People are diverse and that is the beauty of belonging to the human race. Some like to live on the edge and push limits. There are others who want structure and things to stay the same. There are degrees in between and there are different areas to apply these principles such as relationships, jobs and leisure activities. In most sciences a person can look at things with precision and produce repeatable results. With social sciences it can be frustrating because there are so many variables. When we land on good principles, we also have a person’s will to factor in. In past studies we have looked at how some people know what is right but choose not to do it, others lack the ability, while still others do wrong involuntarily due to outside forces and influences. Circumstances and particulars are involved too.

The goal for having a stable society is happiness since happiness is the ultimate goal that everyone is reaching for. Politics, or the study of human interactions, is the science that looks at things that help people reach this goal together. Not for just a chosen few, but everyone in a community. In the same way that certain plants thrive with the right nutrients, sunlight, and water, diverse people have needs that vary. The trouble with social planning is that it holds a standard and a template that might be ideal for one group of people but not everyone. A hydrangea wouldn’t be happy to live in the desert like a cactus. But all plants need sunlight, carbon dioxide and water as a general principle. We have to approach relational matters using general principles but there are particulars to each person and area.

A civil government exists to keep people civil with each other and to protect them from hostility. We have to be alive to be happy of course and being free to use our own will is also a requirement. A part of happiness is acquiring things and being able to accumulate goods. That is where we get life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Every person in a country should have equal ability to do what they want with their lives as long as it doesn’t hurt others. Ideally everyone should be free to their own pursuits, but since men aren’t angels, we need to have laws. The rule of law was compared to the rule of personalities in the last post.

The ideal country is one where everyone has good character and looks out for his fellow man. In this structure, anyone can be a leader. Their occupation wouldn’t matter as much as their integrity. When everyone is integral, a political position is more of an office with duties than a means to impose one’s will on others. There is a job to do such as protection and making laws that benefit everyone. The less virtue a a country contains, the more they rely on having a leader to keep thing together. From small groups to large ones, well behaved people need less tending than those who misbehave. People resort to hero worship when they feel deficient in themselves. A society demands tenders when they quit attending to themselves. So when we look at ideal governments, it doesn’t matter if it is a monarchy, aristocracy or democracy, the leaders become tyrants in relation to how much the people are complacent in moral excellence.

The solutions aren’t religious ones. It is an inferior people that need Fathers in the faith or a Pope. We all have things to learn from each other but it should be as equals. When people rise up as individuals and seek their own unique solutions to their dilemmas, a nation becomes stronger. Those who point fingers at others as the cause to their problems are obviously insecure and lack character. This is a sad state for themselves and the people around them. A hero based society feels more comfortable when pointing fingers in either a negative or a positive light. It can be universally observed throughout history that nations with strong individualism and good character will thrive. Notoriety shouldn’t come from any particular leader but from the virtue of the people.

There’s a door in a chamber of my soul

Lets get back to the study of politics. Humans need interaction; politics is the study of that interaction in a group setting. Having skills in this area is important. We are seeking universal truths, the ones that everyone can recognize as being right while avoiding biases from associative truths. The question today is, “Who should rule over a nation or a country?”. What should the qualifications be? Of course being a citizen would be the first qualification.

In what areas should a ruler be qualified? A person who is skilled in business will take care of business areas best but might neglect the needy. A person who is charitable might run the country into debt by neglecting business. Perhaps a doctor or a good lawyer? One would be good with health care and the other concerning trials. How about a high degree of Education? Certainly someone smart would be best. Degrees don’t necessarily represent practical experience though. We don’t want someone who only only knows theory. A military person would be great for defense but might neglect domestic affairs. We can all agree that a person who has virtue or has good character would be a qualification for all, but shouldn’t it be the only one.

In primitive societies, it is either the strongest or the greatest who rule. The citizens seek someone with the virtue of a god. Today we call this celebrity or hero worship. But after while they become a disappointment because of human fallibility. Their children or subordinates aren’t necessarily any good and so a country digresses to a council system. People with the most virtue according to what the country values become in charge. But they end up taking advantage of others and becoming elitists. So this digresses to a democracy where the people rule and consider their cause virtuous. But then the majority oppresses the minority and factions take over. This is how it goes through much of human history.

A society advances beyond this when the virtue of every individual is realized. We find that no one is worthy to rule over another. There are no experiences, birth, talents or God given authorities that give one person the right to rule over another. This is a universal truth: We are all equals under God or whatever your higher authority is. The only thing left to rule are the laws that apply to everyone and are applied universally. Those who are in office are mere administrators of this law. An advanced society follows the rule of law starting with their constitution.

When equality is truly realized it becomes difficult to take advantage of others. An independent person abhors being taken advantage of and will do everything possible to not be a burden to others. A society full of people who understand the real meaning of equality is the most advanced. This universally applies to all our relationships with friends, families and fellow citizens.

There is no doubt that working together we can accomplish greater things, but in order to get the greatest contribution from each individual, the supremacy of individual worth has to be at the center of everything. Those in authority have a job to do and those under it should make it easy for them. Workers have a job to do and should do it with all their strength. But at the same time, a position or wealth doesn’t make one person better than another. So the answer to, “Who should rule?” is no one. In an advanced society there isn’t a need to rule, only to take one’s turn administering the law.

Every point here can be expanded on but my hope is that you can take these universal truths and expand on them yourself.

What are words?

No doubt life is good 

Passion is like a roller coaster 

At this point is important to understand justice. When two people have a relational or financial exchange, it is ideal that both parties are satisfied with what they get out of it. Justice is more of a perception between parties of what is fair and the study revolves around inequalities between parties. Honest people realize that their perceptions of justice are always skewed to their own advantage. That is why contracts are needed; they are an agreement between parties that keep us all honest. A builder wants less work and more pay while a homeowner wants more done for less pay. With that in mind, they come together and agree what is just for the both of them in a contract. A person might be in a relationship for pleasure only while another wants utility, or to be taken care of. For the relationship to continue they would need to come to an agreement between pleasure and care. If it cannot be reconciled, the relationship becomes unjust to both parties. If they both want pleasure only, it is easier to reconcile.  The relationship feels unjust only if one or the other become unpleasant. Of course most relationships are a mixture of three areas: commonalities, pleasure and utility. Commonality based relationships are the easiest to sustain since common ground among commonalities is easy to find.

With that in mind, lets look at the bigger picture of politics. This is the interaction between groups of people in a state. Aristotle observed that most states consist of the rich and poor. For the most part, the poor are in the majority and the rich are a minority. With a Democracy, poorer people are in charge of government and with a Aristocracy, wealthier people tend to be in charge. But if the ratios were reversed, the same issues would remain. The two main areas people want addressed most in a state are wealth and freedom. These are the areas we associate with happiness and well-being. A wealthier person wants freedom to live life how he wants and focuses on that part when considering laws while poorer people want inequalities in wealth addressed more.

The ideal in both areas is that the poor have integrity and are satisfied to work hard to build their own wealth. The wealthy should be free to enjoy what they earn while also being fair to those who are working their way up. Both call injustice in these areas greed. The wealthy consider a person who wants to confiscate without working a greedy person. The poor consider a person greedy who isn’t liberal with pay. A poor person’s perception gets off when they consider all the wealthy as hoarders while the wealthy might consider all the poor as squanderers. To one, the concern about having a wealthy person in charge is that they go bad and take advantage of others and hoard. To the other, if a poor person is in charge they bring the country down with squandering.

Concerning legislation, the wealthy are more apt to give some of their wealth to get the freedom to do what they want in life. They feel the country is served best if everyone is free of regulation. The poor are more apt to give up freedom for wealth. They think the country is served best with equal distribution. The best atmosphere to have is one that encourages both freedom and wealth. This seems to be an issue regardless of the era. An ideal state will have a lower class that respects wealth and works to acquire it and will have an upper class that has empathy for those who need a hand up in society. This is more of a character issue than a legal one. We all want a society that doesn’t have excess regulation and is absent the oppression that comes with poverty. Laws we make should take everyone’s perspective into consideration.