Next: Pooling
Up: The World Solution for
Previous: Democracy and Things
The workings of our contemporary governments and those
found in all history, show some clear characteristics of
diplomats in general that are 'not' desired in our new
world, our FAIR government.
First of all, a governor, should 'not' want it. When he
likes it, it means he gets something out of it, it means he
wants to do something for it, in other words, his decisions
will be according to his wanting the job (lying, cheating,
barter, corruption, etc.), not according to the problem.
Decisions ought to be taken solely with regard to the problem
(desirabilities are problems too). We all see the hectic
campaining for places in government everyday. It, in a
way, 'caused' the second world war and its 60 million casualties
(see Churchill vol. 1, and Schwarzschild, Angell,
Mowrer, Bromfield, etc.). The same principles are habitual to
the 'United Nations' that were akin to the League of
Nations, a cause for all the wars and murdering going-on on
the planet today. The killing-deciding persons 'want' to be
chosen (applause), they practically do everything for it.
Our new-world governors therefore should not like it, should
get nothing out of it, should do the job only as the conscripted
soldiers do their job nowadays, as a duty but not liked.
Second is a characteristic in our diplomats that is more
or less related to the first. We would want the very best
man in the job, yet, because of the desirability of it, we
always have the least worthy ones (56).
It means that when
a measure is very, very, necessary for bland survival (of
everybody), it will not be decided upon because it is not
liked by the electorate (57). No matter
how killing or
destructive a decision may be, the governor, the diplomat,
decides with his eyes on the electorate. He means to stay
on, to survive (Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George, Baldwin,
Chamberlain, etc. and ... even Churchill, and so on). The singular
occasions on which, for instance, the Roman Empire was
ruled by integer, well-willing, and intelligent people, like
Seneca (with Burrus) or Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, show that
'the very best at the helm', is not tolerated for long when
other people hanker after the job, because it pays. The
principle is done away with as soon as possible, (like Aristides'
ostrahisation because of him being just). Yet, even
these, the Pericleses, Asoka's, Seneca's, etc. really didn't
like their jobs and got little satisfaction from it. But
... we cannot press-gang the capables in our society, the
scientists, the wise.
A third phenomenon not desirable as characteristic in the
new-world government, is the working of barter, when 'partner'
in a group (democratically chosen). What Harry Hopkins
said (see Sherwood), 'hunger is not debatable', would be
excellently translated into 'extinguishing all life is not
fit for barter'. Governing persons should not be able to-,
should be prevented from-, doing barter with other governors.
There must be no way to work by: 'if you support my
proposed law on ..., I will support yours on ... '. The only
criterion for a law being passed, a decision being taken
should be 'in' mankind itself, and 'in' this law or rule
itself, not in barter.
A fourth, but very important factor, is the possibility
of group-consciousness in the governing persons, a conspiring
for themselves, against the citizens, often by the natural
tendency to have a leader, a Fuehrer. Hitler came to
power in this manner, Trotsky warned against it, Lenin
realised it too late, and it would start as the 'party'
a-ruling, followed by the leader of the party gaining absolute
control (58).
With these simple statements it is
childishly easy to develop a system for world government
that is the only fair one, that is not discriminating for a
part of Earth's population, AND may give all scope to the
fruits of modern science to be made use of. As I said, such
a government is easily effected, given a world-spread cooperation
among decent thinking people, (the reader).
Wells pointed to a stupid tradition that even emerged in
the formation of a new government from scratch on, the
U.S.A. He wondered why they started the old bi-cameral
structure again (Outline). With a bi-cameral system, there
are four 'contestants' already. Two ruling parties and two
opposition parties. When we have a president, a primeminister,
a cabinet, a congress, a house of representatives,
a senate, an electorate, some unions, bankers, industrialists,
advertisers, media, an opposition party and so on,
what is one to govern anyway, and how? It means barter,
lobbying, cattle dealing, and aping the stupid opinions of
the electorate. All this has to go.
We have a right to
proper government, a government that takes decisions, not
liked by everybody, no, even hated by everybody, by every
earth citizen alike, but absolutely necessary. A government
that knows no economics, no industrial competition, no
superstitions, but thinks in terms of clear water, clean
air, space for everybody, friendship with all animals and
plants, and resources equally shared by all.
Man plus the
dignity of man. 'Scoundrels', says Tacitus, 'find it easier
to agree on warlike measures than on means to achieve harmony
in peace-time'.
But a word must be said for the advisory role of scientists.
When Woodrow Wilson came to Europe to enforce his will (son)
on the nations, it was said that his stupid scheme was
advised by scientists. They cannot but have been pseudologists
instead of scientific mondial sociologists. They
lacked, as Schwarzschild admirably shows, every iota of
insight in man and mankind. They were nationalists (Americans),
intra-nationalists (Southerners or Northerners)
intra-intra nationalists (may be from Utah, Wisconsin, or
Mass) and even further devided into Bostonians, Detroitans
etc. They cared not a fig about the citizens of earth, about
war and peace, about rights & duties of man. They were
solely interested in applause, personal applause, Bostonian
applause, Massachusets applause, Northerners applause and
finally (!!!) American applause. Such a situation we cannot
allow to happen again. A scientist should belong to the
natural world-brotherhood of scientists. For this, he must
be free from superstitions and he must have liberated himself
from cheap applause. In fact he must be really interested
in his science regardless of applause. Hence, he is
mondial in thought and teaching. Then, a sociological scientist
must not be so easily caught on a lee-shore as our
pseudologists. These, as is well known, are completely at a
loss when a simple college graduate asks a most obvious
question. (Such as: 'You are talking about mind, well, what
is the difference between mind and inanimate, what are the
differences between the vegetative, the animal, the intelligent,
this not as the manifestations, but the real basics,
the mind-typical?) This question, obvious today, because in
the lecture halls there is a continuous comparison and examplication
of animals and humans, could be safely asked, but
cannot be answered. A child knows then that this indicates
not science, but nonsense, triviality investigation, a playabout
with the tool, not with that what the tool is made
for. When one looks at A in order to know about B, one
should be able to at least say HOW this A compares with B
fundamentally. Clearly, a social organization based on such
pseudo-scientists too, would lead to nonsense measures as
Wilson's tyranny showed, and ... war and war. Says Sinclair
Lewis:
... there's two kinds of fun in politics: revolution
against tyrants, and then revolution against the revolutionists when
they turn tyrants. The God Seekers.
Next: Pooling
Up: The World Solution for
Previous: Democracy and Things
Ven
2007-09-11