@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri
Take all the time you need for your responses, I'm in no hurry. And Joe, please forgive me for my sometimes vague or senseless phrasing, it's not often that I try to put these thoughts into words. Any feedback is welcome & appreciated!
So to get this out before it starts collection digital dust on my hard drive, and because it's my one hundredth post.
One thing that is vital to crafting a state is a tangible ideology around which people can gather, and with which they can feel as if their life has a purpose. A meaning to one’s actions done for the sake of a bigger idea is of crucial importance, if not the most important ingredient to making a state.
For another aspect of the human condition is the continuous fear of death and the resulting decisions taken to prolong life as much as possible. Basically every human has, once death as a concept has been partially understood and visualized, come to fear this unknown yet inevitable part of life. Some deal with it better than others, a fair few have learned to live with it and even revel in the fact that there are no guarantees, a bunch are convinced of their ability to overcome death, yet most find solace in either a religious afterlife/rebirth or the alternative of absolute nothingness once life ends.
But life tends to be “long” for most folks nowadays, and there needs to be something to do in the meantime. As humans are social animals, they most often judge their actions, beliefs and hopes in some way that involves their relationship with other humans. The judgment should, for the most part, be beneficial in the sense that it doesn’t alienate others or isolates you, and just about anything you do and that impacts others is unconsciously planned and executed with that goal. Meaning that humans are prisoners to their own evolutionary traits, which doesn’t bode well for the “purpose” so many seek.
The level of organization that the conceptual state allows to flourish among large groups of people is nothing short of astounding. There are a great many different things worked on by individuals or teams of people every single day. They all usually hold some sort of meaning to the people that work on them, it serves to give them a purpose. Yet these are small in scale, awareness of their existence is reserved for a very limited amount of people. In a state, this organization can however be magnified in scale and can extend to thousands, millions or even billions of people. A leader of a state can use his power within it to create goals that should, in theory, benefit everyone. They can mobilize their populace for it and create a goal that has millions of people convinced of its validity.
But, and this is fairly paradoxical, this tends to work better when a leader isn’t elected. If a leader has come to their position by subjugating those that oppose them, then there will be a common enemy for the people to focus their issues and anger against. This leader, should they be intelligent, could use the armed forces of a state to forcefully mobilize the people into working for a goal that is to their benefit. If this can be done quickly and proves itself to be a worthwhile addition to the people’s daily lives, then criticism against the illegitimate ruler will weaken, if the process is repeated and the people see a better future ahead of them due to the continued effort of both themselves and their leader, then the basis of credibility that formed the opposition will erode into dust.
An elected leader on the other hand will have to work with their opposition, both in a parliament/government that has a political representation of it and the everyday person that opposes them. This is a tightrope balancing act at the best of times, but even more so when the professional and common opposition is actively working against this leader.
So, both our elected and unelected leaders can face credible challenges to their rule, yet they might just be too fond of the position to give it up in a fair fight. This makes them susceptible to the age old practice of “fighting dirty”.
Ostracization and its vile cousin demonization have proven themselves to be powerful tools for those willing to use them, and history proves that too many individuals and groups have experienced this terrible fate. Abusers of these practices have found that they can, should they posses the qualities required for leadership, use those two dreadful things for dividing a society and turning members against one another to further their own goals. We’ll take a hypothetical democratic society as an example, in which the actions, beliefs and hopes expressed by its members and leaders should be to the benefit of all. However, there has been an infiltration by someone that does not share these base values, and this infiltration has been masked by an aura of benevolence. They’ve managed to accrue enough clout to gain an influential position in politics and can now use the power that came with it. They start to undermine basic principles, slowly and carefully manipulate those susceptible enough, sow distrust and instability within the organisms of government, and fertilize frustration among the common people. Then they present themselves as an alternative solution that could alleviate the festered ailing, and since the complexity of politics isn’t comprehended by most, they present an easy scapegoat. Likely one that has been stereotyped and blamed for a variety of problems for many years before they came to power. They’ll start slowly by suggestive comments about their involvements and “hidden agenda”, then it’ll become louder in volume and more audacious in suggestiveness, then there will be a misrepresentation of factual truth, and then there will be outright lies that are presented as truths. This, depending on the situation and pain prevalent among the common people, can quickly lead to a radicalization of thought and perversion of morals. I think we can all see our historical and contemporary examples of this process.
Here comes into play our imprisonment to our evolutionary traits — we, as humans, are social animals. Isolation and alienation from our fellow people is something we’re dreading, if we’re not outright scared of it. Radicalization and segregation of society as described above affects all within a society, and needs to be recognized as such, sadly it usually isn’t done by those afflicted by it.
If we don’t go along with the predominant notion of morality and ethics, no matter how radicalized it is, then we’ll become a (potential)target for ostracization. And either we can stay true to our beliefs and accept this fate, or we can forsake what principles we originally held and defended. It’s a personal choice that is difficult to make, and one on which a lot depends. It could lead to introspection and a new perspective, or it could lead to chickening out and into the arms of those you morally oppose.
What is one to judge themselves against, in this day and age? Who is the gold standard for an idol that is to be emulated? It most likely is someone that has achieved the pinnacle of whatever status you consider to be most important, be it hierarchical power in an organization, wealth, physical prowess, intellectual grandeur, kindness and amiability, positive conduct in interpersonal relationships, devotion to a cause, or something else entirely. If one is ambitious enough, then they’ll likely try to achieve a goal of such nature. Others exist that don’t care at all for these matters, their life is to them as meaningless as anything else, though those are far and few between.
Personally, I believe that the most influential person in history was Jesus Christ, and the most extraordinary person was Yuri Gagarin.
Christ, not because he was the son of god or anything like that, but because of his teachings and the institution(s) created in his name. These institutions have consciously shaped human history more than anything else so far, and while the original teachings of his have been corrupted time and time again, it has played a crucial part in bringing about a sense of ethics, morality and values for the largest religious group presently on the planet(and a major group in size and influence for much of it’s existence). My opinion here is summarized best by the paraphrased words of the Mahatma — I like Christ, but I don’t like the Christians.
Gagarin on the other hand is the most extraordinary person because he was the first one to leave this planet and to return back to it. Others, animals and even a person, had done so before, yet those did not live to see their birthplace again. No other form of life has ever left this planet before, so in this sense he was extraordinary not only as a human, but as a representative of earthly life itself.
So, what’s there to death then, what will happen once it comes to you? In short – no idea. I’d like to think that my consciousness does not require my body to exist, but I doubt it. Complete and absolute nothingness is something I’m incapable of imagining, however do I know that whatever my worries and fears about it are, they don’t matter due them ceasing to exist when one “enters” this nothingness.
Frankly, I’ve tried to find solace in atheism once the flaws in the religious teachings I was exposed to during my youth had become too much to overlook, but atheism hasn’t provided me with the answers for my questions. I just cannot imagine that “life”, an existence that is consciously aware of its own existence, while within a universe that isn’t aware of its own existence, can form on it’s own without the intervention of a higher power. Not that I’d try to delude myself into thinking that my human intellect could understand such a higher power(especially the one that inspired the Abrahamic faiths and the one that I’m most familiar with), but it’s something that I just cannot help thinking about every once in a while. If you, or anyone reading this, finds a sense of security or purpose in prayer and worship to such a higher power, then please do as you wish, for I hold no authority about telling you what to do. Death scares me in the same way that the sun rising in the morning scares me – I’d be shitting my pants if it didn’t happen.
Should one get bothered to define themselves by their actions? Is a person truly that significant, are multiple? Is this planet with all it’s life something special? One planet in one solar system, a hundred billion planets in this galaxy, and a hundred billion galaxies in the known universe(and that’s on the low end of estimates)?The universe is some 14 billion years old, the planet some 4.5 billion and life in its earliest form some 3.8 billion years. Humanity is what, not even a million years old?
I’ve once read that when one person dies, their perspective on the world and everything they considered to be anything dies with them, so in essence an entire world dies. Yet so many have died, and so many more will do, including all of us and everyone we know, so does it matter with that in mind?
But now, after my amateurish expedition into existentialism, we ought to get back to the common ideology necessary to craft a state and political system. When one doesn’t establish an order that spurns people into working for its cause, then we have the end result of a problematic situation, to put it lightly.
What order is there that would, realistically, be capable of motivating everyone living under it to work for its continued existence? Most people would probably say, after a few moments of deliberation, that this order should keep them safe. Primarily safe from crime and war, with other unsavory undertakings that humans get up to following suit.
The established authority in this order must then be able to provide its subjects with this safety, and if it cannot do so, then it will falter. The more hostile the circumstances are in which this order operates, the less likely it will be democratic and liberal in outlook.
When a nation secure in its position, and able to focus its resources on the creation of wealth and education, then its peoples will start to think and shape their worldview more liberally, it’s probably going to be democratic, its leadership focused on the economic well-being instead of security.
If you as a voter have come to the conclusion that your understanding of the larger world outside your immediate perception & experience is insufficient, yet you still want to take part in this world, then you likely will decide to vote. To vote for someone who has a better understanding due to them possessing a deeper, more varied knowledge about this world and the complex processes that operate within it.
A voter will decide for who to cast their vote by judging who seemingly has the best take on the larger picture based on the knowledge they hold about it.
However, the voter also needs to posses the necessary basic knowledge to gain at least a semi-comprehensible view of the issues that made you vote for your candidate. Because, and this is important, if you do not, then you have just delegated authority to someone that might have been a deliberate liar.
The “election” as a process builds on the foundation that a community of people requires a leader to guide it, and that this leader obtains the legitimacy of his authority not by conquest, but by consent. This consent is given by the community in a fair and transparent vote, in which only those most adept at leadership can win.
This is a system that works quite well in theory, but can be gamed very easily by various methods. It can be undermined by charismatic, confident demagogues that know how to prey upon the weaknesses and charm their desired voter bloc. Corruption of officials or voters, the targeted use of imagery and emotional messaging, intimidation and blackmail, and much more.
It also depends on how a culture views power. Who is truly worthy of it, can power realistically be given to those that “legitimized” their authority by consent? Or is power a tool only for the strong, for those bold enough to wield it and to subjugate others with it?
What forms these factors in cultural identities are usually outside influences. Those cultures plagued by centuries or millennia of foreign evils won’t see themselves be charmed by the notion of consensual authority, what they want is someone in command who can ensure their security. This ties in to my earlier points about democracy being a viable political system only for the wealthy, safe and educated nations.
I’ve decided to stop here before going into my beliefs about ethics and morality, which are even less orderly than this mess here…
Also wanted to expand on a few country examples, like democracy in Portugal between the revolution of 1910 and the rise of Salazar in 32, and the system in place in Northern Ireland from 1921 up to 68, but alas it didn’t happen.
Kudos to you if you made it through that wall of text, have a virtual slice of the cake I’ve yet to make for the weekend. I feel like it should be reiterated that I don’t hold any formal education and don’t have any real interest in political science (the only political science book I ever actually read was Wolin’s “Democracy Incorporated”, which was back then and still is quite the challenge to get through), these are just my thoughts on the topic, written down with enough pompous and pretentious vocabulary to mock it into oblivion.
Feedback of any kind is, as always, welcome & appreciated, especially if it’s critical.
en.wikipedia.org
www.opindia.com
defencehub.live
www.dailymail.co.uk
coffee thread and interested parties can continue there, so as to not clog this thread more.
side surely?
