On Government

I think in terms of a system of leadership, rule under one leads us to the whims of this one person, when he is no better a person than the greatest one under his control. One who could theoretically make better decisions but could not ascend to leadership discredits that way of thinking. Anyway, we attempt then to spread the rule over the public, but there are many uneducated people and uneducation is a serious problem for a stake in rulership. Therefore, we should ideally elect a group of people to think for us (something like the senate, but not bipartisan. Ideally there would be no groups, just individual people's opinions. But then we would rely on the unreliable public to elect these people. Instead I suggest a process where becoming an official in these sorts is done so through a scholarly process set upon by the wisest political thinkers (ideally the founders and principles of this nation). They would collaborate and compromise on certain ideals to seek, and only the unanimous agreements of this ultra-selective council would be written down. But as long as the ideals exist, it would follow that there would be people who represent them. After our officials-to-be pass a serious of courses, or a particular school, they would then come to the same conclusions about a proper way to govern. This all relies on the belief though that there is indeed a true and proper way to govern, but that is not necessarily so. As long as the object of "truth" is directed towards our governing principles. The ones that were agreed upon. That is all that is needed for us to look to as truth, and we do not not need to actually seek it out. In the end we do create our own truths, don't we? Still, though, people might disagree with the whole system after going through these courses, deciding that it is just really isn't the right way to govern, and they would go on to form the resistance party that could eventually destroy the system. So, the problem of this system, as well as most (including democracy), is that it does not allow for the system to be wrong, only things below the system. I'm not sure if I explained why it required that it be the right system, so I'll explain again. I don't know that people can settle on one particular thing as being true. We can't expect that people will see that as long as they hold true the tenets of this democracy (belief in the system is essential to running it), but instead seek out other truths (we do not even know what the universal truth may be, or if there is or is not one). These people will then come to disagree with the very system of democracy, and vote inside of its "proper channels" to end it. Therefore, the idea that everyone wants this system will not forever hold, and it will be time to change it. Since it is not the truth eternal and will not last forever, the system is temporary at best. We must move on!