Through my young life I recall learning several useful lessons listed below. Knowing I lived in such a society made it harder to participate. Point one, still to this day, messes with my consideration of entering into politics. To be entirely fair, the first four lessons/rules obviously have their exceptions. It is the principle that if the rule remains proven, the exceptions will fail to make a significant positive difference.
Seeing far better people than I make the best of it for themselves and those around them taught me that you either sit and observe this life or you get involved and make it better or worse. Most choose to live their life and observe the rest and whilst this is a choice many can make, in doing so should that person feel or be entitled to vote?
- Politicians or anyone who wants to be a politician are not to be trusted.
- Journalists are not to be trusted.
- People in charge of businesses are not to be trusted.
- People who set themselves up as leaders of religion are not to be trusted.
- For every man or woman who works hard and cares for their family and society, there are a dozen who would hurt, cheat and lie at any opportunity or would do anything for money (even marry a disgusting, rich person.)
- The majority of most populations are not aware enough to see the truth of the first five statements and so need protecting from those who capitalise on them.
- To help someone understand they are not aware enough to see how they are being manipulated is one of the hardest challenges to those attempting to try.
- Due to the systems and states we live in, any plan to improve the lot of one section of society will impact negatively on another.
- The states we live in are not at fault, they are in fact filled with industrious, artistic, scientific, caring and decent people. It is the governing systems that were created to manage our states hundreds of years ago that have been compromised. This is why both sides are ‘correct’ in the debate over who should be president in the USA. This is why both sides are ‘correct’ in the UK/EU debate or the Scottish Referendum. How can anyone resolve a situation where, for a given definition, each side of the debate is fighting for valid and unresolved points? Government by diplomacy and politics is where a number of representatives deal with the manifold essential and divisive matters of a state to protect the peace, productivity and stability of its citizens. If the citizens state they do not trust the government and the government says it will sway to each change in public opinion, it simply fails to function.
- To enact any change, one simple fact remains. Each person must remind themselves that each and every day they share this world and their lives, surrounded by people of differing beliefs. The societies that have worked best exist because each citizen respects the personal nature of belief and does not publicly denigrate or ridicule such beliefs.
If one does not belong to any organised religion, it is simple enough to see how ignorant and judgemental those following many religions are in their beliefs and how, from a purely objective perspective, close those beliefs fit with insanity. Yet following point ten, it does not matter, that is their choice and so long as it does not negatively impact the lives of others, their beliefs should be respected.
Over the past 20 years or so it has become more and more apparent to the more aware sections of society that the first five statements being accepted as fact have made them commonplace and thus ignored almost as a fact of life. This simple mentally dumbing approach has led us to the point where only those who fit the descriptions will rise to the top of such governing systems. We now start to see the later stages of follow this path and are seeing how badly that can affect our lives.
This kind of logic can also lead down the path “The leader of my state is a politician so untrustworthy, I do not trust what the media says, businesses control both of them and now the leader of another nation/religion is reporting on my nation’s failings and concurring with what I’ve learned, so I will support them.”
This is also why states continuing along a more dictatorial approach are now gaining the upper hand in this world. It is far easier to negotiate with an opponent when the opponent’s own population make their plans publicly available and work to undermine them. If you do not have to listen to the words and opinions of your populace, you can act with impunity. Ask a Ukrainian or Tibetan if they are worried about Muslim extremists?
So, beyond the indisputable fact that nobody on this planet can explain why we are here or what existence means, we are here, we now have the technological means at our disposal to create a paradise from this planet and we have a chance to build it.
Why is it then that it is so hard to accept that every so often we have to rewrite the rule book? Because chaos and disorder will replace the nice, stable and perfect world we live in today?
Consider that the United States of America has a constitution written by people no different to you or I, just over two hundred years ago. Consider that in the past 50 years the UK has entered into and is now potentially removing itself from an immensely complex set of treaties. There are enough lawyers and accountants willing to work on those changes for money. These changes will continue to happen throughout history, yet to enact what is demanded by many people today, a representative democratic system, a new set of rules will have to be written and agreed upon.
Few benefitting from the existing systems are going to support fundamental change, so it will have to be undertaken by others until, based upon success and support, it becomes obvious the new system will be the ‘winner’. At and before that time, there will have been a good deal of calculation surrounding how to capitalise on the new system so the drift towards such changes will eventually become a torrent. Regardless of how such changes will flow, reforms to existing governmental systems promising to alter a system originally designed to protect the interests of a small proportion of a population in protecting/controlling the majority, are hardly likely to work.
If you want to be able to truly forget the phrases “I have no way to be part of any change”, “It doesn’t matter who I vote for or even if I vote” or worst of all “Well this system works for me, why should I want to change it?” then support and engage with the writing of a new system of government for your state.
You should be able to be part of a change. It should matter who you vote for. It is possible to design a system where it works for you and those who currently suffer to give you your luxurious life.
The internet has already shown us how well information sharing by consensus can work and also how creating discord, through social media manipulation, can cause damage. Those who choose to dissent, digress, divert or delay development show up far more clearly by the nature of their input. The beauty of each person having the means to instantly corroborate or deny reports gives us a chance to eradicate the lies and trickery perpetrated by the parties noted in the list above.
In some respects the recent election in the US has brought the problem to the fore better than any other possible result. For those who have been stating the need for a fundamental change to our governmental systems, the election of a new president, whose suitability even as a member of the human race is in doubt, emphasises perfectly how broken our systems of government are.
In the UK we have long seen the negative impact of party political influences over local authorities, whose fundamentally required services should not to be destabilised due to battles between political parties. Now we have the visibility of political parties attempting to win points by inappropriately and poorly targeted referendums taking further focus away from the business of running the country. It can only be hoped that the tens of millions of currently disillusioned voters will join with any movement that sets out a clear and representative solution.
Look at the two following examples of a politician and ask yourself which state you would rather live in (and which one you currently live in).
- Make a public statement on a controversial subject that is clearly and undeniably false.
- When challenged, deny any fault in the plan and support the spirit of the statement claiming that facts are not as important as your goals.
- Allow time to pass whilst the subject and statement are debated and you proceed with plans based on these false statements. As nothing of worth can result from debating something that doesn’t exist, all that will have been wasted is time and by then, hopefully the plan will have been enacted.
- Remain in the position you are in as long as possible, manipulating the high proportion of citizens who believe stating a belief in a purpose is the same as pursuing it. Blame any resulting disaster from your plans on your opposition undermining your fine work.
- Make a public statement on a controversial subject referencing factual information citing reputable and available sources.
- Admit the strengths and weaknesses of any plans surrounding the subject, explaining the rationale behind any decision being made, inviting constructive criticism.
- Proceed with plans based on input and findings from criticisms, improving or altering plans based on public input. Should a decision be made to ignore input, responsibility for choosing to do so will be deemed governmental prerogative that may be based on privileged information not available to the public.
- Based on the results of your decisions and policies either remain in power with the support and trust of your nation or gracefully pass on the immense responsibility of the protection of your nation to the next governing party.
A government should exist to protect people’s capacity to improve and continue the existence of humanity. We have the history of humanity to demonstrate how they have been abused for egotistical and financial gain and yet sadly it often takes immense conflict to remind us of the problems it creates and to enact dramatic change.
This is why I, for one, have been putting my efforts into the writing of a constitution for the United Kingdom that will require the signature of each and every citizen to agree and ratify the work of the state and encourage politicians to enter into true politics again.
I can think of no greater uniting force in a time where we are being falsely led into division and disorder.