From small communal tribal settings where elders or shamans are the leaders of their people to developed democratic nations there is always a social hierarchy which guide or govern their people.
Even Anarchism, as a political ideology, would most likely lead to the formation of various power structures within communities that were able to successfully achieve such a existence. The reason why I believe this is because not all human beings are of a good nature. For there to exist a stateless society, all of humanity would have to be educated and behave in accordance of goodwill towards their fellow human being, it would have to be a collective mentality. Even within those indigenous societies which still exist, though much more in tune with the world around them in regards to consumption of resources and acting as whole to benefit the tribe, you still view instances of warfare with neighboring clans/tribes.
A recent, semi-informative documentary which discussed the current dangers confronting humanity ( economic collapse, warring over resources, etc ) ended with one of the "experts" saying that they had hope for humanity because we are a species who cares about starving children on other continents, endangered species, those who have survived through a cataclysmic natural disaster, and so on. Yet, what he failed to mention is that we, in the "West", have the luxury to concern ourselves with the plight of others. Many of us have decent jobs, even if it is in the service sector, it is a vast improvement to what many of those in the third world have to endure. We have ready access to a variety of comforting services and products not to mention, a higher standard of living. Even what we would call a "shithole" apartment in a bad part of town would be considered the lap of luxury to the majority of this planet's populace. So, if you were to have a total collapse of the economic and political structures which support our various states, you wouldn't see a return to an Eden, but rather, with 6 billion fighting over limited resources , a brutal, barbaric and frightening world where our worst nightmares would become reality. The solution would be to band together for protection with like-minded individuals, both the wicked and just would instinctually do this. Ask yourself this, would there be leaders within those communities, a strongman, a council of "elders", or let's take it one step further, a system in which the whole community had a say and voted on matters that would stipulated the actions of the whole? If yes, then that's government.
As citizens of this planet we are born into various systems of governance, but for a select privileged few of us, we are blessed to have been born into societies which seemingly give us an opportunity to make a fundamental change, or at least attempt to before it's too late.
Unfortunately, it appears that many nations of the west have had their democracies usurped and converted into mere façades which hide the true power structure of government and, due to the extreme socio/economic pressures placed upon our populaces by political factions using their rhetoric to participate in all out warfare with the opposition and the dramatic decline in the working class' ability to sustain a stable income, the working man/woman have seemingly become aware of the festering cyst of corruption which eats away within our various governments. A corruption which has always been there.
For far too long have we believed that we were superior both morally and economically to other nations whose injustices are blaringly obvious.
A few weeks ago a certain commentator on a well known news channel, when speaking about the political stalemate in the U.S. congress and the economic crisis, suggested that the American political system was broken and that what may be needed was a change to a parliamentary system with a prime minister.
His reasoning was weak at best, especially considering that the parliamentary system in the nation of his birth is notoriously corrupt. And, though a highly regarded academic and "intellectual", the only opinion of worth he gave was ridding Washington of the parliamentary procedure of the filibuster.
The filibuster, in U.S. politics, is where a Senator can hold the floor for an unlimited amount of time in an effort to postpone or thwart a vote on a bill unless three-fifths of the Senate closes the debate by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. A filibuster is usually applied as a method to force others to vote on a bill in a way which the party "filibustering" wants or is threatened in order to achieve changes to a bill prior to a vote or even avoid a vote altogether.
I was incredibly upset, to hear that some people's opinion for change is actually changing the structure of the government which has been outlined in the U.S. constitution and not only that, but to change it into a system which has been proven time and time again to be no more effective!
The system of checks and balances in the United States, isn't the problem, there are several things which needs to be rectified now, but the actual structure of government in this sense is not one of them. , and as the recent "Occupy Wallstreet" protests across the U.S. have shown, people are beginning to realize that something is very, very wrong with government, not just among politicians, but something far more insidious, especially with regards to big money's involvement within the very political fabric of the United States of America.
Now, looking back upon history, there has never been a government free of corruption, but as we move forward into the 21st century, we haven't improved the efficiency nor, the loyalty of the government to its people. Now is the time, a time where we can span nations and continents with technology, to demand, not necessarily a change to the state's governing architecture, but rather I propose, I fulfillment to the promises and dreams of those who founded this nation...or any other democratic nation for that matter.
The actions of people living under tyrannical rule in the middle east, have shown us that change is certainly possible when working from the ground up. Even in Syria, as they peacefully protest and shout at the top of their lungs, while they see their children, husbands, wives, tortured and brutally killed, they have begun a change which cannot be stopped.
What needs to be done is to remove the money from Washington, shorter and shorter election cycles which are played out on the media goes to prove that politicians are far more worried about keeping their position and all the perks which comes with it, rather than serving the people. As well as changing the fundamental understanding of what greed can do to, not only the individual, but a entire country as well through educating those who follow in our footsteps.
Before you jump to dismissing this rant as an idea born of "socialist" propaganda, be aware that what I am saying has nothing to do with right or left, conservative or liberal, yet, has everything to do with fulfilling the following words from one of the greatest documents penned in the history of humankind, The Declaration of Independence:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness."
As a conservative, you should be as adamant in your opposition to your representation in government being sold to the highest bidder as much as you are with laws passed to limit the 2nd amendment. Or if you're a liberal you should be beyond the anger you feel for the butchering of the 1st amendment caused by the Patriot Act.
All should be concerned that government does not infringe upon the Bill Of Rights, nor sells out their constituency to individuals with deep pockets.
First what you need to understand is that both sides of the political ideological spectrum have to exist in order to avoid falling into another dark age dominated by true fascism; not the pseudo fascism conservatives would have you believe universal health care represents, or the prayer in school which the left would argue; but, rather, true fascism in which the needs or human rights of the populace means nothing in regards to the policies of the state.
Second, you have to realize, that at least since World War II, there have been policy makers who understood that, regardless of the administration, certain institutions and political ideologies will remain in place in order to achieve both its economic and political goals, whether they are to fight the red specter of communism to defending a nation from radical Islam.
Your representation in Washington is just a dream, yes there are those who stand for what they believe in, but, even they will only go so far before backing down. You see, the government does need a change, and it needs it now if we are ever able to realize the dream of a true democratic state.
Much of the mainstream media has really centered upon reporting that the Occupy Wallstreet movement has no specific cause, saying that protestors are simply against "Wall Street" or "Capitalism". There have been a surprise or two, most notably from MSNBC, but let us not forget what these media outlets represent: Fox, presents itself in a sensationalist matter to the right in order to generate interest, once interest is generated, sponsorship dollars roll in. MSNBC is no different, even if one of its parent companies is GE. They simply have slotted themselves into gaining the viewership of those opposed to what FOX represents. The third major news network, CNN, is a blatantly self-serving news organization which latches on to "causes" that sponsors can easily support, they are the news outlet for the fashionably wealthy who believe themselves to be intellectually enlightened, people who make large sums of money, love to golf, go yachting, own their Apple products, have a piece of paper which say their smarter than everyone else, and, most importantly, believe themselves to have a conscience.
But one thing which people looking for change have in their favor is technology, at least for now, and the underlying message of protestors around the country can be easily shared and spread; I, for one, think their message is quite clear, that it's time for the government to be returned to the people!
But how can we really go about that? Yes, protesting gets the attention of the world, but how can this desire for change be implemented? What is a specific demand which can be presented to a media who tries to disregard any movement as a few disgruntled citizens?
In order to achieve what I think so many of us want, one of the best things to do is unite under a very specific goal, a goal which would be to pass a bill containing these laws:
If each one of those could be passed, in a single anti-corruption bill, the first step in returning the government to one "of the people, by the people, for the people" would be taken.
Not everyone is close to a protest area, not everyone is sure how they could participate, one thing you could do if you're reading this, is to send an email to the White House demanding that the current administration, the administration of "Change", should present the above to Congress as an anti-corruption bill. And to remind this administration that doing so will most assuredly fail, but what the true motive should be is to publically expose those who vote against it.
Consider this for a moment; if the President of the United States is truly willing to make a stand and is not a mere puppet himself, against the establishment in the name of the American people who voted him to office and sent a bill such as this to congress and it was voted down, just think of what could be done; it would give a tool to the Obama administration to call out every single hypocrite within the Congress to account for their vote and even perhaps insure that a bill such as this, when resubmitted for vote, may just actually have a chance. Especially if he exposed them by addressing the nation directly in a televised speech.
And, while we're on a hopeful note, if we are able to get legislators who are more inclined to listen to the people, then perhaps we can get Usury laws enacted against banks to rid the indentured servitude which has been placed upon the heads of so many, reinstitution of the The Glass-Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933 48 Stat. 162), do away with the private bank known as the Federal Reserve while placing that power squarely in the hands of the Treasury Department as well as returning certain responsibilities back to the individual states (hey, that's a conservative viewpoint! WTF!). Because it's true, each state can be responsible for their people in certain aspects; returning a larger level of autonomy to the individual state wouldn't be a bad thing...even that bastion of hardline conservatives,Texas has social healthcare known as CHIPS (Children's Medicaid), not something mentioned much is it?
Tell me one point of the proposal that a "true" conservative would be against? If they are, then it's fascism they want not a conservative state. Any liberals? Don't think so, this movement has the possibility of uniting Americans more than any which have come before it, as long people are reminded that the enemy within is not a Republican or Democrat problem, but problem which confronts Americans and the world as a whole due to the fact that the U.S. is the last remaining "Super Power" (at least that is until China steps up).
I don't think anyone is against allowing others to make a buck, but I am positive we are all sick and tired of the lack of morality found within our industrial and banking institutions. Hundreds of thousands laid off, while CEOs continue to make their millions in salary and "golden parachutes". That same money can preserve jobs, yet corporations seek the tax refuge and cheap labor of the third world, even though they could still make a profit on American soil....just not enough to satiate their or their shareholder's greed.
And that brings us to our last point, Wall Street has not only corrupted world governments, but the middle class as well. Millions of folks invest what extra money they have into the markets, feeling a false sense of security that it will only grow...so the last thing to do, is to keep in mind that it is best to save your money instead of investing it in companies which exploit cheap labor and tax loopholes.
Now on to Europe, a quick warning: With Greece in dire economic straights and with the fact that it will most likely not be able to maintain its austerity plan without creating irreparable damage to the relationship with an increasingly estranged populace; confidence in the European Union is in serious doubt. Luckily for Greece, Germany has stepped up to the bat ready to take a heavy share of the burden for funding the multi-billion dollar bailout. But, what hasn't been very surprising is that there is already mumblings from banking institutions saying that the problem is not just necessarily Greece, but rather, the inability of the European Union to react to a crisis in a rapid and efficient fashion.
What this means essentially is that they, the bankers, are not happy that they, or the markets, have to wait for individual members of the European Union to present proposals to their various governments in order to allow them to vote and approve such proposals.
What does this tell us? It tells us that there are those within the European Union who desire a stronger central government which will oversee the Union as a whole.
Does this sound familiar? It should because the United States of America was the blueprint for the European Union, essentially 13 weaker colonies unified in order to facilitate commerce and stand together in mutual defense. Each state was to be more or less independent in many regards and the Federal government, which contained representatives from each state, was to vote and implement laws which affected the Union as a whole. The Federal government was not meant to dictate to each state as how to govern their people.
The interpretation of what the Federal government's role was over the individual state was precisely the point of contention which drove the nation to civil war in the mid 19th century. It was a question of political autonomy and economics, only after the war had started did the American Civil War become as much as issue about slavery as anything else. The ironic thing about this conflict, is that the government of the Confederate States of America (i.e. the southern breakaway states) became very much the same type of government which was used as a pretext to secede in the first place!
What does this mean for the European Union? It means that fairly soon, nations which already have their own ideals and governing bodies may have to cede some of their power to a central "European" government. It may also mean that the days of local parliaments approving a state's action with regards to E.U. policy may, in the years to come, become a thing of the past.
To our European friends, unlike the United States which were mere colonies without hundreds, even thousands of years of cultural development behind them, a nation such as Sweden or Portugal, in the worst scenario, may find themselves with as much political independence as California or Florida a few decades from now. Or, perhaps, if individual states stand their ground, the E.U. will cease to exist...because someone will demand of the people of Europe to sacrifice the rights of individual states in favor of the economic benefits, which by the looks of things, have benefitted only a few of the Union's more powerful members. What was good for the United States may, in the long run, not be the right thing Europe.
In closing, I plead with you to remember, when you're out there supporting the cause, don't be stupid, don't be throwing a brick through a bank window, (matter of fact I wouldn't be surprised if people ended up getting hired to do this by certain interest groups). It just plays into the hands of the very people you want out of government; be peaceful, shout and rejoice that your cause is a just one And, if we're lucky, our children will once again know what it is to have liberty while living under the flag of true democratic state.