My ideal state of government.

April 24, 2007 5:37am CST
What is my ideal state of government?This question transcends to question my preference, individuality, compassion, religious and moral background. I will therefore answer that question based on my own personality and interests. Naturally, as a peace loving person who value my personal right to freedom, I want a state that protects my privacy, individual rights and freedom. As far as the choices given me, I believe that the type of government modeled by Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) fits me. Expanding my idealistic mind and being a God fearing person myself, I'd also like to consider parts of the religious doctrine by St. Augustine of Hippo (City of God) and St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica). That is, if a state could be born without any impurities brought about by historical events and manifestations and the soceity will follow the teachings and doctrines of the church without much reservation and regard to individual interests or needs, then the religious model of a state governed by God can be implemented. This state could be realized if the people inhabiting it consider themselves as the children/people of God, thus would do everything to please the needs of their God, wherein these people are also blessed by God according to their needs (although limited to sufficient capacity to alter the proliferation of greed). To maintain peace and order within the state and consistency of judgement, the divine law should be implemented over human and natural laws and this should be implemented ideally by the divine providence (God himself). Since it would be impossible for God to directly rule us per se, the appointed ruler must be as close as it can get to God and that as a ruler, he must be the role model for his followers in terms of good deeds and judgement. In order to promote unity, love and respect, the appointed one should also begin it with himself before promoting it to others. If all this things can be done in a state then this would be the paradise on earth wherein everything is pure at heart and in soul; peace and order is established; the soceity is ecstatic and there exists no reason to violate the doctrine or laws of God. However, in reality, maintaining the purity of the whole soceity is impossible and once a single person starts to go against the doctrines then the state is bound to fail. But since i want my ideal state to be realistically possible the I'd try to deal more on humanity. If a state should be established where each and every person have their own individual interests, desires and inclinations (which is exactly the human nature), the result would be chaotic when everyone pursues their own pleasures in disdain to others individual rights. Here is where the model government by Thomas Hobbes come to effect. As he stated, to maintain an effective state in accordance to the common welfare of the soceity, there is a need to collaborate the differing individual interests and come out with a genereally agreed one that will embody the interest of the whole soceity. If the majority of the people are ready to be governed thus the formation of the commonwealth and the sovereign whom all responsible for social order and public welfare is entrusted. Of course, the person (sovereign) that shall embody and govern the people shall be selected (elected) by the people (majority decision) and his responsibility evolves in maintaining an orderly government according to policies, rules and laws of the state. The sovereign may choose his advisors to aid his decision making capabilities. The sovereighn is expected to rule consistently, within the bounds of his powers, without fear of internal conflicts and this assumes a paternalistic point of view. In instances where a subject or a minority within the society disagrees or has different view from the sovereign authority, he shall obey rightfully and give his arguments to proper channels for discussion. The will of the sovereign for its subjects will be expressed in the form of civil laws that have either been decreed or tacitly accepted. When a subject (person), during his pursuit of his personal interests, interferes or violates the individual rights of others (violation of the laws) he shall be appropriately punished by the sovereign authority according to the rule of law. It should be noted that instilling laws shall not prohibit the people from exercising their liberty, but only secures the liberty of all individuals within the soceity. Submission to the sovereign is absolutely decisive, except where it is silent or where it claims control over individual rights to life itself, which cannot be transferred to anyone else. For the structure of orderly government enhances rather that restricts individual liberty. Having organized the soceity, established a good government, selected the rightful and effective leader and installed peace and order within the soceity, then my ideal state comes to life. It is a state having all kinds of people with differeing points of vies and interests but can live in peace and in order with each other because of the notion that their individuality and liberty is secured by the state. However, I'm also a sucker for equality and I find it hard to find in a democratic government. As history takes it, when capitalism takes over, the gap within the soceity widens wherein the soceity will be divided between the capitalist and the workers. There will come a time when the people belonging to the lower class (workers) will feel cheated by the capitalists thus leading to civil unrest or revolution. This is when greed takes over the soceity and individual rights are disregarded and compromised in order to amass excessive property. John of Salisbury wrote in his Policraticus (1159 AD): "..if (rich people, people with private property) have been stuffed through excessive greed and if they hold in their contents too obstinately, (they) give rise to countless and incurable illnesses and, through their vices can bring about the ruin of the body as a whole."This point of view, however, was countered by John of Paris when he wrote: "the individual had a right to property which was not with impunity to be interfered with by superior authority - because it was acquired by (his) own efforts". Capitalists argued that the state rely to trading and economic prowess to obtain and secure political autonomy. But when trading and economic prowess is handled by the capitalist, then it can be assumed (theoritically) that the capitalists control the government. That is where communism has its appeal on me. In communism, the government controls the capital, the economy ot the state and monopolizes all modes of thought and perception. In communism, individual property was replaced by communal property where every property shall be subjected to the state. Labor and work groups are regulated thus keeping the constancy in employment. Servitude to the state replaces individualism. The doctrine of the Communist party monopolized all modes of thought and perception thus giving each. In conclusion, every state could maintain a good standing and can rule effectively if and when the rulers adn the people follow a strict code of honor, respect and understanding for their fellow citizens. The ruler and the people should be law abiders all, without regard to social standing or privileges. So how about you people, what would be your ideal state?
No responses