"Faith is not a good reason to believe in any one thing. It's a bad reason to believe in everything. Faith is not synonymous with any one idea; it is synonymous with any strongly held idea, true or not. But one thing faith is not synonymous with is a logically justified idea."
June 19, 2010
In basic forms of Communism, everyone has responsibility, but no one has authority. In practice, it's actually that the majority has responsibilities, but all the authority rests in the hands of those who in relation to their subjects, have no responsibility. Or at least they feel no responsibility.Democracy, in the sense that America practices it, is also imbalanced. It gives everyone authority by allowing everyone to have a vote, but does not require any citizen to prove he/she is responsible enough to wield it.
We began this millennium with an idea referred to as the "divine rights of kings" because we believed that one man, or one type of man, had both the right to authority and the sense of responsibility to wield it effectively. We were dead wrong. When there is a good king seated in the throne, that system works perfectly. A "King Aurthur" of sorts. The argument against this system is that you can never ensure that the king has a good sense of responsibility, and even if he does the supply of reserve "King Aurthur" types is extremely limited. There was only ever one that we know of.
Modern civilization is based on the "divine rights of man" meaning that men have inherent rights to govern themselves. In some ways this is true, and in another it is dead wrong. To say that mankind should govern itself through popular vote is fine. Who has the right to vote is another question entirely. We know there are many people out there who do not care to vote and have no opinion on politics whatsoever. As long as no one kicks down their door they're fine. These people are the sheep of our civilization. They cannot care for themselves on a large scale because their apathy towards our governing system is too great. Then there are those who care about politics, who care about the national agenda and where it will lead us. In this category, you have two subcategories. Those who are sincere patriots, and those who are liars.
How do you separate the sincere patriots, who are willing to put the good of the nation before their own self, and the Liars who put their own good, politically or financially, in front of the nation's good? What separates them? Simple... one has a balanced sense of authority and responsibility. The other has only authority. How do we test this? How do we weed the sheep from the sheep-dogs, and the sheep-dogs from the mutts? What is the best test for a man's resolve and selflessness? When we discover that, we will know what standard we should set for the future civilization's governing system.
I have a few ideas, but they seem to be extremely unpopular for modern hippies and those who care only about their inherent rights. Their sovereignty is always important to them until you ask them what they would do to maintain it. People who think they have rights that should be recognized by all, rather than earned and maintained by themselves, are extremely dangerous when wielding a ballot. And in my opinion, a ballot is much more dangerous than the gun they choose not to wield.
Author: SgtHaile at 9:47 PM