Best System of Government

What is the purpose of government and what would be the best form for it to function?

Government is made to improve the lives of the governed and to harness their energy collectively as one being. Thus the state's purpose is twofold, first to improve the lives of the people that comprise it and second to preserve its existence into the future. As men are animals at heart, society has deemed it necessary to use force in some circumstances to preserve order. This must be balanced with the inalienable rights that cannot, and should not be taken by force. But, as the purpose of the state is twofold, some people lose rights they should not lose, they become less than people. The ideal state, on the contrary, would leave no such people behind, as is for instance obligated by our constitution through minority rights. Essentially the best way for a society to function is to balance the necessity of the state's existence with the necessity of the individual's existence. A government accomplishes this goal through the values and ideals of its people and to a great degree the structure from which it is constructed. The ideals of Democracy are to let people decide who will run the country and give input into how it will be run. Values are how these ideals come about, but also the structure shapes these ideals. For instance, in a conversation with my father, it became apparent that a Dictatorship cannot promote the same values a Democracy does. The reason for this is a dictator must be highly ambitious to become dictator (much more than one should argue for president) and also must fight others who would like that power on unpeaceful terms. In that way the structure of government allows either for a peaceful or violent overthrow of a government. For a Dictatorship power must come at the expense of life, whereas in a Democracy power is shifted on a consistent, peaceful basis. There may be other forms of government better than Democracy, nonetheless I will argue for some fixes that may improve our current system to be better than it is--that is I'll use that structure as a basis and give suggestions to improve it. A Democracy's best form comes about when everybody gets an equal say in what this country does, including the people who run it (they should weigh other's opinions just as highly as their own). Ideally a Democracy would have a council of people to head the state. People to decree, administer, and enforce laws and regulations. They would have to be accountable to values and morality in some manner or another. Ideally they would be unpaid except by the cost of living. One thing a Democracy could do is not hold regular elections, but rather hold state, local, and federal elections only when people have decided they want to change who is in charge (maybe with some sort of minimum and maximum term limit)--in other words lawmen would be appointed for indefinite terms with some minimum time to serve only to be revoked by a majority of voters or at the end of their allotted term, who would then vote on candidates other than the current serving or vacated seat. The biggest change would be to change the two party system to one where candidates run on the issues they care about and their character that they will get those things done. This is already what is supposed to happen, but you know all too well politicians that put party politics ahead of our nation. It would be wiser to replace the two party system with a multiparty system instead of removing parties completely; but that would require eliminating a winner take all system and for the constituency to heed politics and become informed with reasoned opinions and reasoned reasons. If one believes democracy is the best system of government, then they must believe the animal, both above and below, work better when each smaller animal gets an equal voice on the workings of the larger animal as a whole.

On Great Philosophers

It seems throughout history their were a few minds that changed its course, we can think of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant. How does it come that they rise so far above "the common rabble?" What makes them so great? The biggest thing that they seem to have in common is that they were not afraid to ask tough questions and they didn't just stop at someone else's answer. Two common things seemed to drive these philosophers (especially the first two) and those two things are truth and morality. Some, like Descartes were more seekers of truth and others like Kant were more seekers of morality, but every one of those philosophers studied both. So what is truth and what is morality and how are they related? Truth is the idea that the ideas we have about the world 'in our head' match up with the ideas 'in the world.' Morality seems to be the idea that we act so as to increase some sort of good thing and decrease some sort of bad thing. But why are these concepts so important to philosophers? It seems that wanting to increase good things and decrease bad things is so natural it needs not an argument but just an understanding of language. Morality defines what those good and bad things are and truth sets out ways in which one knows the results of ones actions. If one knows the truth and has a good system of morality, all they have to do is implement it and the world will be better. Thus we come to the final thing that separates the greatest from "the common rabble" and that is will, the will to implement good intentions to turn them into reality. But, why do I put the common rabble in scare quotes, it is because anyone, if given the opportunity can rise above the common rabble, yet they are the common rabble--the greatest philosophers do not overcome the world, they overcome themselves.

Homosexual Marriage

There is a heated debate that rages between conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats--they cannot agree on whether gay marriage should be allowed under the law or not. But, the reason it cannot come to any resolution is both sides believe they are right without a deeper explanation. Now I do not want to fan the flames, but rather attempt to cool them--I'll define the debate as follows, homosexuals believe it is their right to marry other homosexuals at the same level as heterosexuals due to the 14th Amendment's protection of equal rights and on the other side is the belief in the inherent wrongness of homosexuality and that inherent wrongness corrupts the institution set forth generally citing God. The question should be redefined to ask not whether or not homosexuals should get married, but rather what marriage is and if a homosexual couple fits such a picture. Unfortunately, I do not believe marriage was defined to accommodate this purpose to begin with and so the arguments are left to fill a void unfilled. So what is marriage? It is a familial institution, used to endorse socially the viability and stability of a family that rears healthy and well adjusted children who turn to adults only to continue the institution. With this definition in mind we have to consider under what conditions a child can grow to be strong, independent, and happy. They need nurturing and structure, they need love and support, encouragement and accountability, visions and values. One light to look at the institution is how it is crumbling to some degree, divorce rates are high and unwed pregnancies are high as well. People are marrying with no plan for a family and many are raising children with no spouse or someone else's father. Nurturing, a parent needs to provide material and emotional support for their children and sometimes cannot provide the latter after a long, hard days work coming home too exhausted for that kind of support. Love, a child needs to know he is wanted, that someone is out there who cares--some may find love in a overlooking being, but nearly all need a being who lives on this Earth. Encouragement, a child needs to know that whatever her dreams are there will be people to support her and even if she doesn't reach them to make sure she tries. Values, this is where the institution is key, for the values one lays in marriage have a far reaching effect for that child's own prospects into adulthood. So here are some thoughts, you decide do you vote for homosexuals to marry or do you not?