Natural Law, Society and Government
All things bend to nature and to nature’s laws. We don’t know or understand all of nature’s laws, such that we are likely to continuously be baffled, surprised and prone to suffering in one way or another in the universe. We bow to the environment and the circumstances we find ourselves in as a consequence of our actions and actions from outside of our personal piece of space. Our environment shapes us as we shape it. The universe, on the other hand, shapes us without us having any necessary known influence on the universe. The environment is like a spouse who will kill us off if we do not adopt to its laws and natural responses to our actions. The rest of the universe, as far as we can actually tell, is not like that at all (although there are arguments that can be made to that effect).
Members of our government and, indeed, our leadership cadre effects what happens to itself through their influence on the social, economic and environmental universes. They can partially choose whether they and their institutions live or die, depending upon their actions on the environment and the society from which they draw their membership from and in which they need to survive and maintain their legitimacy in order to do the jobs that they need to do in society, for society, both domestically and internationally. Societies don’t operate in optimal states without a government, nor do they operate optimally with excessive or inappropriately executed governments. It takes the correct amounts of government at the appropriate times and in the appropriate ways for the times in order to have optimal social function.
Above all, a government and its members have to be attentive to conditions internally and externally to society with a bias towards acts and truths, rather than subjective opinion, belief or personal interest. Then, once they have this accurate picture of what is and how things work and relate to one another, they must do what is actually best by the other that is society and the environment rather than its own members’ small-selves, if they are interested in preserving their small-selves. This is what history has shown us. We are bound by the environment, the natural laws of the universe as a whole, and our social conditions, physically second and psychologically first (according to a general perception of things as humans). We don’t like what makes us mentally uncomfortable, let alone, physically uncomfortable, however actually beneficial it may be for us at that given moment or conditional set. That is how communication is so important between a government corps and a society; because the actual medicine may need a spoonful of sugar to make it go down in the hearts and minds of people. Failure to deliver on society’s terms, based on society’s actual and perceived interests (the two not being always the same) will result in rejection and the increased chance that society will go or a less than optimal and potentially malevolent alternative.
In many respects, it’s like the sensitivities of dating an abused person. Society has been through so many iterations of so many different leaders that it is doubtful whether society will ever really figure out who or what is in their best interests, especially if you throw in the wrench of partisan politics and identification according to ideology rather than empirical truth and fact. It’s incredibly hard for the right people to have a significant influence over said person, and there can always be those tendencies within the abused person which leads them to go for the less than savory political options. It’s a long road to recovery for a dejected, disappointed and shell-shocked society and it too will make mistakes along the road relative to those in government and elsewhere in society who are trying to help. Listening comes first, followed by carefully asked questions in order to learn more about a given situation, followed by the careful development of action plans that they (the society’s members) can take to alleviate the problems is my personal prescription. It’s a question of guiding society and helping them realize their own potential according to their perceived and actual needs and wants, not a top down authority telling people how to behave and act within a society (unless that’s something that a society needs and/or wants).
The government can influence behavior to a point and provide the legal framework in which things can operate. However, it will only be when all members of a given society are able and willing to join together and learn the balance of give and take that is needed for the production of a healthy world will things work out accordingly. Going laissez-faire is the same as anarchy, in that people aren’t really going to do what’s in their best interests reliably and all the time. But being dictatorial and autocratic ruins the society’s ability to act, grow and realize its full potential. In the end, it is that goal that needs to be common for all practitioners in and of government, if they want to maintain their seats, influence and legitimacy.
A shame that no one has realized this until this point, at least, on the empirical, scientific and non-faith based level.
Think about it.