Form over Righteousness

Have we reached the evolutionary apex of political/economic human constructs? Has all there been and is the only choices of what can be going forward? Have we accepted the belief that there will never be any construct “better” than the political/economic construct of Democracy/capitalism?

I for one believe that there is too much focus and competition over construct, as opposed to righteousness and benevolence. The weak link in any construct is the humanity running it, not the construct itself. For example, most Americans believe in God. Yet, God runs a dictatorship in that she/he has absolute rule and that he/she has created the laws and commandments for humanity. Failure to adhere to the dictates or to accept the force as the supreme and only God comes with punishment in the after life. Yet, if we define dictatorial construct as inherently evil, then is God and religion inherently evil too? It is no wonder why so many democratic nations see theocracies as “repressive” and as denying people freedom. However, increasing freedom does not necessarily increase righteousness. It can, and I am sure does, open the door for unrighteousness for entities as well. American culture is in a downward spiral of moral decay. Yet, most people fail to link our individual freedoms to this decay, because we don't want to give them up. Some want to interject more religion into the state, however, such would increase repression and oppression, as it does in all other theocracies.

Any time there is a construct were a single or a few entities are determining what masses should do, with consequences for those who do not follow, it is dictatorial. However, it is not necessarily unrighteous. On the flip side, if the majority of people are evil, the democratic majority rule construct will produce evil leadership as well. High moral sounding documents, like our own constitution, will only have nominal theoritical value, but not practical application. For example, our constituion declared that all men were created equal, while having certain color men in bondage. The majority of people do not even have to be evil…just ignorant and credulous. Thus, evil can come and manipulate the ignorant and credulous into believing that what is truly unrighteous is actually being done for righteous motives. We have empirical evidence of this coming from the acceptance and practice of slavery by many so called Christians in America. They rationalized to the people that slavery was righteous because it was in the savage Africans best interest, to bring them among “civilized” people and to the proper God. They even pointed to scripture, all while living in a democratic republic.

When we talk about granting freedom, we must talk in the context of maturity. Children often want freedom from the dictates of the parents when they are young. However, children lack the maturity to make the decisions that are in their best interest often. If you given children enough freedom, they can become their own worst enemy, as well as, problematic for others. In regards to maturity, where is humanity on the evolutionary scale? Are we still in infancy or childhood in regards to evolution? Have we stopped growing, mutating and evolving to something more mature, intelligent and benevolent? It is very possible that we are not at the evolutionary stage to totally handle freedom, without that freedom ultimately hurting humanity more than advancing it. That is a philosophical point to ponder. A hundred thousand years from now, if humanity still exists, I can almost guarantee that it will NOT be with the models and paradigms that exist today, in regards to political and economic construct. It will be something more righteous and equitable than current constructs. The big change systems will be rooted in the foundation of mutual human cooperation as opposed to fueling systems via human competition as exist today. It will be a global world without national borders of division and competition, resulting in warfare, wealth redistribution and poverty.

Under the competitive construct, things are constantly evolving and improving in order to stay ahead of the competition. For example, it is competition in the free market and the absence of monopolies that keeps companies from exploiting consumers. This is why the nation imposed anti-trust laws against industries monopolizing industries. However, what about political constructs? What would the absence of competition political constructs do for humanity? Let us not forget that that many of the civil rights gain of the 60’s were related to the competition against communism. Our nation had a hard time justifying condemnation and criticism of the treatment of people in Russian and China, when it was legally oppressing its own black citizens. All these nations had to do was to point the finger back and the USA treatment of black people and say that we were just as evil. Thus, this competition added pressure on our government to grant civil rights to all its citizens so that we could condemn communism without being hypocrites.

It stands to reason that if democracy became ubiquitous around the globe, that the absence of competition would result in democracies morphing into something more oppressive, while being democracies only in a nominal sense. Multinational corporate interest would become a global oppressor, rewarding just enough of humanity to pit them against those that it exploits, thus keeping the systems in place through voting and the democratic process. This is my fear of what is down the road with the new world that is being driven by the USA. I believe that the primary goal of the spread of democracy is not freedom for people, but rather, freedom and access for western capital and privatization and control of assets in other lands. In the open bidding for these assets, western deep pockets will nearly always win and the resources and labor of developing nations will come under the control of Western interest, as well as, new consumers. It is not altruism that is behind the push to spread democracy and capitalism. Rather, it is simply greed. As I noted above, ignorance and credulous can lead to the brainwashing of the masses to believe that actions rooted in greed are actually motivated by righteousness and benevolence.

Invariably, people who critic the current system of democracy and capitalism, as practiced, are condemned as being supporters of other forms of system that curretly exist (they don't entertain the option that I am seeking the creation of a construct superior to all that exist or have existed...its a philosphical critic not an advocacy for another system). The effect of this is that evolution is halted and stagnation manifest. There is not motivation for improvement if one believes that because what we have is the current best there is that we also live under the best system that can be. Those who condemn critics and critiques of the system are forcing its stagnation. That which stagnates in a changing world often degrades and falls behind eventually. If and when that happen, it will be the result of a nation of people who are unwilling to change and evolve due to an unwarranted belief in superiority.