Continuing on with this topic, I find it difficult to ignore
or avoid the issue of ruler ship, or governance, or however
that concept could be framed in the context of sovereignty.
When you consider this topic you always run up against
the notion of something like government when you
consider this notion of statehood, or nation hood,
which will always, some how, connect itself with
some notion of sovereignty. But clearly, if you examine
this notion of government, you can not fail to observe that
this issue has been dealt with over time and in different
geographic regions, differently, and this is of course where
the notion of history or tradition connects so neatly into
this puzzle. ( maybe not quite that neatly )
And it's pretty hard not to be puzzled really, because of
the vast difference in how these notions and just the
expression of these ideas varies over both time and space.
So just a brief list of some different ideas: we have
constitutional democracy, constitutional non-democracy,
which would probably include constitutional monarchy,
and then you have a spectrum of autocracy, and say
plutocracy, and so on, so the variety of 'ocracy' - which
even includes anarchy, is literally " crazy ".
So you end up with this two sided coin which includes
the " governed " and the " government " .... although some
think it is actually unnecessary to include the later. But
clearly you must have some kind of process in place if
for no other reason than someone has to add glue to
stamps, so that stamp collectors will have something to do.
Interesting to imagine that all this effort at culture and
civilization might be just so some stamp collectors
can remain occupied.
Now, by my observations and the big focus of a lot
of this blog, in the U.S., we have a government but
we also have a " political process ", which very clearly
seems to be different, and this includes the need to
eliminate the " political process " from within the government
although at the same time the " political process " is
clearly integrated into the government in various ways.
You should be able to see the difficulty already without
further examination in that state of affairs, which is,
you want to eliminate from government something
that is deeply woven into aspects of the government.
So this can not help but lead to a great deal of head
scratching which is made more difficult when this whole
idea of having two parties, which even if you are not associated
with them, you still must be aware of them. What that means is,
even if you have nothing in particular to do with either party you
have to understand it some how. That in itself makes
it a form of tyranny, but this notion of different parties
is made worse in that on a lot of levels it is both very
difficult to understand these party distinctions and beyond that
the boundaries between them changes " frequently ". One
common theme seems to be the idea of conquering the moral high
ground, which of course nobody can really see that ( the moral high ground).
Maybe ( moral high ground at moral high ground dot com ? )
So what constitutes this moral high ground is forever part of
the multiplying disputes and disagreements. And although
this very, very strange kind of warfare seems to go on, yet
many desire to avoid the issue of morality altogether
believing in part that morality is a form of tyranny.
I will admit that if this system of two parties continues
it seems likely that genetics will become
involved, so it may even turn into a medical problem.
For example, if you have parents of different parties
it might make you unable to make significant life decisions.
Perhaps it will result in people being unable to marry
outside of their "proper" political group.
No matter , however, how you cut or peal this onion,
you must at some point come to understand that
every one has a lot at stake in making the " process ",
what ever it is, better and not worse. So beyond
thinking about this notion of what sovereignty is,
we also must consider at some depth this notion of
the process, and indeed how this process can be made
better, and this it seems is becoming an ever more
pressing and immediate issue. Yet it seems like now
we have relegated this to creating " crisis " to sort
it out, like throwing all the cards into th air to determine
who " wins ".
So finally, I must just say that one reason why we want this
" process " to improve is that problems, of any kind, seem
to multiply if they are not being solved.
Ask anybody.
( 1-800-ANY-BODY ) ....
