Philosophy covers a wide area of thought. They range from the theoretical, as in metaphysics, to more practical ideas, like ethics. Since we deal with ethics and politics everyday, I have chosen to begin there.
To begin, we must answer the question, "is there really right or wrong?" I believe that there is. I don't say that there is a rule book that we must follow, but I do believe that we have a responsibility to act morally. To do otherwise would lead to the downfall of society.
I find this a good point to consider the idea of anarchy. It has become a popular idea among teens that anarchy is a good thing. They imagine a world with no rules and it is very attractive to them. But they aren't seeing all that anarchy has to offer. True anarchy and Social Darwinism go hand in hand. In times of anarchy, it is the strong who rule, not the wise. Not that I believe strength and intellect are mutually exclusive, but it is through strength not wisdom that they gain their power, and how they hold it.
But, you may say that anarchy is a time with no rulers. That is true, but it doesn't remain that way for long. Imagine, if you will, a society with no rulers, no laws. People always have and always will continue to strive for more than they have. Few are ever completely satisfied. In a world with no rules, its easy to get what you want, you take it. Who can stop you? If you are strong enough, no one.
You may already see where this is leading, but I'll run through it anyway. People who are strong realize that they can have what they want. They group together for greater strength. People begin to fear them and, to save themselves, they give them what they want. Doesn't sound like an anarchy now, does it? Not with someone in power.
One of these men, yes men, becomes the leader (Women may equal men mentally, but few will dispute the fact that men are, on the average, stronger physically, and as I have already stated, this is where the power comes from.). Perhaps he is stronger, or even smarter than the others, but it happens nonetheless. Now you have one man in charge of a powerful military force, and through them, in charge of an area of land. A king of sorts. It happens, it happened. That is the way people work.
You have just witnessed the creation of a civilization in its simplest form. There are other possibilities, people could gather to fight against the raiders, and in doing so form their own civilization. A primitive democracy, but lets stick with the king for now, since he best illustrates my point. We'll get to democracy later.
Eventually the king realizes that he has something good going for him. People will do as he wants, give him what he desires, but there is a problem. Other people have the same idea he had, they can take what they want. If people have to give their money, food, clothing, etc. to someone else, they can't give it to him. So, he creates the first laws and backs them up with threats, because someone telling him not to do something had never stopped him before.
Only in a society with laws, can science and the arts get the attention they deserve. Who would sit around studying the stars, or disease, or painting, when they know that they are likely to be attacked in a couple days and their house torched if they can't pay a toll? I doubt very many of you said you would. I'd be the one burning down the houses. Possibly weapons and agriculture would get more sophisticated, but not much else.
I realize this is not a pretty picture of society. Everyone so far, is either a criminal or a coward, but it's not that way at all. Those cowards, demonstrate some good characteristics. For example, reason. It isn't a very bright idea to go attack some guy who's a foot taller than you, and still has the blood on his club from the last guy who stood up to him. In fact, it's downright stupid! And the criminals/politicians are what eventually keep them safe. Typical Machiavelli thinking. Not that I agree with Machiavelli, but that is the way it works (Author's note: I may be totally off on Machiavelli, haven't actually read The Prince, yet. Just concepts).
Back to my point. Anarchy doesn't work, because of basic human behavior. Laws are still necessary today, even though rulers don't take as much as they used to. Believe it or not, it's true.
The point of government is to protect the rights of people. But where do they get those rights? Are they born with them? I don't think so. It would be nice to think that man, through the act of birth, is endowed with "certain inalienable rights." But what about those people who are denied those rights? Genetic mutations?
I'm going to make an assumption here, which is generally a no-no in philosophy, but hopefully you'll let it slide. I'm going to assume that there is no "Free Speech" gene. I may be wrong, though. If so, then the Human Genome Project will counter this article.
So, where do rights come from? We give them to ourselves, the minute we place ourselves under the power of a government (Hobbes called this a Leviathan). When we combine forces and create a Leviathan to watch over us, we set rules. These rules are usually the same ones you will hear in almost every religion in the world: Don't kill, Don't steal, Don't lie. The purpose of these laws are not to restrict people, they are to protect people.
The Leviathan is given the power to investigate crimes, and punish criminals. But there is a means set up by which we can still challenge this Leviathan. Some systems don't have this point, such as the Chinese government, or the USSR (Back when it was the USSR). These systems are created with high goals in mind, but they don't take into account one of the basic elements of human nature. That element is man's (This "man" includes women by the way) desire to have some control of his own life.
Sure, we all know that no one really ever has control of their own life. But we like to think we do, and we aren't likely to turn absolute control of our lives over to total strangers who drive BMWs that they bought on our tax dollars (Or rubles, yen, pounds, whatever).
There are reasons that governments like that get set up, though. Some countries just don't do well as democracies. They are instable, and the country goes through one revolution after another. They need a government that can withstand social change, and can get the people through the rough times. That is a good purpose, but often the temporary government becomes a permanent one, as the rulers get settled in.
So, am I saying that Communism doesn't work, or that it is "evil", or some other such thing? Not at all. I think that Communism can work fine, in certain situations. In small farming communities, it works great. But when you start increasing the size of the population, you come into big problems. Rather than ensuring that all people get what they need to survive, you begin to create a situation where that is all that people do. Survive. And what kind of life is that? Remember the discussion of Anarchy?
No, Communism isn't bad. It just has it's place. As does Anarchy or any other system you can think of. Anarchy does not work with big populations. Communism does not work in big populations.
You may be wondering when I'm going to get into Capitolism, and I was going to, but then I realised what I was doing and stopped. Capitolism isn't a political system. It is an economic system, as is Communism. I addressed Communism, because many people associate it with a form of government, and to a large part they are correct, but at it's foundation, Communism is economic, and I am not an economist. I am a philosopher, and I am done ranting...
For now.
Please submit any comments, criticisms, marriage proposals, etc. to [email protected]. I also accept donations. To donate money, please contact me for my mailing address.
Philosophy Index
Descartes' First Meditation
Descartes' Wax Analogy
Cartesian Circles