Lit.Org - a community for readers and writers Advanced Search

Average Rating

(0 votes)

You must login to vote





In the perfect society, government begins with each adult individual
governing him/her self. Parents govern themselves and their children.
As children mature, the responsibility for the children's "governing"
is transferred from the parents to the children at whatever rate the
children show themselves capable of handling.


In the present earth human society, governments "rule" over people and
over territory. In the perfect society, governments will "administer"
programs which the people decide should be undertaken. Governments
will NOT rule! Governments will administer!

In a perfect society, earth humans are NOT "ruled", nor do they "rule"
over others, because all individuals are responsible for governing

This is NOT merely semantics, but it is a fundamental alteration in the
actual role and function of government, and it represents a fundamental
change in the relationship between residents and governments.



There are some aspects of perfect society "governments" that are
corporate responsibilities, such as school boards, road and bridge
departments, etc., because these type of identities have an "indirect"
influence upon the life of individuals.

However, other forms of "government" are society responsibilities, such
as law enforcement, courts, etc., because these type of identities can
have a direct contact upon the life of individuals.

Governments have variations of corporate and society responsibilities,
because some functions deal with projects that have an "indirect"
effect upon residents (corporate responsibility), while other functions
have a "direct" effect upon residents (society responsibility).



Within some of the present earth nations, "democracy" (the people vote
for government by the concept of one person-one vote) is considered to
be an ideal form of government. The following is from the Miriam &
webster dictionary:

# Main Entry: de-moc-ra-cy
# Function: noun
# Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
# Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia,
# from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy Date: 1576
# 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
#...b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the
#...... people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through
#...... a system of representation usually involving periodically
#...... held free elections

In our present society, there are several different forms of democracy.
For example, England's form of government is different than the United
States form of government, but both are considered to be "democracies".

Many democratic governments have "direct vote" systems whereby the
people cast their votes directly for the candidates, while others have
"proportional representation" in which the people vote for a party and
each party receives "seats" based upon the percentage of vote received.
For example, if 100 seats are available and a party receives 40% of the
vote, then that party would have 40 seats.

In many "proportional" systems, the parties present a "fixed" slate of
candidates and if the party receives 40% of the vote, then the first 40
people listed on the slate are elected. Others use an "open" slate,
whereby people vote for individual candidates as well as for the party.

With an "open" slate system, in the above example, the 40 people (from
that party) with the highest individual votes would be elected. Also in
the "proportional" vote systems, there are various methods for dealing
with awarding fractional seats.

The reality of many of the existing "proportional" vote democratic
governments is that they actually place a "party" between the people
and the candidates (most especially with the "fixed slate" systems).

Although there are many forms of "direct vote" democratic governments
now on this earth, they share the same basic flaw, which is this flaw:
***the majority wins and the minority loses***.


Yes for many, "democracy" is just a subtle way of saying "majority
rules". So, at present, in a "direct vote" democratic election where
the vote is 51% for one candidate and 49% for the other candidate, the
51% candidate wins and the 49% candidate loses, so then 49% of the
electorate (the "minority" voters) actually become "governed" by the
candidate that they did not vote for.

Therefore, it is common practice within these present direct vote so-
called "democratic systems", that they actually negate the concept of
"one person - one vote", by being governments of "majority rule", which
simply discards the votes of the minority.

However, a basic concept of all of the present democratic forms of
government, whether "direct vote" or "proportional vote" systems, is
that such governments claim to govern with the "consent" of those
governed. In the perfect society, governments will administer not only
with the "consent" of their residents, but also from the "specific
instructions" of those residents of a certain geographical zone.



The perfect society is a "pure democracy". The following is from the
Miriam & Webster dictionary:

# Main Entry: pure democracy
# Function: noun
# Date: circa 1910
# : democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the
#.. people rather than through representatives

In the perfect society, since the people "rule", government elections
are for administrative offices, NOT "ruling" offices, and the concept
of "one person - one vote" is the paramount principle for elections.

Thus, in an election where one candidate gets 51% of the vote and the
other candidate gets 49% of the vote, **BOTH** candidates would be
elected. One candidate is elected to represent the 51% majority and
the other candidate is elected to represent the 49% minority.

In that manner, a person is always represented by whomever they cast
their vote for.

It is important for the reader to remember that in the perfect society
it is the people who "rule", thus any question that is important, or
that sets a new direction, or that is precedent setting, will be
referred to the people in the form of a referendum for their decision.

In the perfect society, the elected officials will be administrators
only. The elected officials will have the potential to recommend
courses of actions, but it will be the people, themselves, who will
make those "executive" decisions.


Let's consider the case where a city holds an election in order to
choose a Mayor. In our present "direct vote democratic systems", there
would be only one "Mayor", thus there must be one election winner and
all other candidates are losers.

In the perfect society, the office of "Mayor" would not be viewed as a
one person office, rather it would be viewed as a "collective" office,
whereby multiple candidates who receive votes, would thereby be elected
to represent their constituency in the office of "Mayor".

If candidate "A" receives 51% of the vote and candidate "B" receives
32% of the vote and candidate "C" receives 17% of the vote, then all
three candidates would be elected to the collective office of Mayor.

I acknowledge that this system of "collective" office-holders would
seem to be a most cumbersome system, but the reader should remember
that in the perfect society, people will be living according to the
principle of "honesty".

Therefore, there will NOT be the destructive egotism and hidden agendas
that are so prevalent within this present society, AND there would not
be people interested in acquiring *power* (control).

In an "honest and fair society", all individuals elected to the
collective office of "Mayor" would have the best interest of the city
inhabitants as their individual AND collective goals, even though they
might evaluate those "goals" from different perspectives.

In order to further clarify what I am presenting, consider how one
individual who is trained as a Scientist, Teacher, Lawyer, Architect
and Accountant, would have the advantage of bringing his/her experience
from each of those areas into his/her every day decision making.

Such it would also be, in the "collective Mayoral office", because
there would be the advantage of several minds/experiences working
together to achieve the same goal. Each individual simply brings the
unique views of his/her constituency to the "Mayoral collective",
thereby broadening and strengthening the deliberation and decision
making process of that office.

Many people can harmoniously work together as one unit when
"destructive egotism and hidden agendas" are removed because each
individual then has the same common goal and objective as the other
involved individuals.

AND remember that the elected officials are merely administrators for
the various programs that the people have approved.



When people are relating in an "honest" manner (with themselves and
with others), co-operation and productive enterprises will be the usual
result. And because governments will simply "administer" rather than
"rule", the "power ego syndrome" prevalent within this present society
will be gone and *many* will be able to function effectively as "One".

There are some people who wrongly seem to think that a "dictatorship"
form of government is a very efficient form of government. "They" say
that Hitler's Nazi government ran the trains on time, but I am certain
that in the later years of that government, the trains did not run on

Anyone who objectively researches that Nazi government in its entirety,
would have to conclude that it was a very wasteful, counter-productive,
inefficient government that placed much unfair burden upon the German
people, and upon society as a whole.

A study of the Soviet government, or of the China government under Mao
would also confirm that dictatorships are wasteful and inefficient
forms of government.

Dictatorships are inefficient forms of government for at least these
two reasons:

1.) The ultimate objective of a country of many is set by the thought
processes of one solitary individual (whether flawed mentally or not,
but certainly with all of the prejudices and limitations contained
therein). While in the perfect society the objective of any group is
formed by a collective, consolidated decision usually based upon the
recommendation from the minds, talents, and experiences of many.

2.) Much time, effort, and energy must be spent imposing and
maintaining control; while in the perfect society with its
co-operative, collective, democratic form of government, the time,
effort, and energy could be spent upon making a situation the best that
it could be.

So, even though (at first thought) a "collective" government office of
several individuals would seem to complicate decision making, that is
only because we are use to people, in this present predatory society,
having different goals and agendas. It is often wrongly thought that
having several people involved in decision making **MUST** result in
people pulling in different directions, but that is not so.

And, it is not the "thinking differently" that provides complications
between people, for it is precisely that ability to reference various
views and experiences that is one of humankind's tremendous strengths.

As an analogy, consider the advantage of being able to link together
many individual computers to work on resolving a particular problem.
That type of computer systems approach is presently being done, and it
is useful, especially when the problem can be segmented and individual
pieces of the problem can be processed by different machines.

However, with humans, there are several approaches that can be taken.
We could combine our mental talents by considering the whole problem
together, OR we could assign aspects of a problem to different
individuals, OR we could be redefining the goal based upon the unique
inputs from one another until an acceptable solution is arrived at.

Remember it is said that Edison invented the light bulb, but reality is
that he had the basic idea for an *approach* as to how light could
**economically** be generated electrically (light was already being
generated by other means but those means were not satisfactory for a
number of reasons), and then Edison supervised a very highly skilled
team of workers testing and re-testing his basic concept, until a
successful economic result was finally achieved.

At the time of Edison, light was already being generated electrically
through various methods, such as the "arc light", but Edison sought to
develop an "economic and practical" system for generating electrical
light. That meant that he had to design (and build) a *system* for
power plants to generate the electricity as well as to design a light
bulb that would last a reasonable period of time before burning out.

Edison's *team* designed the various components for electrical power
plants, and Edison's company had to build the power plants, install the
wires within a community, sell the bulbs, and deliver the electricity
to power the bulbs. In other words, Edison had to develop an entire
industry that did not previously exist.

At first Edison successfully did so (with DC power), but then others
made improvements to his overall concepts and it was their method (AC
power) that was finally adopted on a wide scale.

The very thing that contributed toward Edison being able to develop an
entire industry, that is, that Edison was the overall director and
"decision-maker" of a team of **many** people who worked to develop his
products, also caused him to lose out on his advantage.

For a time Edison was an "idea" person and a "goal setter", a manager
of the work of others on his team. He conceived of the overall
concepts and his "team" did the bulk of the physical research to put
his ideas into practical use.

But when competitors made improvements to his products, he did not seem
to be able to acknowledge the soundness of their approach. Instead he
became a "controlling" decision-maker and he made poor decisions, thus
he ultimately lost out to his competitors.



But, in the perfect society, results can be accomplished without the
need for someone to be a "controlling" director, because the "team"
would be working together co-operatively, which means that one person
may direct one aspect while another person directs another aspect.

To "manage" is much different than to "control". Management brings
into consideration the ideas of others and presents a viable method for
achieving an agreed upon goal. To "control" is to dictate the approach
and such approach is often against the logic of a situation (such as
with Edison's decision to remain with DC power, or Hitler's many
decisions that were against the advice of professionals). In the mid
stages of his inventing career, Edison was primarily a "manager", and
that was one reason for his many successful achievements.

A family that has common goals can work together without a controlling
director. It might work this way: Dad might direct something in his
area of expertise, while mom could direct in her area of expertise, and
son can direct in his area, and daughter can direct in her area, *IF*
they all have a shared common goal. In that manner the "family unit"
would be strengthened by being able to take advantage of the expertise
of four different, unique individuals.

Certainly this type of "shared common goal" between a male and a female
who are joined together in a "family partnership", would then be
further enhanced by interaction with their children, so that the result
would be the many individuals working together as "one family unit".

The working together as "one family unit" does not remove any of the
individual's uniqueness, (father, mom, son, and daughter all remain as
individuals) but it does simply create, in addition to their individual
selves, another separate "corporate identity", that of "family".

The sad fact of our present society is that many of the so-called
"families" are not united by a shared common goal, instead those
families are simply collections of individuals who have their own
separate goals and agendas (many times hidden ones). They may have
some common blood or legal ties, but they do not share common goals,
and it is by the sharing of "common goals" that a group of individuals
can be bound together into a "close family".

I acknowledge that someone may say that it is "love" that makes "close
families", but I disagree, since "love" that does not share a common
goal, is "love" that will go its own separate way. However, people who
share common goals will be drawn ever closer together because of that
mutual goal sharing. Love is emotional (and emotions are often subject
to wide fluctuations), while goal sharing is an intellectual decision
which tends to be more dependable and committed (More about love later
in the chapter about "Personal and Marriage").


We (earth humans) have been conditioned, because of our present society
environment, to a point where it is not easy for individuals to be
honest with themselves, much less to be honest and co-operative with
others. But, with effort, *we can* get rid of the negative habits that
we have acquired, and we can begin to deal honestly with ourselves and
with others.

This learning to be honest with ourselves, will have a very positive
effect upon "families" as well as upon society as a whole. The process
of learning to be honest with ourselves will allow us to recognize and
understand our personal desires, expectations, and goals. That, in
turn, will allow individuals to relate honestly within a group (and a
"family" simply is a group), by openly discussing their viewpoints and
thereby having their viewpoint incorporated within the "family" goals.

Making the decision to want to live and deal honestly is the "key" to a
successful change to a co-operative mental and emotional attitude which
will contribute toward better "family" relationships, which will
contribute toward better society relationships.



Some people confuse "control" with "leadership". True "leadership"
does not require "control". True leadership is ideas, direction,
personal initiative, willingness to share with others, right thinking.

True leaders do not need followers in order for them to lead. To the
contrary, true leaders lead themselves, whether others follow or not,
"true" leaders *always* lead themselves.

If four individuals are talking together and one says that he/she has
decided to take a canoe trip to a certain destination, then a "leader"
would take that trip even if the others decide not to join him/her.
He/she will take that trip alone, IF he/she is a "true" leader.

In other words, a "true" leader *always* leads him/her self.
Self-leadership is the core foundation of "leadership".

In that example, the other three individuals chose to also take that
canoe trip. It was agreed that two would paddle at any one time, with
the rear paddle being the one assigned to steer the canoe. In that
manner, the canoe was most efficiently used on that trip. Turns were
thus taken, by each participant, at paddle and at steering the canoe
while they were traveling in overall accord with the guidelines from
the "leader" who knew where to go and how to get there. Those four
individuals were united in purpose and each agreed with the ultimate

A co-operative society works in much the same manner, with an exception
being that there would be many canoes with individual "paddlers" and
"steerers", all making the trip in the same general direction towards
that one common objective (the perfect society).



In some present-day democratic governments the concept of "compromise"
is highly touted, however in the perfect society "compromise" will not
be acceptable, instead the principle of "consolidate" will be standard.

Changing one's mind is NOT "compromise". One of the strengths from a
co-operative society or a "collective" office, is the consideration of
issues from the perspective of many different views. In those type of
discussions, aspects of an issue that were not considered by some
individual members, can be brought to the "table" thereby allowing for
a "change of mind" because of the more fuller re-evaluation of facts.

But if a "change of mind" does occur, that is NOT compromise, because
the individuals involved are simply choosing that which they think is
best after re-evaluating the additional information.

"Compromise" usually means that someone has to settle for "less than"
they would preferred to have chose; while "consolidate" means the
blending of all the worthwhile ideas, from all of the viewpoints, into
one strengthened whole that is then chosen as the "best decision"
(solution - approach) to that particular issue.

In "compromise", the "best possible" is not achieved, but in
"consolidate" the "best possible" is *always* achieved.

Thus, in the "perfect society", administrative discussions are intended
to strengthen proposals into the best possible resolution, by
incorporating ALL valid points into the final solution.


Less Death

Related Items


The following comments are for "Perfect Earth Society, Ch 4"
by lessdeath

Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Commenting Guidelines:
  • All comments must be about the writing. Non-related comments will be deleted.
  • Flaming, derogatory or messages attacking other members well be deleted.
  • Adult/Sexual comments or messages will be deleted.
  • All subjects MUST be PG. No cursing in subjects.
  • All comments must follow the sites posting guidelines.
The purpose of commenting on Lit.Org is to help writers improve their writing. Please post constructive feedback to help the author improve their work.