Suggestion For Our Government...Quite Large (Be Forewarned)

[Hosnon]

Please, to everyone that I have sent this to, it is important to me for you to read. If I have sent it to you, you are important to me. Some of you are past professors which I admire deeply (some I did not perform to an ability you could have expected, and for that I am sorry), some are present professors (which I hope to perform to a level you expect and, if all goes, well excede), some are friends and some are family. Some know my convinctions and some need to know my convictions. My affirmation of what I am and what I shall, hopefully, be begins now.

Aristotle believes that the rabble should not control a government. That is very true, so long as the rabble do not understand politics. We are lucky enough to live in a time where the rabble are becoming more than the rabble and can access information that can lead to well thought out and reasonable decisions.

It is true, to me, that the most capable to rule should rule. However, that relies upon knowing who is the most capable. We, as humans, do not have the luxury of omniscience. We cannot, therefore, hold faithful to Aristotle and let the aristocracy (the best shall rule) rule.

We must base our government, no matter how inefficient to Aristotle, on the idea that each person is important. It seems that enough have died over the years to validate that claim. Many may be wrong but there are at least valid opinions worth discussing. We must never forget that, as humans, were are fallible.

Since we do not have the luxury of logical infallibity, what government should we fashion? It depends upon what the aim of such a government shall be. I've been shown that proving something as basic as 2+2=4 is quite complicated and possibly impossible (Obrigado to Professor Bassler, an update on Mayberry would be appreciated). However, it is quite obvious to any rational human being that 2+2=4. There is a line that practical human beings must draw. I believe that, along with simple mathematics, the idea of a Republic is sufficiently validated.

What is needed now is to understand what it is to be a Republic...and is it the best form of government? It seems that the interests of a single human cannot trump those of a multitude of humans. Why? This question is elusive and Philosophy provides an impediment and an access. We MUST have something to live by. The best I can come to is a variation on the Golden Rule. I want to live and do as my will desires. Is it not clear to extend that idea to the rest of the members of my species? Men have tried to do the opposite and have been resigned to history as tyrants. There is something in our collective thinking that mandates the respect of each individuals ability to live as he or she chooses.

A Democracy may provide that, but, unfortunately for advocates of this form of government, it demands something which is quite impossible to attain. Each member of a democracy must be committed to civic life. That is clearly not the case in humanity. The rabble should not control our government as Aristotle acknowledges.

It is my opinion that the best we can do, as imperfect humans, is a representative republic. Give each person a vote as to who we want to speak for them. This does assume that those who speak for us will be interested in politics but that seems to be inherent with the idea of someone wanting to speak for the citizens. Exceptions might exist but what system is without error? We have come a long way from monarchs and despots. I believe that, unless mankind can reach perfection, thus leading to pure democracy, a republic is the most practical and best form of government.

Now that the question as to what type of government is needed is possibly answered in a reasonably sufficient manner, it must be asked: Are we there? The short answer is no. Our founding fathers never imagined the complexities of the modern world. How could they (Professor Jackson has shown me that their ideas of something such as jurisdiction must be updated as society evolves)? The will of the people has been usurped by the will of the make believe citizen, the corporation. Such a citizen does not vote and has no life and no death. However, this citizen does have great monetary power.

The representatives of our Republic rely on money. It is very difficult to be elected without it. Our Republic has whored itself out to special interests. The particular beliefs of an individual do not matter because they have been superceded by an entity that is not a citizen.

What can be done?

I do not thnk that I have the answer to that question. I am certain, however, that the power of the citizen needs to reassert itself over that of the corporation.

Our government is one of the people. We may have lost our way by relying to much on Capitalism. Capitalism seeks one goal: profits. Capitalism is but one sphere of the human condition. The goals of man are greater than profits. There are countless spheres that a person of political ideals must acknowledge. Would one believe in Capitalism if it entailed the demise of the human race? Of course not.

The Republic, the will of the rabble to elect persons of political conviction, must be maintained. We, as a species, have come so far.

It is difficult for someone as I to believe that the entitlements of the many trump those of the one. An a philosophy major I have been resigned to constant questioning which often leaves one impotent to action. There is not an a priori basis for believing such an idea. However, as I believe, without absolute proof, that 2+2=4, I believe that the concerns of the many are paramount to the concerns of the single.

Republicanism is the only viable form of governance (Am I wrong?)

Our system has great faults which require amendment. Take this for example:

Assume State X that is holding elections to send Representatives to the Federal House. Assume State X has 3 districts, divided into equal population centers of 1000 each.

District 1: Republicans get 55% (550)
Democrats get 45% (450)

District 2: Republicans get 60% (600)
Democrats get 40% (400)

District 3: Republicans get 65% (650)
Democrats get 35% (350)

If each District was to send a Representative based on simple majority, there would be 3 Republicans and 0 Democrats in the Federal House.

However, look at the numbers. There are 1200 votes for Democrats and 1800 votes for Republicans.

As a percentage, the Democrats make up 40% of the populace and the Republicans make up 60% of the populace.

Simple majority has ignored the voice of 40% of the population. The representation is not appropriate.

Now, if the Representatives to the Federal House were sent based on the general vote and done as a proportion:

40% of 3 is 1.2
60% of 3 is 1.8

Round accordingly and then 2 Republicans are sent and 1 Democrat. Now 30% of the House is Democrat and 40% of the population is which is better than 0% of the House and 40% of the population.

Simple majority is not appropriate. Let me ask one simple question. If three people are deliberating on a subject, should one person be denied voice because he or she is the minority? The idea that that person does not is not concurrent with the idea of one person, one voice.

Something needs to be changed. Remember, just because our Fore Fathers decided on a system does not make it without fault, does not make it infallibe. They were fallible, as we are. In fact, they built upon ideas before them. Why should we not build upon their ideas?

The will of the people needs to be paramount within reason, however. It is the job presented to us to decide how to figure where the will of the people reaches its end. I believe that task can be found with the idea of the reasonable man. The reasonable man satisfies, to me (again, am I wrong) because he is at the same time subjective and objective. He is subjective because he lives within a certain period of time and is influenced by his surroundings. However, he is objective within that system and not dependent upon an individual person. He is able to decide based on generalities within specifities.

If we truly believe in the ideals of "Democracy", as is commonly, and mistakenly asserted, then we must move forward in our pursuit of a representative government. Unless the people are fully committed to the pursuit of government, we need a Republic.

I have this as my answer and I can only offer my future commitment to these ideals.

"There are moments when a man has a furnace in his brain." - Marius, from Les Miserables

I respect and request objections, affirmations and further discussion on this matter. My mind has come ablaze and I must do what I can for the Repubic...after all, our Fore Fathers wanted just that.
Is nothing more pure to the Republic than a man who is pure to the Republic?

[Hosnon]

1. It seems, not without error, that this may be a good idea. nt