Did we evolve from dinosaurs? Teeth, hunger, and an evolving sensory system that establishes psychology. How have we found ourselves in that? Like a ghost in a machine, people are capable of being more than the physical world, it's phenomenal.
Luke Skywalker expressed this well as he championed the goodness in his father, encouraging growth instead of magnifying a sensation of conflict. Gandhi said and eye for an eye and the whole world will go blind because we're teaching each other to use coercion and duress to solve problems.
Living Inside A Box
Nature doesn't face you, or glorify your existence. Yet we have created a society which continuously points at us with recognition. Our sense of self is being stimulated all the time, all for you, yes, you. We are alienated, estranged from our community, lending us to feelings of survival and narcissism.
And so much is stolen from us in that desperation to keep everything we've been made so absolutely to think that we need. Overfilled we have no capacity to comprehend our loss, our true self. We are programmed by the products of our own artificial mindlessness.
Consider that owning something means you have to remember it, even worry about it. If you didn't have a place to live, would you be terrified? But without possession you actually find out how accessible life really is. It's mind blowing. It turns out to be an opportunity to stop being afraid, of it and each other.
Most people will hate to see a homeless person. As if something so different shatters their illusion of a perfect world, seeing perfection naturally as a reflection of their own ideas. Unhealthy problems in our society commonly create a homeless situation for people, but it can also be a spiritually vibrant way to live. It's a complex idea that conflicts with capitalism, that which seeks to build a machine out of the world and civilization.
Simply put, there's responsibility implied in being a caretaker, and sheer truth in returning it to the future as we borrow existence. Our lives are organic, and everything counts.
You can understand why sleeping in the dunes isn't okay, because those dunes would be full of our criminals and littered with trash. But then again, if it were okay we would not be creating that desperation, and possibly fostering a greater respect for nature. A functional world could possibly be that unseparated compromise between technology and nature, when nature becomes part of life again and not just technology.
To be uncomfortable in the naked universe, under an explosion of stars, alone with the presence of astronomical intelligence is mentally invigorating. We're taught to be afraid of not having anything, phobic to insecurity, and the weaker we become the more we succumb: another brick in the wall, a fortress of addiction.
And living outside is radically different than being inside. Depth perception is mind expanding, and so is being enveloped by a living, breathing environment. Compare that to living inside a box where everything around you is dead. It must be affecting.
Thorns upon Roses
People are animals deeply, and fighting is part of us. But we don't want to fight each other: our neighbors, goodness, or wisdom. People want to fight for survival: the universe, the unknown, the misunderstanding.
Such as artificial energy, an organism of money conflicting with reality, developing our greed and granting unlimited power. We want to fight this addiction, that which is governing the progress of our humanity, and put it back on a foundation based in reality.
Coherent understandings of everyone create a humanity of formidable wisdom. Not led by dogma or private motivations, and not a social machinery of deception, but openly tested truth. What we want is freedom.
When we speak of democracy it's for the reason of wanting society to reflect a profound understanding. But without free speech we become vulnerable to deception, and without critical thinking democracy is nothing but a justification.
The problem with absolute democracy is executive power, leaving nothing to defend the independence of people. The complex issues we disagree on can be infuriating, and by enforcing the will of a popular group it dissolves our capacities for originality as well.
But absolute liberty is unsustainable with limited resources. Given enough freedom monopoly will devour everything else. Only a relationship between democracy and liberty can avoid these traps and create a perceptibility, such as Ying and Yang.
That which breaks the natural world are the extremes. The universe requires a relationship that can balance an equation. We need democracy to keep liberty from devouring us, and liberty to keep democracy from becoming oppressive.
- - - -
People have an inclination to live in society, and this realm of enlarged thought is what develops our imagination and critical thinking. The public exercise of reason is premised on the freedom of expression, and the notion of having a reasoning political public is the necessary means of enlightenment.
External constraints must consequently limit our freedom of thought, eroding upon that which alone provides our means of overcoming the evils in our condition of civil life. Therefore a just state would have to be one that delimits the freedom of people.
But we also have a tendency to harbor a desire to direct things in accordance with our own ideas, and a state of nature provides no transcending protections to an individual from the coercive imposition of others. We are therefore beholden to engender a civil constitution as a condition of peace, entrusting mind over matter, with a coercive power acceptable and legitimate to the extent that it secures freedom for the individual.
- - - -
Direct democracy is akin to anarchist beliefs of a non-hierarchical society, relying entirely on the enlightenment faith of free citizens. You might believe that people such as yourself are ready, even though society as a whole might not be. But there lies the problem examplified, essentially saying that if you were surrounded by like-minded people, the world would be perfect.
Throughout history we have seen democracies fail for this reason, being an absolute power given to the most irrational animal, a plurality of people. The public might decide that a factory cannot pollute. But the public might also decide that a factory can pollute because they would rather have more stuff for everyone.
There have been studies proving that in general people are not good at doing difficult things for the sake of a distant effect. How then, can democracy ever be a reliable tool to solve real problems which go against the comfort zones, disposition, or even the perceptibility of the mass of people as an animal?
Politics is a euphemism for control of the collective means of violence backed coercion, the essential core around which society exists and interacts, and an entirely democratic society means entirely political. No custom or culture would moderate, and nothing would protect inalienable truths. Everything would be subjugated by a popular will.
- - - -
In general democracies provide protection from the worst kinds of mad ideas, and mistakes don't prove calamitous because they don't become entrenched. Yet they suffer from arrogant complacency, not because they don't hear the whispers of their own mortality, but because they hear them so often. Democracies are so hypersensitive to the endless questioning of survival prospects they can never be sure when to take it seriously, in addition to being sluggish from an anticipatory uncertainty logic of waiting for the system to correct itself.
The flexibility, variety, and responsiveness that make democracies work successfully over time also cause them to go wrong. They are reflexive and impulsive, embodying short-termism and historical myopia, with a taste for instant gratification. Crises are often perceived as moments of truth when we discover what's really important, but democratic crises are moments of deep confusion. For this reason they are better at surviving because they can adapt, groping for a solution even while continuing to make mistakes.
- - - -
Many of us hold an intuitive assumption about the making of decisions, that a decision is somehow more moral when those affected have participated in its making. However attempts to participate expose individuals to the full force of our collective incapacity to manage moral and value conflicts, often leaving us disenchanted with humanity.
There are multiple centers of power in a liberal democratic republic and indeed in most social orders, and this pluralism of powers captures an essential aspect of the conception of a democratic society. People are treated in accordance with principles akin in spirit to the laws of freedom which a people of mature rational powers would prescribe for itself. We thus reject the concept of a unifying popular will and we take sovereignty as irreducibly heterogeneous.
The more independent and less cross pollinated this can be, the more genuine an effect it can have.
- - - -
However the influence of business becomes surreptitiously more important than people, enacting liberty. Consequently our system is climaxing with the domination of money, world resources and vital necessities; the very planet and societal structures modified by inordinate exploitation. In an attempt to corner markets, monopolize and profit, society and politics seem taken with ulterior motive.
Regular elections, a free press, independent judiciary and professionalized bureaucracy should be fundamental in creating democracy. But more and more our freedom of speech is becoming hidden and crushed in those defensive efforts of capitalism, cultivating a fortafied machinery of information and surveillance.
Consider how globalisation of an economy significantly changes the nature of society, altering traditional systems of accountability and public participation. Citizens become subject while the government becomes more pervasive and authoritarian. Civilization transforms into a business model as we experience the dehumanizing effects of technology, material orientation of the market, and disintegration of community.
- - - -
Most of us don't even connect on that human level anymore, subconciously unsettled by a diet of violence, addicted to comfort and consumerism, in a survival mode of assumption and conformity. Imagine if we promoted education and embraced life long learning, instead of being instructed faster than we can think for ourselves.
Democracy emerged from Greek antiquity at a time when the public was growing increasingly educated, for democracy relies on understanding. An independent media that can present all sides of a situation is vital to this effect. But if a single interest holds too much control the result is a one-sided debate, the means of controlling thought.
Public discourse is how we discover truths, and it's the responsibility of our leaders to respond to such discovery with a sense of obligation, in a way that is accountable and observable, a circulatory system. But at the same time our mass of people is like a wild animal. We need hierarchy to enact a level of solidarity.
The metaphor exists that the variety of people is similar to an insane person in need of a straitjacket, but a belief exists that intelligence makes the public dangerous, and this can't be true. Understanding leads us to appreciation. What army could possibly be stronger than an intelligent, healthy and loving people. Art is better when it's not trying to be something because then it can make the best of itself.