6/21/18 - "A Catch in the Lie" We like to think, that the advent of free-countries, of democracy, is the final solution to the historical tyranny of kings. If you were to tell anyone that you still believe in monarchy, they would certainly question your sanity, as is the strength of ideology. I think the world needs one, sovereign entity to rule it. "One ring to rule them all!!!"... No, I'm not trying to install Sauron. Though it seems a completely unreasonable position, I think I can prove that it is the only solution to the world's dysfunctionality. First, the problem with democracy - Anyone can vote. The idea is a seen as a quintessential ideal - We are all peers, we naturally check and balance one another's opinions, and no one has ultimate authority. Many minds working together are much better than one mind left to its own devices - Corruption, fallibility, pride. The majority rules, and certainly, this is the most accurate measure of truth. The closest we can get to objectivity is a collective, on-going debate. While democracy claims to eliminate unethical sovereign powers, the fact remains, anyone of us has the freedom and covert anonymity to be a sovereign, unethical power. It actually makes it easier on us to make unethical decisions, through the distribution of blame, and an ideological "right" to one's own opinions. When we over-value personal freedom, disregarding any possible lack of integrity, the corrupt king has only been replaced by The Many. One corrupt mind and Many corrupt minds yield a similar result, when given authority. An individual corrupt mind must only seek other like-minded criminals to substantiate itself, in democracy. Think of how trivial and selfish most interest groups are! They will vote for the candidate who promises them their issue will be resolved favorably. It must have a chaotic effect to be casting such narrow-minded votes. "It's not CRIMINAL to have a special interest!" No, not at the surface of things. But how IMPORTANT are special interests? And, what does a "player-president" do to resolve real issues when all they do as candidates, is please as many people as possible? The crime is in the apathy over something so serious. It is corrupt to not really give a damn about having a positive effect on the world. Most people only care about their petty, little issues, and their votes count for just as much as the philosopher-king's. If all we really have, is a war of whining-brats, democracy utterly fails to be an effective way of governing ourselves. If we have 2 established parties, and they endlessly contradict one another, what you have is not "A fair check and balance dynamic", it is dysfunctional government. "Well, whoever the king would be, he would either be like a liberal or a democrat, and you would be giving power to an opinion!" Here's the thing : A real philosopher sees completely through the political parties for their trivial, ideological nature. A real philosopher won't side with a political party, because in doing so, free-thought becomes over-ruled by ideology. Either political party expects the individual to conform to itself for its power. "The game" in politics, is played by teams. If you're not on a team, you are in violation of the rules, and forfeit your influence. This is precisely why government should not be subject to any sort of game, "politics". Life is not a game, therefore, government should not be a game. As long as everyone has a chance to participate, there will be a struggle over control. Each controlling factor wants sovereign power. It is simply an impossible war of kings and queens over "the throne". "That's just the way it is, that's the best we can do!" Yes, if any of you were elected the king or queen, we'd all be in trouble. I propose a theocracy, of sorts! Let He who can prove Himself divine, without petty, human flaw, take the role of unquestionable leader. He, will ask you to question Him, because whenever you do, you will find yourself in error. Any of you would say, "Do not question me, I am your KING!" He would say, "Please, find my error, I have made none." A sovereign authority would have the ability to re-shape the world in a dramatic way, for the better. If that is what you truly desire, Oh my worthy registered-voter, you wouldn't hold an "opinion". You would know the truth. Opinions can be lies! A person with true conviction does not like or respect the idea of "opinions". There is one truth, it is the whole truth, and it always has the help of God. In fact, if you don't rely entirely on God's aide, you will always fail. Make God your King. It does not need be literally expressed in an institution. Implicitly, God will be king through conformity to His will. I can describe that will to you, and you will see that it is an accurate description. An officially-enthroned king can not possibly control his people to the extent necessary that he is truly "The King". God, however, can control His people at the individual level, in each respective mind. I propose an implied theocracy. God is King, and He will simply help you determine your vote. The established world leaders are trivial puppets. They don't, ultimately, have any real power or effect on that which they supposedly rule. The real power is in each individual's effect on reality. No human king can control that. No king can destroy the sovereignty of personal decision. Make the right decision. Santa Claus is watching. |