next up previous
Next: Pooling Up: The World Solution for Previous: Democracy and Things

Characteristics for Governors of Earth

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 up previous
Next: Pooling Up: The World Solution for Previous: Democracy and Things
Ven 2007-09-11