On Self-Preservationist Government Pt. 1

Abstract:

Policy and governance is not about what the leader(s) choose to do. It's about what's needed at a given time and place, separate from the leaders' interests and perspectives and desires. The world has it backwards in these ways of thinking. And the leadership(s) of the world are coming to realize this all too late to save their own careers (or hides) from the inevitable thing coming down the pike towards them.

Intro:

Since our evolutionary conception, humankind has grappled with the question of “how to live.” For tens of thousands of years we've grappled with the different question of “how to govern.” Both are essential for our well being and survival, and yet one is an evolutionary step up from the other. “How to govern”, relates more to our more sophisticated ways of organizing and operating ourselves collectively and individually. “How to live”, deals with our immediate survival needs, and is an evolutionary step down from the previous point.
Each human community on Earth has developed their own unique way of organizing themselves for day to day living and long term planning and decision making. While each community has come up with something different, they've nevertheless followed a common thread of eliminating pure anarchy and establishing some kind of legitimate basis for making decisions and organizing themselves, socially and economically, within the group and amongst different groups of different people. More will be explained later about the precise definition of “governing” and “government” in this paper. And it relates to the sophisticated organization of the group, as well as to the respective individual behaviors that they encourage and produce.

In 1513 an Italian man by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli wittingly or unwittingly codified and articulated the first basic principles of governing and statesmanship. However, they were based on the political realities of 16th century Europe, and many of his ideas have actually proven themselves to be caustic to a society and, by extension, the elite class that would attempt to wield them. An excellent example of this is his assertion to kill any and all opposition to the governing body should opposition arise.i It is not only considered completely unacceptable by most people and ruins a considerable amount of potential and talent from within the society, but also has demonstrated itself to be an impractical way of handling public opposition. The Syrian massacre at Hama in 1982 and the Chinese massacre at Tienanmen Square in 1989 both prove to be excellent examples of this occurrence. Both states are currently facing widespread discontent and opposition to their regimes, in spite of their “effectiveness” at dealing with the opposition through ruthlessly forceful means. And both are examples that will be used later in this paper to discuss key moments when these principles of governance come into play.

Historically, and in modern times as well, it has been demonstrated that, not only does might not make right, but it also has an uncanny ability to backfire on the mighty, and those who would seek to be mighty. Similar to Machiavelli, this text will go through case by case to explain and articulate an argument for a new kind of governing and a new kind of rationale for the inevitable elite and the people who compose the entire subject of the world that these elite find themselves responsible for.

Argument:

On Subjectivity and Objectivity:
In order to discuss the concept of governing, I think it is important to first check in with reality and what reality is going to mean in this paper. Within the subjectivity of perception that exists within our species, there is an objectivity to the world in which we live in. This objectivity exists whether we are aware of it or not, and it acts upon our lives in spite of the things that we attempt to do to make it be otherwise. It is that which can be repeated, that is what's universally observable (even if it is observed in different ways and in different means) and that which acts independently of human thought and ideation. A ball exists objectively in the world in which we live. You can argue and discuss its color or its nature as much as you'd like; but it doesn't stop you and everyone else from being able to experience it again and again and again, until it is objectively not in your range of perception. The ball exists, for the purposes of this paper, and you'd be answering purely academic questions if you were going to question it otherwise. As interesting as that can be, for the purposes of making an argument, this paper will avoid such lines of questioning.

It is that objectivity of the world that is the subject of government and governing. And it is that objective world that is impacted through the actions and decisions that the individuals of that government and governing process make, which are themselves, objective in their own right due to the effectiveness they have on the world, even if they are derived from human initiated action. You do not have to believe me in order for objectivity to exist or not. It simply is, and whether you think it does or not ends up being irrelevant in the face of the objective impacts that it has on your own objective self, and that you have on it for your own objective benefit or destruction.

Because the effects of policy and governing manifest themselves in the objective world, the decisions and processes can be tested and examined in the world by virtually anyone with eyes, ears and sense, in order to gauge the impact and effect of their actions and decisions on the world in which we live and they live as well. Therefore, governing and policy takes on an air similar to that of cooking. It is difficult to effectively play off a bad meal, like it is difficult to play off a bad piece of policy that is negatively affecting the whole. You can fancy it up and hide some things, but most people's sense of taste, smell and touch is going to cut through it and experience an objectively poorly prepared meal. Notice, this does not subjectively try to meddle in the existential qualities of one thing or another. It simply is pointing out that there is something that's out there, which we all experience, albeit, differently, that is objective, and that way in which we interact with it has objective implications for our own lives and our own livelihoods that are fully experiential, demonstrable and tangible. You don't have to subjectively try to assign a rating to the meal in question. You can simply sense the way in which the person prepared the objective meal in question, and your senses, by virtue of your evolutionarily developed qualities to distinguish objectively amongst and between qualities for your own sake and your own benefit, are then what help you assess that objective reality that you are experiencing subjectively. This then has implications about your own objective health and odds for well being and survival, depending on how in tune your senses are to that objectivity. It's possible for your own senses to be off in this regard. But the effects on yourself and on others is still going to be there, whether you subjectively choose to believe it or not. It's not academic. It's simply how things seem to work for ourselves and other living beings on this planet.

We can consider squirrels and other small animals as excellent examples for this kind of situation. Being hit by a car is objectively bad for the animal in question. Those who flee the car moving towards them (and therefore, demonstrate some level of comprehension about objective dangers to their own selves and their own sakes), are more likely to survive and be able to pass on their genes. Those who don't sense the danger of the oncoming two tons of metal, or aren't fast enough to get themselves out of the way of the car, are more likely to become roadkill and not live on to pass on their genes. The squirrels are sensing that reality and then having choices be made by their brains to do one thing, or another. Objectivity is only an academic question until you're getting hit by it, or rather in these cases that I will discuss, you're hitting yourself with it.

This establishes the base understanding about the world in which we're living, which is necessary in order to comprehend and understand the remainder of this argument. There is a solid, objective reality that effects us all. Some of us are apparently better at being able to sense this reality and to use it in our daily lives, for our personal well being. I will now continue on with the definition of government, followed by the out-line of the ethic and practice of this system of government, and then finish it off with case examples and a discussion of the final caveats which we encounter in this place that limit optimal function of these principles.

The Definition and Subject of Government:
In order to better organize and articulate this piece, it is first necessary to define what is meant by governing and government when they are referred to in the text. Governing is a process whereby individuals within a society come together in order to solve questions and problems related to their society's function, and government is simply the organization within the society which carries those processes out. Government then exists within society, which then exists within the bigger context of the ecological system in which it finds itself in, which by extension, leads to the bigger cosmological environment in which we exist and are inseparably apart of. Imagine it being like an infinity loop, whereby the people in the government represent the smallest of aspects about the cosmos at the human level, who then become the ones with the biggest impact on the rest cosmos around themselves through their actions and decisions, and the objective consequences that those objective actions have on the rest of the cosmos. Its positive or negative nature is only determined by the effect that its members have on the society and the environment in which it is apart of. And that includes for their own sake and their own benefit. Academic questions about its size and function end up being irrelevant because governments everywhere serve this specific purpose within society and carry out the same basic functions within society. Everything is relevant under the government's sphere, and everything is possible to be the subject of the government's influence. The questions about government then become how legitimate the government's presence in the respective area is within the societal and ecological context (how well it and its members fit in with it) and how effectual it can realistically hope to be within that given area its members have chosen to bother with.

For the purposes of this paper, I will avoid moral and ethical questions and focus wholly on the amoral and practical side of the issues at stake. What you'll find, is that the two concepts, morality and practicality, are not far apart from one another, and are in fact, often one and the same thing for one's own sake and for one's own benefit in governance. More of this will be fleshed out in the next section, concerning the ethic and practice of government that suits the needs and interests of those who are seeking to wield it.

The Practice of Self-Interested and Self-Preservationist Governing:
Throughout history, many leaders have come to power and, interestingly enough, an equal amount have come out of it. How they left and for what reason says a lot about their character as a person. How they left is also where we see these principles that I'm referring to play themselves out in the objective world, whether we are cognizant of them or not. Leaders typically want to stay in power. People who participate in these kinds of actions and behaviors, typically seem to want to stay in places of higher status that garner greater material wealth, and these people typically want to occupy these places as long as they possibly can and as best as they can for their own selfish selves and their own selfish sakes. So, the question that this paper is working with, oddly enough, is: “how exactly can this be accomplished safely and reliably”? The answer, I think, is oddly counter intuitive to what you'd expect. And this is, again, in light of historical and current events which point to objective aspects about this place in which we are living. In order to explain this self-interested and self-preservationist system of government, one has to consider an effective way for governing in light of the original definition of governing and government that was given at the beginning of this text in order to give the needed clarity of this paper.

For most, if not all, of human history, leaders have done generally as they've personally seen fit, falling into the subjectivity/objectivity trap that ensares even the most brilliant amongst us. They have made non-rational decisions about what to do when they're in power, without necessarily thinking about the implications of what they're doing on the whole, as well as on themselves, through these senseless actions and activities. They have, as I will demonstrate later in this paper, consistently and constantly led to the downfall and undoing of whatever they've been attempting to do, through these unthinking and poorly conceived actions and choices. The point of this paper, is how to overcome these difficulties such that the leadership and the citizenry that they govern are able to live as peaceably as possible within this world, for their own mutual sakes and their own mutual benefit. The following will outline and detail the necessary steps for this form of self-interested and self-preservationist system of government.

To begin with, one must have an understanding and comprehension of the whole with which they're working with, without exclusion of anything for any reason. They need to be able to understand and work with the whole without a personal shade of subjectivity being in their way. While this is challenging for most to do, it is actually possible, and it takes an extreme realization about one's own self first, in order to pinpoint the subjective views of the individual person in question. They can then be calculated and factored into determining the overall course of action. Without this comprehension about the practitioner's own self and own self perspective, the practitioner will always be tainted by this shade, and will more likely miss aspects or prove to be stubborn in accepting factual aspects which are, again, objectively there, like the ball or the cars in the previous example. The question that first needs to be made, is if the person in question is able to recognize the cars moving towards them internally and externally, and are willing and able to do what needs to be done to avoid them, for their own sake and their own benefit.

To put it another way, excluding anyone or anything from your analysis, or neglecting to think about anyone or anything in your practice, leaves you blinded and inhibits positive governance and government action. Every piece of the whole is interconnected together in order to compose the whole which is the world. By missing parts or by willfully disregarding and ignoring them, you fail to get the needed understanding and comprehension of the whole (also known as the gestalt) that will allow you to make intelligent decisions about the world for your own sake, which then, oddly enough, translates into others' sakes, which then, again, translates back into your own sake as part of the political leadership. There is no disconnection and disembarkation point where the leadership becomes magically disjointed and disconnected from the rest of the whole. And it is that whole which comes down around and/or on top of them, when they fail to recognize and act appropriately to signs within the whole pointing towards change and something other than what the leadership had anticipated or planned for.

If that understanding is reached, one can then set about identifying issues and non-optimal situations and conditions within the whole. The practice is then determining how to solve the problems for the greatest possible benefit while doing the least amount of actual damage to the whole or any of its parts. Only with this kind of ethos will a governing group ever hope to remain in power for long, or else fall victim to all sorts of conditions and maladies, internal and external, which will lead to their overthrow or undermining of themselves. The rewards are increased likelihood of time in office and increased time to reap the benefits of being in office. The cost, which is again, objectively present, is that it requires the political leadership to do what is necessary for the whole, and not for their smaller selves sincerely and genuinely and without coercion. Rather, they need to be able to treat the whole as if it were their own smaller selves. All of the impacts and effects are going to be felt within the world that is the subject of government and governing, and can therefore, be observed and tested for effectiveness in the larger world around it, which serves to benefit the whole AND the leadership, as a means of gauging the world around them.

Self-interested and self-sustaining governing and government, is therefore a science similar to the practice of medicine. Empirical tests can be used to determine what is significant to the lives of individual human beings living in a given social order. Public opinion polls, elections, and scientific surveys of quality of life are all methods that can be used to determine what works, what doesn't work; what is significant and vital to survival and physical/psychological well being and what isn't.

A complete understanding of the body and the environment it lives in is needed first, in order to practice, and the only acceptable goal is to do the most amount of good, while doing the least amount of harm to that which is subject to the doctor's actions and decisions. The main aim in both, is to keep the patient healthy and improve their quality of being. The key difference, which I will illustrate later, is that the doctors of policy and governing directly pay for their negligence and incompetence, either with their lives, their health, their reputation, their office and/or their ability to join society in a healthful and self-interested and self-preservationist manner. Because of these risks for the doctors in power, it also sometimes means that a different doctor is needed for the old doctors' sake in light of demonstrated and consistent incompetence, inability and/or unwillingness to function effectively for the sake of the patient that their well being is objectively tied to. This would ensure the members of the old leadership come off as well as they possibly can, in spite of the mistakes they've made, and have a chance of rejoining society peaceably to carry on their lives and livelihoods as best as they honestly can. What member of a species would prefer to do something else, as a living organism, intent on survival and being well? Not a very functional one. And to those who'd prefer the nastier course of action, medical and psychiatric attention would likely be the best policy, in order to ensure, again, that they can lead as positive a life as they possibly can, given their apparent maladies and afflictions, without causing harm to others.

This is why I want to emphasize at this time that not everyone can do this for their own sake and their own benefit, even though, anyone can tell when things aren't working out so well. For those who can't bring themselves to function on this level of comprehension and understanding, these positions prove toxic to themselves and to everyone and everything else in their world, regardless of whatever can be said or done to try to paint it subjectively as being otherwise. Again, the objectivity of the world is actually there, and to neglect it or fail to comprehend it will likely lead to the places and conditions which I will get into later on in this piece. Suffice it to say, that you don't have to believe what I have to say, and you don't have to ever have heard what I've had to say, in order for these processes and aspects about our world to be or not be in effect. That is the core of the objectivity of the world beyond what our brains produce for us, and it extends beyond observation or attempted human manipulations upon it. And that is what I am going to demonstrate in the following pages, as we go through case by case from human history and modern events, to show this trend in functional detail and effect.

Like the sailor at sea, you do not control the winds and currents and tides and weather, even though they objectively impact your condition and quality of life at sea. You only adjust your own settings in order to better adapt to the ones that you find yourself in. Otherwise, you're likely to break something on your ship or not make any headway in the epic quest for health, well being and happiness that our species is on. If you're not on this kind of quest as an individual or a group of individuals, one has to question your respective abilities to survive, let alone, be well in this world of ours, which then, gets into some interesting evolutionary implications, like the squirrels we discussed at the beginning of this paper. Suffice it to say, that I think that everyone has a right to be well and to live well on this planet. How that happens is different to each of us, and it may not be in the ways we'd expect or hope to have happen to us. But the objective sense of it, is universal to us all, human and non-human alike. And that, is something you don't actually have to believe. As far as I am personally concerned, it is either “is”, “isn't”, or “is something different than what was previously described.” And I don't know how else to subjectively describe the concept of objectivity, beyond these three points that can be tested for and examined by anyone or anything with eyes, ears, touch, taste, smell and sense.

Such is the thesis of this paper: that when these principles of self-interested and self-preservationist government are implemented and genuinely implemented, they yield benefits for the leadership in question as well as for the citizenry that they govern. When they don't, it yields further aggravations, further complications and even the likely undoing of whatever it is they were hoping to do in the first place. This then concludes the base argument section of this paper. The next sections are going to be devoted to case by case studies of examples in history and current events which emphasize my point, and show how might does not actually make right, and in fact, has a tendency to blow back in the face of those who attempt to use it against others, through whatever method or reasoning that can be conceived. Later on in the paper, I will discuss the final problem that humanity and, indeed, all living beings have in dealing with these issues and predicaments well, for their own sake, as much for others' sakes, the environment's sakes, and their sake through the sakes of others and the environment. It is important to note, that the cases that are discussed are just highlighted examples of general trend which play out even in our current personal lives. They are merely being trotted forward due to their relative profile in demonstrating my larger point about self-interested and self-preservationist government and governing. We will begin with the historical examples, and move our way up to the current events.