Regarding Policies
When you are putting leaders in place, it is a good idea to have some guardrails up with regard to policies. Some leaders, perhaps persuaded by the notion that enacted policies are somehow proof of good leadership, like to produce expansive piles of policies, making mountains out of molehills, and hyper-regulating every aspect of life that pops into their heads. This is actually a sign of bad leadership, so, if your leaders start heading down this path, you should think about finding new ones. In general, the government that governs least governs best.
For a minimalist government, it seems that two rules are sufficient: honor God, first and foremost, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. In truth, the second is contained in the first, but most people benefit from having it spelled out separately.
In regard to the first rule, however, there seems to be no shortage of people who are happy to violate it, most of whom do so on the basis of a baseless claim or belief that there is no God. This is an odd thing, for even the Devil himself acknowledges the existence of God—it irks him to no end, of course, that there is a superior power to him, and, indeed, it serves to motivate his wickedness, but he knows in his heart of hearts these three things: God exists, he (the Devil) is not God, and there is nothing he can do about it, no matter how hard he works at it or wishes for things to be different. And this—these three things—are the root of all his evil.
Now, among those who deny the existence of God, there are fewer who deny the existence of the Devil, but a good many nonetheless. I suppose they figure that, once having alienated themselves from God, what could be worse? So, while you're at it, you may as well thumb your nose at all the supernatural powers: angels, devils, you name it. "There are," they say, "No angels, no devils." No devils, you say? Really? Surely, then, that begs the question: have you looked in the mirror lately? because disrespecting God and assuming that you know the whole truth about His supernatural realm are the first two steps towards becoming a devil. How many other such steps have you taken?
With regard to the second rule, it is often miscast as the golden rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. The problem is that the golden rule can lead to bad results. For example, let's say that I prefer to be left alone; so now, acting in accordance with this rule, I start to leave others alone; how do you think my friends, my family, my wife, my children are going to react to that? If you think they will meekly acquiesce, you haven't met my wife, but supposing they do, what do you think will happen the next time I show up acting as if nothing has happened, nothing has changed, after yet another spell of my 'alone time'? Will I not receive the cold shoulder? Will I not be met with hostility? "Oh, now you show up, Mr. I-need-time-for-myself" and "Where were you, when we needed you?" These questions and more will hound me right back out of the house again, especially if I try to make the case that I was trying to do them a favor in accordance with the golden rule.
Now, if a simple thing like wanting to be alone can lead to bad results from the golden rule, how much worse might things turn out if I have internal desires that are even more at odds with those with whom I interact? No, the golden rule—like everything else that is golden—stands in need of a bit of heart, something to enliven it and make it more human, more compassionate. As it is, it sounds a bit robotic and transactional: I suppose that, if I want people to give me money, I should start giving mine away. I'll tell you what: why don't you try that, and let me know how it goes for you.
Sometimes people object to the second rule due to the word 'love'. "Surely," some say, "You can't order me to love somebody; love is an emotion. It has to be inspired." A few things can be said about this. One is that the rule does not say to 'fall in love with others', but to love them: attend to their circumstances, do what you can to improve them, imitate the good examples they set, strive to make them happy. You don't have to feel an emotion to do such things, but if you do them, you certainly will look as if you love them (which is close enough).
Others say, "I can't go around being nice to everyone all the time, people will treat me like a chump." The problem here arises from confusing the phrase 'loving someone' with the idea of being nice to them. Parents, for example (at least good parents), must reprimand their children, keep them in line, refuse their requests and demands, snatch things from their hands, and so forth. Such behaviors, considered in isolation, hardly qualify as being nice, and yet the parent does them out of love. 'Tough love' some call it, but love that isn't tough like this isn't really love. When I was younger, I, like many in my generation, attended a school where there was a certain nun who loved all the children dearly, and who loved, just as much, to reprimand a sluggard or a smart mouth, and to punctuate her verbal abuse with some persuasive shoving, slapping, and other impressive feats of strength. Neither of those loves ever got in the way of the other, and we all turned out a little better for it. If your idea of loving someone involves always being nice to them, you aren't helping them grow or improve themselves, which is what love should be inspiring you to do. God, to take an extreme example, is the epitome of love, right? Yet he sends people to Hell. Why? Because it is for their own good, and for the good of all concerned.
Still others will notice that conforming to this rule involves what looks like a third rule: you must love yourself. As suicides indicate, not everyone loves themself, so, in a case like that, wouldn't the rule justify murder? On the one hand, we might answer this smartly, by saying, "Yes, those who are suicidal can spread the 'love' by murdering others, provided that they convincingly demonstrate that they are suicidal (namely, by committing suicide) before they start thinking about killing others." The requirement that they have to kill themselves first should help keep their murderous inclinations in check. On a more philosophical note, love of self should be a natural outgrowth of honoring God, and it appears to be the default disposition of virtually all creatures, so enumerating it as a rule seems a bit pointless (like making it illegal to defy gravity). Further, many of those who commit suicide do so precisely because of self-love: Cato the Younger, for example, committed suicide as a point of honor, to prevent himself from compromising on his own principles. Phaedra committed suicide in a bid to preserve her reputation. Petronius and others committed suicide as being preferable to execution. Cleopatra committed suicide to prevent her dignity as Pharaoh from being sullied by being paraded as a captive through the street of Rome. Every act of suicide has its motives, and, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, self-hatred is not likely to be one of the predominating ones.
Let these reflections, then, suffice with regard to the word 'love'. According to this rule, then, a parent does not treat a baby the way the baby would like to be treated, but as a baby ought to be treated. Similarly, then, a child does not treat a parent as the child would like to be treated, but as a parent ought to be treated. In other human relations, the analogy usually holds: the wise and other leaders function as parents, the rest function as children; among the wise, the wisest fill the role of parent; among the general population, sometimes one has the role of parent (the baker in a bakery shop), sometimes the role of child (the baker visiting the butcher shop). It's a matter of recognizing one's limitations and acknowledging the abilities of others, but it's also a matter of using what you know to help others along in their journey towards wisdom and grace.
In most communities, of course, there will be a healthy mix of people, all at various stages of their personal development. Some of these will need to have various rules spelled out for them. Over time, the law books tend to accumulate laws and nuances of laws as experience brings various issues to the fore. Sometimes, then, the law books need to be weeded out, so that laws originally formulated to guide the most childish minds don't hobble the freedom that more adult minds require. 'Don't talk to strangers' is fine advice for a young child, for example, and yet very poor advice when you are dropping off your son or daughter for their first year of college—for how will they meet anyone in their new environment where everyone is a stranger? The rules, then, have to be adjusted as the community grows and develops.
What should the laws be? Well, an old-timer like me might be able to go into quite some detail on a matter like that, but it's really a question that each community will do better by answering it for itself. Here, however, is some guidance on what legislators should avoid or be wary of, or, in some cases, what they should seek to accomplish.
Stupidity Laws
The rules should avoid the trap of trying to do everyone's thinking for them. Law-makers should constantly bear in mind the dictum,"Use your head" when formulating and enacting rules: if the rule can be replaced by 'use your head', then it is probably unnecessary and can safely be left off the books. Indeed, the absence of such laws should serve as a spur to get those who are too lazy to think for themselves to start doing so.
Government Liability
A great many unnecessary rules also get added to the books for this reason: somebody has an accident; they, or somebody who cares for them deeply, don't understand the meaning of the word 'accident', and so they sue the government for negligence; a soft-hearted jury gets persuaded by a slick lawyer, and so the government is forced to pay damages and institute rules to rectify its 'negligence.' Since accidents happen every day, the potential for new rules (and ever higher taxes to pay for awarded damages) is endless. A community which heads down this path is destined for stagnation and bankruptcy. One way to stop it is to impose a limited tort restriction on community members and visitors. The community is not in the business of paying people for having accidents, nor is it its purpose to serve as everyone's guardian angel. Accidents happen, and that's a sad shame, and maybe everyone will voluntarily pitch in to help you out (especially if they are your friends, right?), but blaming the government for the way the universe functions is just a way of selfishly insuring that everyone else suffers because you are suffering, and that does not qualify as good or neighborly behavior.
'Corporate Law'
Another set of rules which are generally unnecessary are those which are designed to benefit (and so are often written by, sponsored by, or otherwise supported by) particular corporations. Since ours is currently 'the best government money can buy', and the corporations have most of the money, our society suffers from this greatly. Further, since what is good for corporations is often bad for people, we are increasingly finding our own communities to be hostile environments: more friendly towards corporations than to the flesh and blood citizens who truly constitute them. Since the corporations have been running the show since the start of the industrial revolution, reversing this trend looks pretty much like an impossibility. There is, however, one way out which the existing corporations are likely to support: since corporations are established by being officially authorized by the state, requirements can be placed on new corporations as part of the process of incorporation (and so as provisions included in their bylaws) that exclude them from the favors granted to previous corporations, restrict their involvement in the legislative process, and require them to provide certain benefits to the general public and their employees (current law generally allows them to reserve any benefits they have to offer to shareholders, trustees, and senior management, but all the components of a corporation form a cooperating team, and the community provides it with circumstances in which to flourish, so the current structure produces injustices because it ignores these demonstrable realities and produces a 'team' that is at odds with itself and those that benefit it). In time, the benefits we derive from these new corporations will balance or outweigh the harm we suffer from the existing ones, and the world will be on the path to a brighter future.
Unfunded Mandates
One of the tactics that the corporations often employ is supporting (or designing) unfunded mandates. Every regulation ends up costing somebody something. An unfunded mandate delivers that expense to those who are required to abide by it; in essence, it impoverishes them. The corporations like this because it keeps start-ups and competitors down, or even drives them out of business (which is even better in their opinion). If those who are making the laws are wise and compassionate (as they should be), then, first, they should be able to see through such schemes; second, they should be able to stop them or alter them so that they serve the public good (not some private interest), and, third, they should be clever enough to find equitable ways to cover the costs. If it is clear where the money comes from, and it is clear that the funding scheme is fair, then the legislation can move forward; otherwise, these issues need to be addressed or the project abandoned (no matter how 'noble-sounding' it may be—the government is not in the business of playing favorites)
Prisons
Prisons are inordinately expensive unless prisoners are used as a slave (or quasi-slave) labor force. Slavery, however, has long been recognized as abhorrently immoral, so, the prisons we have are inordinately expensive. The old-fashioned way of dealing with criminals and other undesirables was to banish them. The Law, to reprise a character from one of Plato's dialogues, said to the offender, "If you cannot abide by our rules, then go find a community whose rules suit you, but don't stay here. And, if you do stay here, then we just might drive you out or execute you." Look at the incredible savings of this 'old-fashioned' system: there are no buildings to build, no security systems to install, no guards and staff to hire, no meals to provide, no utilities to pay for, no records to keep, no uprisings to fear, no escapes to fear, no medical bills to foot, no equipment (shackles, etc.) to buy, and so forth. And the solution proposed is a win-win: the community rids itself of someone it sees as a troublemaker, and the 'troublemaker' goes to a society where his behavior is tolerated or even welcome. And, yes, this system was even applied to murderers, and, yes, it actually worked.
Excessive Litigiousness
Just as the government may fall prey to baseless lawsuits, so also may individuals. In general, money that gets transferred as a result of lawsuits is unproductive, much like the money that is exchanged in gambling: no physical object is produced or improved upon, no service is rendered, and, often, no satisfying experience is delivered either to the winner or to the loser (the lawyers and tax man are usually the key beneficiaries). (With gifts, on the other hand, social bonds are made and strengthened, and so they are, generally, beneficial to a community.) A society, therefore, which is overly litigious is like a car which is spinning its wheels: energy is being expended, but it is not getting anywhere. And, just as a car will eventually run out of gas and so stop working, an overly litigious community will eventually become dysfunctional. Community members must be brought up to tolerate and forgive unavoidable minor transgressions, and to work out bigger problems equitably, so that the courts only have to deal with the difficult cases. Severe penalties should be imposed on those who bring frivolous lawsuits or who resort to the courts too often.
Garbage/Environment
Far and away, the number one product of the Industrial Age is garbage, so much so, that we are increasingly living immersed in garbage: eating it, drinking it, breathing it, and living in a climate that is adjusting to it. The main reason we are living in garbage is that the policy makers of the past did not require those who made a big mess to either clean it up or provide funds for its clean-up. This was a terrible oversight which your community must not repeat, especially with regard to long-term pollutants like plastics and nuclear waste. Since the corporations have proven that they will not clean up the messes they make, taxes on new products must be introduced which, on the one hand, help pay for clean-up operations and recycling, and, on the other hand, provide consumers with financial incentives to purchase recycled, repurposed, reused, non-toxic, biodegradable, and other 'green' products. If consumers are confronted with the true costs of purchasing polluting products, they are likely to make wiser choices.
Freedom of Speech
Tyrants are forever nervous about free speech, yet the United States has amply demonstrated that the people can say whatever they like, and it consistently has little or no deleterious effect on the government. A government that is governing well has nothing to fear from what people say. Speech—a conversation among friends, or a public address to those within earshot—can, however, be distinguished from amplified speech—speaking that is enhanced by technology, whether it be posters, billboards, radio, TV, newspapers, movies, magazines, or the latest media platforms (whether social, robotic, or you-name-it). As we have seen, amplified speech which takes the form of amplified lies, and so misleads the public and can even cause them to support atrocities, is very dangerous, and can even lead to internal strife which tears a community apart, or, in the worst cases, leads to civil war. Since no community has an interest either in doing unintentional harm or in its own self-destruction, regulations on amplified speech that is false would be a wise safe-guard. One way to achieve this is to impose a tax on all forms of amplified speech, and then grant a tax exemption with an official certification, on a case-by-case basis, for amplified speech that is demonstrably true (using a scientific definition of 'demonstrably'). This way, just as with rumors, the public can assume that every instance of amplified speech that they encounter is false unless it is properly certified. Penalties for falsified certificates should be very high, and the tax itself should be fairly high, for, as we have seen, masquerading entertainment as news can be very lucrative.
And, just to be clear, this provision would apply to the news media as well: stories would qualify for the exemption that are determined to be objective, factual, and free of such things as innuendo, bias, and unwarranted 'balance'—the news media has a bad habit of thinking that showing both sides of an issue is a matter of fairness, but they show their disingenuousness in this regard when they don't give both sides in matters like theft and murder, so their presentation of 'balance' usually ends up granting an advantage to the weaker argument, and is, then, a subtle way of steering their audience to bad conclusions. We need a press that is intelligent enough (and honest enough) to spot a bad argument or evasive talking points and either edit them out, or use the advantage that their platform grants them of having the last word to effectively critique and correct any such statements; their reward for doing so is the tax break we just mentioned.
Dereliction of Duty
If someone is charged to perform a specific duty for the community, and they fail to do it, or willfully does it in such a way that the outcome is detrimental to the community, the community cannot stand around, wringing its hands, wondering what to do, and waiting for this person's term in office to expire. No. If the task is vital to the community (and, presumably, the higher the office, the more vital even the smallest tasks become), it is important that it gets done, that it gets done right, and that it gets done quickly. Consequently, it should be a matter of policy that those who fail in their duties, violate their oath of office, convert an official office into an instrument used against the community, and so forth immediately and automatically forfeit their office and powers by such actions (or inactions), so that their subordinates need not scruple about disobeying their orders (for they no longer have power to issue orders), having them removed from government premises, having them stripped of the tools of office, or even having them arrested for things like trespassing or impersonating a government official. Further, since such actions are directed against the entire community, they must be regarded as graver crimes than those committed against individuals or segments of the population (and, in general, 'white color crime' must be regarded as the worst form of crime).
Now, just to be clear, times and circumstances change, and so laws—even constitutions—must be changed from time to time. One might construe enacting a change to the constitution, however, as a violation of one's oath of office if that oath included 'upholding the constitution' as one of its provisions. Now, in some cases (as when an elected official makes a tyrannical grab for power), drawing such a conclusion would be merited and correct; in other cases, however (such as, for example, the repeal of prohibition, or the addition of the Bill of Rights) it would not be. So, what makes the difference?
The difference arises from the presence or absence of a voluntary consensus among the people that such an action is needed. It is to be noted that discussing a change to the laws or the constitution is not prohibited, and does not involve an automatic loss of power (unless, that is, one is using discussion as an excuse for delaying needed action). Consequently, if such changes have been openly discussed, and have met with voluntary approval (that is, there has been no coercion, threats, hints of reprisals, etc. moving the approval forward), then there is no transgression involved in implementing the change.
Police
While police can play a vital role in a community, many smaller societies have managed to live quite well without them, so the question of whether your community needs a police force is one that should be carefully deliberated and occasionally reassessed. Police forces do, generally, help to maintain law and order, but they can harbor serious vices. One is that police forces are often employed to resist needed reform and change. Thus we find so many occasions in which they, in their militarized riot gear, face off with and eventually brutalize peaceful protesters, acting as if congregating, blocking traffic, and chanting slogans are the most heinous of crimes. In such instances, the police cease to be the neutral broker of peace (a role they play, say, at a traffic accident or a domestic disturbance) and pivot to being the enforcement arm of the established order (which, given the presence of protesters [which is not a usual condition] is probably acting stupidly or unfairly in a rather obvious way), and so acquiesce in becoming the unthinking muscle that hinders the progress of needed reform. It is, of course, an odd thing for a community to resist its own improvement, and such efforts are doomed to failure of one sort (the reform eventually passes) or another (the community dissolves), but, in general, the police tend to make such circumstances worse than they would otherwise be both by their violence and by their support for the wrong side of the issue. It would be better, then, to have a police force that was better prepared to function as a neutral arbiter in all circumstances, than one that automatically surrenders its capacity for independent thought to one side or another.
Of course, in order for the police to function as a neutral arbiter, the individual officers have to be fairly wise persons who are capable of a) listening carefully to all sides of a dispute, b) detecting lies and obfuscations, c) formulating reasonable compromises, and d) enforcing them. Too often, officers are well-prepared on the enforcement side of things, but fall short in these other important aspects of the job. How many trips to jail and the judge could be eliminated if police officers arrived at a scene prepared to listen (instead of prepared to crack heads)? How many more trips would be saved if they didn't jump to conclusions? How many more if they could sniff out a liar, or propose a reasonable solution? Having officers who are prepared and empowered to act in these ways would be a great benefit to any society (except, perhaps, to those controlled by narrow interests, such as the governments we have now).
In order for the police to perform these various functions, we have to hire the right people and train them correctly. Currently, police forces attract too many applicants who have a lethal combination of vices: they are rather thuggish (more prone to using muscle-power than brain-power), and they are often, surprisingly, rather frail cowards who need to use their badge as a shield from behind which they can act with impunity against even the slightest perceived affront. The touchiness or fraility of the police is evident in situations such as when an officer attacks and arrests someone for such grievous offenses as talking back or complying slowly, or when officers 'mistake' the convulsions of a person who is, say, suffocating or being electrocuted, for resistance, and so apply even more force until he's peacefully dead. The coward police officer is quick to pull his gun, eager to pick on someone they perceive as weak, fine with assaulting people who have already been restrained, happy to exaggerate the role they played in an incident, always ready to don protective gear and to advocate for more arms and defenses, and never hesitates to invoke the privileges and protections that the law extends to police officers. In extreme cases, however, the coward can even be delusional: fear is a very powerful emotion, and some people, when they are fearful, enter a dream-like state in which their imagination overrides their senses, and so they see things that are not there and are not happening. They react, however, to these hallucinations, and so gun down people or otherwise overreact to the situation that is actually at hand. Clearly, then, hiring the wrong people to serve as police officers ends up doing more harm than good. And where is the wisdom in giving arms and impunity to a class of unthinking, violence-prone thugs who don't mind acting unjustly and prefer to beat up on the weak?
There will be those, of course, who will argue that muscle power is the chief ingredient one wants in a police officer, for how else will we be able to control or discipline young and powerful law-breakers? And, if we cannot control them, what will stop them from taking over? Yet the days when personal physical strength could have such an impact on a community are long gone. Technology has leveled the playing field, and, except in extreme circumstances, the strength of the police lay more in their numbers than in their individual physical powers. These days, surveillance technology even makes it unnecessary to chase a suspect, since recordings can identify a suspect and show where he has gone, and notifications can be sent to everyone so that they can, as appropriate, a) steer clear of him, b) report any sightings of him, or c) treat him as persona non grata. This last option can even render it unnecessary to arrest a suspect since he can be instantly ostracized, and various penalties can be applied within minutes (e.g., credit cards and bank accounts frozen). In addition, if exile is the severest penalty, what's the point of chasing down somebody who is already on the run, hauling them into court, and then chasing them out of town again? If they are on the run, let them keep on running: being deprived of the amenities of modern civilized living is punishment enough.
If, then, there is little need to chase down suspects or to wrestle them into submission so as to arrest them, then it is not necessary to hire young athletic persons as police officers. We can, then, hire wiser, more experienced persons, and so avoid the impassioned impulses and blunders of inexperience that we get with younger hires. By focusing on older candidates, we also improve our chances of sifting out cowards, thugs, and fools since they will have had more time to demonstrate the true nature of their character, and more time to correct any defects in their character. Let younger people join the military, which always stands in need of impulsive daring and feats of strength, or—better—let them expend their energy in sports, where they may also develop a sense of fairness and the importance of rules, while learning to control their impulses and make the best use of their physical abilities.
As for the police we have right now, the best tactic moving forward is to keep them in their jobs and befriend them. Many of them, indeed, have learned, from on-the-job experiences, exactly the desirable skills that we outlined above. Many others of them are, somewhat unfortunately, used to playing favorites, so it is best to win their friendship and gain the preferential treatment that comes with it. Too often, protesters deal with the police confrontationally, and not as individuals but collectively. Thus, they hurl slurs at the police which, by casting the police as a unified force, actually helps them to unify, and, by provoking their thuggish nature, encourages a brutal response. Of course, if the goal is to get footage and news coverage of police cracking down on unarmed protesters, then this is a fine way of going about it (provided, of course, that the press covers the story), but, if not, then winning the favor of the police will, at least, cause them to be less brutal (their adrenaline not having been pumped by provocations), and may even lead them to join the cause (at which point it is pretty much 'game over' for the other side).
With regard to bad officers and police corruption, we should make laws that automatically suspend an officer's authority as soon as they begin to act illegally or abuse their authority. Thus, if an officer attacks someone without sufficient cause, the matter instantly becomes one of assault, and fighting back does not qualify as resisting arrest or striking an officer of the law because there is no officer of the law involved in the scuffle. In days gone by, it was difficult to determine exactly what happened, and belief was often invested in police accounts by default (and this encouraged police corruption since the officers knew that their testimony bore greater weight in court); these days, however, with video surveillance being nearly ubiquitous (and, yes, officers should be required to wear cameras, and their equipment, e.g., their vehicles, should be outfitted with cameras as well), we need not continue this bias against the testimony of everyday citizens. And, indeed, police should always be held to a higher standard since they benefit from training, equipment, and support, and, as we have said, there is generally no urgency involved in apprehending a wrong-doer, so there should only rarely be any 'heat of the moment' incidents.
Occasionally, of course, there is need for urgency (for example when a deranged person starts shooting people at random). In such cases, the police are not needed to respond with reckless violence or in a fear-driven panic. Instead, they must use their numerical superiority, their training, and their expertise in tactics to calmly and methodically (but, nevertheless, quickly) isolate the shooter, get potential victims out of harm's way, evacuate the wounded, and apprehend or kill the shooter. Having the right kind of training is of the highest importance in such matters, and our police officers must all possess the discipline necessary to react with purpose, resolve, teamwork, and efficiency. Police training, then, begins with good schools.
It should also be said that it is better to try to prevent mass murders (and other crimes) than to try to stop them in-progress. The best way to do this is for everyone to be in touch with all of their immediate neighbors and family members. Time and again, one hears, of shooters, that they kept to themselves, that they gave no indications of violent tendencies, and so forth. This is, generally, nonsense. They 'kept to themselves' because nobody befriended them; they 'gave no indications' because nobody was paying attention. When people are in contact with others, they can vent their irritations and receive corrective input long before minor resentments or grievances fester into murderous intent. If this means that we have to pay some attention to the loser down the block, to the socially awkward, to societal misfits, then let us do it as one of the small prices we have to pay in order to live in a peaceful society where mass murders don't occur. If we are not willing to pay that price, then let us not pretend to be so mystified when we meet at the funeral home.
Organized Crime
The presence of organized crime in a society is a symptom of systematic problems because it is, essentially, the growth of an independent governance structure within the society, and one that, in fact, better caters to certain of the needs of the society than its official government. Often, the impetus for the formation of an organized criminal enterprise is one or more bad laws (e.g., USA's prohibition). These laws often have some high moral purpose (controlling alcohol, drugs, gambling, prostitution, even political corruption, as was the case in ancient Rome), but legislating morality is usually a losing game because those who habitually engage in a vice are not likely to stop doing so due to the passage of a law—they already know that what they are doing is 'wrong' in the eyes of the 'respectable' crowd in the society and so are either brazenly shameless about it, or already adept at doing it somewhat covertly, or do it in a moderate and managed way (in which case, there is probably no need for the legal restrictions). The law, then, facilitates the development of a black market, and monopolies in that market either evolve into organized criminal enterprises or are taken over by them. In an effort at self-preservation, such enterprises do their best to influence police, judges, and politicians (which goes a long way towards normalizing the activity), but the crime bosses also understand that the illegal aspect of what they are doing actually adds value, so, while they might eventually have the power to change the laws, they lack an incentive to do so.
All of this is, generally, foreseeable when the legislation is first proposed, so the passage of such laws are, usually, acts of stupidity (there can be cases where a real or potential crime boss deliberately pushes such legislation through in order to capitalize on it). This, then, points to a deficiency in the educational system, and, perhaps, to a general (and unhealthy) naivete.
Once an organized criminal enterprise infiltrates the government, it can be very difficult to get rid of it because it now controls the very institution (viz., the government) which is supposed to be getting rid of it. For a time, the criminal enterprise may play 'cops and robbers' with itself, but, eventually, it will drop the pretenses and emerge as the sole government. One should not expect this new government to be particularly benign with regard to its treatment of the citizens, and, most likely, rival criminal gangs will keep cropping up and vying for power, so the society is likely to face a prolonged period of what may be termed 'gang warfare' or 'civil war.' If there is an outside power with greater might than the internal criminal bosses, the country may be taken over (the internal strife contributing to the weakness of the country's armed forces), but the country has to have something that provides the outsider with an incentive to do so—nobody wants to go through the trouble and expense of taking over a country if they can't reap a benefit for doing so. If the country has nothing that an outside party wants, or if the internal crime bosses are sufficiently powerful to ward off all attacks (internal and external), then one must hope that the process eventually produces an Augustus who prizes competence and efficiency, and so sets up a bureaucracy that can both provide peace and normalcy for the general population and weather the political upheavals that come with the struggle for absolute power that continues at the highest levels. The Roman Empire, for example, continued in this mode for many centuries.
It would be best, of course, to avoid the development of organized crime in the first place. Being careful about the laws you pass is an important step towards this goal, as is having good parental guidance for children as they grow up and develop their moral character. A society with a strong sense of right and wrong does not need laws to spell out the difference. The educational system and the media must also continually reinforce and foster good moral character so that people don't become rascals, and the few that do develop are soon corrected or rooted out. A society which assiduously attends to the little matters will find that bigger problems tend to happen elsewhere.
Education
We need a strong educational system in order to find good leaders, have good laws, cultivate an astute press, and guarantee ourselves a fair and reasonable police force. The educational system we currently have, which is designed to produce compliant employees for the corporations, either does nothing along these lines, or is currently trying to find ways to stop doing so. The root of the problem is that the corporations' interests are represented by major donors to the schools and by members on their boards of trustees. The solution is to fund education through taxation. People, of course, get scared when they hear a proposal like this, since they only think of the tax hike (and the corporate-funded 'news' media keep them focused on this) and not the savings in terms of tuition costs and student loans. In the end, the educational part of an education costs the same, whether you take the money out of your left pocket or your right pocket, so get over the hype. Further, since the corporations are funding the schools through their 'donations' (did someone say 'bribes'?), it looks like there's a taxable pile of money that can be taxed and sent to the schools without the corporate strings attached.
Of course, it might be easier to just start up a whole new educational system which is publicly funded. Let the corporations keep their career training institutions (and let them keep paying for them, without public assistance), and let them continue to use the names 'college' or 'university' for them if they like. We'll call our institution of learning a 'discitatory' (plural discitatories) which is coined from the Latin 'discito, -are', a variant of 'disco' (= 'I learn'). Thus, we get, for one engaged in the activity of learning, 'discitator' (plural, discitators); for a building or location in which it takes place, 'discitatorium' (plural, discitatoria), and, for the activity itself 'discitation'.
These discitatories will be run, from the top down, by academics—academics on the board of trustees, academics in the administrative offices, academics in faculty positions (of course), academics on the staff, academics on the grounds-crew, academics in the cafeteria, and so forth. In this way, everybody involved will have clarity on the purpose of the institution, and will do their work with that goal in mind. Preferably, these academics will be students or graduates of a discitatory themselves, but this will not be possible when we are first starting up. At the least, then, these academics will have a commitment to the broad and holistic kind of education advocated by the likes of Heraclitus, Aristotle, Vitruvius, Galen, and many others across the ages.
The curriculum will be historically arranged and focus on the grandest developments in thought and understanding in all parts of the world. The general schema will be that all fields are branches of philosophy, with metaphysics and theology as the most comprehensive sets (metaphysics encompassing those things [dirt, fingernails...] which are not proper to theology). Modern science, including modern medicine, will be subsumed as a curiosity (due to its odd exclusion of the final cause in the explanations it offers, while it uses the final cause in its search for those explanations) under natural philosophy. The traditional liberal arts (trivium and quadrivium) will have a large role to play, but in an updated and expanded way (in order to encompass the many advances that have been made since antiquity). Physical exercise and team-sports will be an important part of the curriculum as well, as will courses in various important life skills (cooking, home repairs, sewing, managing finances, gardening/farming, travel, cleaning, basic health care…) and entertainments (singing, dancing, fine arts, good conversation, dining etiquette, how to throw a party…), so that no one emerges from the program at a loss as to how to manage their affairs and get along with others.
In line with the goals listed above (finding good leaders, having good laws, cultivating an astute press, and guaranteeing ourselves a fair and reasonable police force), we will make having a degree from a discitatory a requirement for police officers, government officials, voters, jurors, and those who wish to qualify for the tax exemption for true amplified speech. Since not all of these things require the same amount of preparation, the discitatories will grant degrees at various levels (just as our current system acknowledges graduating from grammar school, high school, college, and graduate school). The most basic level will be the qualification for the tax exemption for verifiable amplified speech, for, as the saying goes, even "Out of the mouths of babes" one can receive powerful testimony and truth. For very young children, of course, the tax exemption will properly be requested and awarded to their parents (or, in some cases, their teachers or other guardians), but, once one demonstrates a consistent ability to substantiate assertions with logical arguments and evidence, and can fill out the paperwork for the exemption, there is little need to keep running back to mommy and daddy.
The next level will be that which qualifies students to vote and sit on juries. History has amply demonstrated that both lawyers and candidates frequently employ the slickest rhetorical ploys in their efforts to persuade listeners to support their cause. We need, then, our voters and jurors to be capable of seeing through such efforts, and to adhere to what is right, fair, or best when making their decisions. This involves command of one's emotions (since lawyers and politicians often make emotional appeals), courage (since fears are often played upon), and a keen sense of the subtleties of words and even intonations, on top of the usual intellectual adroitness one must have in following a logical argument (which, sometimes, can be rather complex), sorting through analogies, considering evidence, filtering out pointless excursuses, and so forth. Once a student consistently exhibits these abilities, they can be certified as eligible to vote and serve as jurors.
It would be nice to be able to prohibit from parenthood those who are not yet capable of raising a child well. As it is, any knucklehead with basic biological functionality can become a parent, but having our babies raised by knuckleheads only insures that they will become knuckleheads as well, and that our communities will eventually devolve into tribes of knuckleheads (since knuckleheads tend to be both fertile and prolific). This is certainly not progress, and certainly not good, either for the babies or for the community. We cannot, however, impose penalties on the knuckleheads (as we do, for example, with those who misuse amplified speech), since those penalties will only serve to further disadvantage their babies. We also should not, however, lazily grant such clueless parents various kinds of financial assistance in the hope that they will better their circumstances because this will merely serve as an incentive for them to have more children. We can, however, offer them parenting assistance and guidance: babysitters and daycare centers with teachers who are trained both in parenting and in teaching others how to be good parents.
In order to make such an offer, however, we'll need to have people trained and prepared to fill these roles, and so our discitatories should offer certifications for those who qualify. The question, however, is: at what level should these certifications be offered? On the one hand, it would be good if people can be certified before they become physically capable of becoming parents, but, on the other hand, it seems that the amount of knowledge required would take much longer to acquire, and would be more surely planted in more mature minds. Nature, however, dictates the time table, so we must do what we can in advance while encouraging young adults to avoid having babies until they are fully prepared. Some, then, will qualify before they have children, and, for those who have not yet qualified, there will (eventually) be certified babysitters and daycare teachers who can offer support and guidance. The curriculum for such certification should, of course, look to practical matters involved in household management, but must also include instruction on how to mold the moral character of children and to start them on their educational path. If we do this well, we may eventually be able to free ourselves of knuckleheads, but even if we accomplish that, the effort must be sustained, because every child born, if raised poorly, is a potential knucklehead.
Beyond the level of voters and jurors we will have the levels of those who are not merely certified, but nominated to run for this or that political office (the higher the office, the higher the level of qualification should be—we want the wisest people in the highest offices). As we discussed elsewhere, we will not allow those who self-nominate or initiate their own campaigns (including behind-the-scenes efforts) to be elected—votes for them will not be counted. If someone truly has good leadership skills, others will notice. Indeed, what kind of leader (other than a really bad one) lacks supporters who will recommend them to others?
With regard to terms and term limits, one might well wonder what sense it makes to put someone out of office simply because they have the experience that comes with being in office. It would make better sense to hold elections either when the incumbent vacates the office, or when a candidate with equal or greater abilities emerges; for, surely, it would be stupid to replace a wise and benevolent leader with one that is worse. For lower offices, where the need for wisdom is not that great, elections can be held with regularity because there are sure to be many persons who can do the job well. Since the discitatories will constantly have an eye on these matters—assessing the abilities of students and knowing those of office holders (who were their former students)—they will be in position to schedule elections and field candidates.
In the event that a rivalry develops between two or more discitatories, and this rivalry leads one or more to start fielding candidates not on the basis of their merits, but due to their affiliation with (or loyalty to) the discitatory, that discitatory will be decertified and decommissioned (losing all its rights and privileges as an educational institution) and all of its graduates will be cast out of any offices that they hold (though they may immediately be nominated as candidates for these same positions by other discitatories).
Those who are qualified for office but are not elected will automatically be assigned positions as faculty in a discitatory, as news and commentary reporters, or as police or military officers, depending on where there are open positions.
Conclusion
This is not, of course, a comprehensive treatment of what a society should consider when formulating its policies, but it should provide a sufficient skeleton that can be filled out in accordance with the needs and characters of various societies. They say, however, that the Devil is in the details so the hardest part remains to be done. There should be, however, no rush in getting this done, and no need to get it exactly right the first time. It is probably best to consider it an organic and ongoing process.
Let us not forget, however, that we already have governments that we must deal with. The hope here is that the organic networks we develop will eventually merge with our existing governments and serve to improve them. The current situation, however, may not allow enough time for this to develop, and so we will probably have to take an additional step. In order to see this more clearly, let's take a closer look at how things stand now.
copyright © 2024 by Luxipolis.Com