelt, a Churchill a Bismark or a Washington.
In its stead the political system breeds a generation of men of feeble resolve that govern with an eye on the polls and the other on the media.
As we watch political turmoil flaring up all around the world we can only be seriously concerned as to aptitude of nowadays leaders to conduct mankind along the path to the perfect Society.

These have been topics of discussion and of course some will agree and others not but the objective of this essay is that Democracy is discussed openly and it’s failures corrected peacefully while there is still time. Otherwise failures will correct themselves yes but at what cost that is the question.

Dauphin365N

Have a look at Part 2 and 3

Slartibartfas

Dauphin, do you actually write those posts or copy them? If you write them, you must be a damn fast writer.

Anyway, I sorted out a key point in my eyes:

You demand no police and no armies, you'll get Anarchy. Is that what you want?

And we have not reached any state anywhere near where acting against moral or ethics would be impossible. Haven't you seen New Orleans not so long ago? Thats what you get when police order disappears. Chaos, robbery and perhaps even murder. All rules are broken as no one has to fear punishment.

Our societies only work, because we can not do everything we want, because we are not like sovereign states. It works because we have to follow social rules within which we can move and live and get lucky or frustrated. Every social construct have to work according to rules. No rules, no working society. And for sure no civilization.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

Common insult examples and how to avoid them

Dauphin365N

Slartibartfas: I do not copy and also I am not a fast writer. There are other explanations you know. For instance try this one. I wrote the whole post and then subdivided it in 3 parts because of number of character limit for each post.
Concerning New Orleans. Maybe you read my post in diagonal but that's a pefect example. I personally and like me possibly another 5% of the world population would never steal anything from anybody no matter what the circumstances. Now if 99.9% of a Society were people like that then you would have 99.9% perfect Society. No need for Police, Religion or a State like wqe have now. Like your initial conclusion that I was copying... there are many other alternatives besides anarchism as long as you do't try to look at the world in a binary way, like Computers do.

FRYandBENDER

It is against human nature to behave in a manner that would support a crimeless utopia.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

Common insult examples and how to avoid them