Predictable America

The contradictions of the modern system

argument

1.govt's have not changed much since the days of monarchies
and oligarchies.
2.the new changes-- the rise of bureaucracy and the modern political state makes impersonal a very personal system
3.the irony of the situation: the U.S created to run away from govt or have a very limited govt has more govts then anywhere in the world
4.the ideals of slavery and freedom the meaning of these ideals in modern times have a quite different meaning from ancient times when applied to govt people society or politics.
5.Or: the very things gov't tries to avoid end up happening Example: slavery is considered a loss of freedom for the individual in modern society but modern society is characterized by the loss of the individual
6.Inherent contradictions in modern society primarily because the foundations were reactions
7.Primary problem in the U.S with the govt>

Power and Secular Humanism
Because power is always present in any form of govt
working with power not against it is the best way to
manage it.
When we look at the history of the states we can see that the founder's attitude towards power in govt was a negative one, in the sense that their approach toward power involved restraining it, and placing walls around it.
The problem with this approach toward power is that power is not predictable like so many of human plans and establishments
Trying to force something never truly works
They took the approach of force because of their outlook on the world
and because they saw power as equal to corruption
(if that is the true case)
Next, secular humanism was the basis for the govts which were crated in the US
It means that with the development of the nation
and the growth of wealth and the expansion of the govt, that people would be more and more defined by this humanism and it would come to dominate the nation in its entirety
The nation, as fragmented as it is, cannot help being extremely centralized
in fact if you look at something from a different perspective you shall see that nothing is only one way, but everything is a bit of everything
In the sense that everything has “contradictions”
which aren't truly contradictions but rather the existence of multiple layers of meanings.

Example
The US in an effort to run from the centralized state of England decided to create small fragmented govts
Okay
Fragmented govts exist
BUT the country is more centralized in ways that England is not ( at the time )

Example:
England: not centralized in terms of services, schools, regulations, healthcare, practice of govt in local communities

Centralized: in terms of ….


1.We must question what happens when human beings attempt to
forcefully create change
2.In detail what I am saying is that forcing people to change in terms of non controllable elements such as power, authority, leadership, submission, (typically understood as political things)
and in other ways as well.... be kind, love others, be peaceful, be helpful to others, work well with others, learn in knowledge and wisdom, make good decisions, etc. does not work well at all.
Look at it from a larger picture: those people in mass are the formation/foundations of a political system
A political group designs a way to get everyone to follow along
the general guidelines of the group in modern day this group is known as a system... modern terminology

Other ways to create change:






Change by force:

Coups
Revolutions
Mass Protests
Democracy
Mass Society = conformity
Propaganda/Manipulation
Taxation
Advertisement etc.
Laws and law enforcement
The Judiciary
This represents the modern era.


What are other ways to instigate change?

Ancient Mechanisms:


Cultivated relationships, people learn to trust each other and change can take place through personal struggle and commitment to each other

Faith

Beliefs

Survival creates a cooperative group

Personal rules establish order:
Always are personal in the sense of:
from husband to wife
parent to child
owner to slave
lover to lover
friend to friend
teacher or mentor to pupil
religious leader to people
king or queen to each person in kingdom



The way a monarchy works
in terms of order is very organic

For example:

King or Queen must use careful thought in deciding what kind of relationship he or she will have with each member of kingdom
Being partial toward everyone
Of course, no human ruler could possibly be partial toward every single person under their rule, but they still had to TRY.

This requires that there is a great deal of wisdom handed down to the new king or queen (personally) from the previous king or queen
In other words, each new ruler, to be a good, successful, very partial ruler, would need to CHANGE him or herself and be humble enough to incorporate that wisdom into their own life and use it to rule.

The decision making process

A beggar comes to see a king about a famine which destroyed most of the crops of the village. The beggar is worried.

a. this king is not wise because he was proud and never wanted to change (never learned the advice on the way to rule from his teacher and coach (the previous king)
b. this king is wise because he was eager to learn all he could and willing to change. He was therefore taught an amount of knowledge and wisdom, comparable to the lives of 100 previous kings, that is how much he learns.

The outcome

a. the king listens to the beggar.
He doesn't take a lot of time to analyze the situation. Instead, he is really hungry when the beggar shows up, so halfway through the beggar explaining to him the situation, he tells him to leave.
More people arrive a few days later from the same village.
The king listens to their story, and then gives them some money to do what they need to do and leave his presence so he doesnt have to deal with the problem.
Outcome:
He unthinkingly gave money to the lords surrounding the village.
They knew nothing about the crops so all they did was import food and simply stall the situation.
The situation got worse, and little did the king know, this village was the holder of an important source of food for his kingdom. Once it was gone,
a whole new village would have to be created, or another take on this specialization.
This would take years and it would take forever to learn the ways of these particular people who knew their crop so well.
Essentially one bad decision effects everyone in the land

b. the king listens to the beggar. He thinks through the ways in which the other kings handled similar situations, and thinks carefully and thoughtfully for a FEW DAYS, in order to make the best decision.
1.He helps to console the poor beggar. He gives him some food and drink and a bath.
2. He meets with the beggar, gets as much info on the pestilence as possible, and sends his men back with the beggar with cages of birds to kill of the pestilence.

Outcome:

Village defeats the pestilence and the people are saved. This makes the village more confident and so they begin to produce more and become wealthy and bring wealth to the king's kingdom as a result.

Over all:

This kind of rule has more transparency
1.One knows exactly who caused a problem
2.Thus the problem can be taken care of with ease


How to make people change without using force

Ex: christianity- change is at the level of the heart
in families-- love, child obeys his parents and learns to change behavior etc because of that love
in cultures- or in small groups of people-- people who are in need of change (mean person needs to be nicer or something) or in cultures that want change (learn new technique, new way of doing something)
In other words

how does change occur within a group of people ( a village, a culture)
a race, etc.
prior to the modern era of change by force?


Questions about reading:

America is becoming a de facto plutocracy no longer a democracy
Argument:
This will always happen because of the nature of power which cannot be forced to submit to create equality
What appears to be an inherent contradiction in our American situation is really just the evidence of a failure of democracy to distribute power nationally, for the very reason that democracy doesn't really work and is not the best system.
Also,
Another contradiction of sorts:

Capitalism:
Is good in the sense that it works to make people rich and help people prosper individually and privately.
Is bad in the sense that Capitalism does not work well with a democratic system but rather works best with a plutocracy or something of that nature.
This is because:
For Capitalism to work properly, there must be large tax cuts for the wealthy (private persons who deserve to be rewarded for their personal work)
BUT, once again we come back to the same problem as before:
Democracy will not happen because the poor people will remain poor and thus will not receive the education they need or be able to rise to the top as the rich can do and will never be able to serve in public office. Thus, the wealthy elite few will form a plutarchy in the country and democracy is lost.
So to keep this from happening:
Capitalism must be curtailed through various means. However, this hurts the economy because the economy is run by the private companies and as we know, governments do not handle private money in a capitalistic system very well: that is why corporate interest always holds the neck of the political system and country of application.
Therefore it is a circular problem with an “inherent contradiction”.
Which is: Capitalism and Democracy do not mix.
What is the solution?
What kind of government works best with capitalism?

The modern age is very often described as the age of contradictions by Marx and other political and social theorists. I would like to dig deeper and unearth the true nature of these so called contradictions.
The modern age deals with human characteristics which are intangible such as power, greed, authority, rebellion, etc.
And I would argue that these characteristics are addressed through secular humanistic measures.
It is the failure of these measures to provide solutions to these human intangibles that is responsible for the modern contradictions spoken of.