Now we turn our attention to the development of the different aspects of the Federalist 2.0, the first of these is the reality that humans have to operate within Nature. There is a word that is used that describes this operational approach, "Human Nature". The aspect of the Federalist 2.0 philosophy which focuses on Natural Law and the reality that Humans can become more evil over time than their ability to develop a kindred spirit. With this as the context, we will work hard to also bring in the first section that we talked about, Freewill and how that ties into the Nature of Man.
From our first posts around Freewill such asOrigins of Freewill, Freewill cannot be taken, Freewill can only be given free of coersion, and Freewill must be taken into account within governance, we realize that an individual that finds them selves in the position of power will most likely not relequish that power given the chance. Why? They have Freewill, and combining that with Vice or the propensity for humans to keep going when the going is good, a position of power in government does not equate to the necessary requirements that one would have to uphold within the open economy. So why is the hold on Political Power Relative? It is because, "Any rational individual that finds themselves in a position of power will more freely relinquish their powers if they are expected to do so; where given the opportunity, if one exists, as well as if encouraged by their factions to remain, they will justify the need to remain in power."
In Abraham Lincoln's inaugural address back in 1861, he talked about the notion that the founding fathers had, that time as a politician was intended to be short lived.
"... this same people [The Founding Fathers] have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years."
How is it, back in the 1800's the notion of Political Power, held within here in the United States of America, implied that citizens would "donate" their time to the government to serve. To become a permanent fixture in politics had OBVIOUS consequences, from the Federalist 2.0 perspective, it can be influenced by how political power is held and how it is used with the citizens. If we draw back to the first articles of Freewill, we realize that when someone holds a political position they are in fact in a position to effect ANOTHER'S Freewill, through Taxation, Regulation and Police actions (As well as many other tools we could devise given the time).
It was known, the second you become a fixture in Politics, you become DEPENDENT on those that support you for your continued role in POWER. Think about it, if you only served ONE term and left and went to what your career was before entering politics, you would be most likely focused on doing the right thing, if of course you were a Moral and Ethical individual. Additionally, the likelihood of aligning with groups to enrich yourself would not be an objective if you knew you were only there to serve and then leave. What is even more interesting is the complete lack of literature on the internet around this subject. All I could find were some references in OPINION pieces.
Founders never meant politics to be a career - Daily Star - August 2012
Congress should be a part-time job - The Hill - December 2010
And the list can go on-and-on for "Opinions" on the intensions of the Founding Fathers and why this is would be the case. But more importantly, where is the research to this effect? Maybe it does exist, and I have not found it yet. But what seems to be a common sense perspective, "Hold on political power is relative", seems to have been erased from or history or conveniently unattended.
Well it must be true, in one's experience, when someone thinks they have a position or have a business and begins to wallow in their vice, what ever that be, gambling, pride, drinking, etc., their senses and their ability to make good decisions for themselves, their family and their community diminishes. As these faculties of the individual diminishes so does their inability to make decisions that care for others. Resulting in the family and community eventually abandoning the individual, and if the individual is lucky turning them into rehab.
We all have had that job or position that at any moment we felt or knew if we did not perform that it would be our last day or hour at that job. That was real incentive to keep performing and keeping that position, especially if you liked the work. We spent the time and effort to care for our customers and if we are intelligent and our EQ (Emotional Quotient) is high, we took care of ourselves and our family/friends. These experiences make a person wiser to their living and their life, and gives them the Virtue of GRATITUDE.
But things are not that way in 2020. Politicians are part of a PERMANENT CLASS, are they not? When did this happen? How did it happen and how is it happening? In today's world we find ourselves at the call of the media and other sources pulling us one way and then the next way. At the expense of our mental capacity to handle all of the Narrative Driving that each side is promoting. Specifically the 2020 Presidential election is heating up and the technology that is being used to either sway individuals to a particular "issue" or to paint their opponent as someone that is not competent and unable to lead. To add to that, there is a real possibility that both sides this year will expend well over $2 Billion to "convince" the citizens they are better. What is the REAL impact of all this? An insanity that is driving the citizens mad.
But let's not dive into the details of how or why specifically these events have transpired because we could write a book on this concept alone. So let's take the most interesting tact, let's take the opposite approach. Let's assume that we are socialists, that the state is socialist and that our system is socialists, but we have a "competitive" election. (NOTE: Just something to think about, why do socialists countries have only one party? If there were competing parties they would focus on which party is more socialist, eventually resulting in violence.) So, what is the goal then? Who is the better socialist!, that is the goal. Who can be better at keeping or turning the nation MORE socialist. Within that context, there is no Higher Power and there is no recognition of Freewill. What we have is some very interesting objectives, this being one of them:
"What is important, however, is to maintain an ambitious horizon. We do not simply seek to change the boundaries between the public and private sector; as socialists it is our position that profit extracted by capitalists should not exist."
Here is another interesting comment about socialism and how there is a difference between "workers" and "capitalists":
Under capitalism the workers have always been compelled to live in unclean quarters of the towns, where epidemic disease is rife. It was only owing to the dread that they themselves would suffer from these epidemics, that the capitalists introduced certain measures to improve the sanitation of the areas in which their wage-slaves dwelt. . . . Capitalism was only interested in the protection of public health in so far as this was necessary for its own safety.
— Nikolai Bukharin and Yevgeni Preobrazhensky,The ABC of Communism, 1919
So, stepping back and just pondering the situation from 50,000 feet, which direction are we headed? It is clear to me that the current playing field is focused on the creation of tensions of two groups and the work is to draw battle lines to face the two groups off to see who can emerge as the winner. This is no longer a republic with citizens focused on electing individuals to help keep individual rights. It is a situation where individuals have gathered groups and are playing identity politics to see who can evolve as the winner by assembling the larger coalition.
What are the consequences of this approach? The consequences of this approach lay at the hands of those individuals that have successfully convinced a portion of the population to align with their "Issues" to keep their power. The more alignment they get to a voting block the more likely they retain power, and election after election they are kept in office. And 30 or 40 years later they are still there, still fighting for the same "Causes". But what is the "Natural Law" these groups have embraced to become effective? If we dig into the Unified Theory per Federalist 2.0, we find the general definition of "Natural Law" from the SOCIALIST perspective as the following:
The Justification to define Laws as Knowable: While believing the that Natural Laws are knowable and can be defined by selected men / women or are explicit in sacred texts, it is then justifiable to define legislation that is beneficial to all citizens as the “Common Good”.
Socialist Law: Law is defined by an ideology, that the only transcendent principles are what the ideology defines, it assumes that the law is complete, and that dissent is an attack on the body politic.
So it becomes clear that the essence of the battle between groups will over time escalate and the primary root to this escalation is the positional power held by politicians over time. Through the "Democratic" process, groups can be aligned and set against each other, all the while enforcing and supporting the notion that SOMEONE needs to be in charge. Let's contrast that with the Federalist 2.0 United Theory point of view where we do not have a solid understanding of the true nature of mankind, here is what we define as the directional notion for the Law:
The Reverence for seeking to define the Law: Believing that Human Laws can be transient, it is possible that humans may never discover the Natural Laws as a final state. Thus, the act of investigation to understand what is the“Truth” [TRUE NORTH] to aSocial/Political Natural Law is the natural learning process to developing a more operational civil environment that will have the ability to serve the“Common Good”.
Within this context we can then define a more republic oriented definition that should keep and defend the Natural Rights all individuals have on this planet:
Natural Law: Law is defined by the people with limits based on a transcendent set of principles that should never be violated. Where these laws then are constantly subject to investigation and revision, limiting its scope while embracing dissent as part of the process.
So we can determine that this statement is true, "The Hold on Political Power is Relative", that "Any rational individual that finds themselves in a position of power will more freely relinquish their powers if they are expected to do so; where given the opportunity, if one exists, as well as if encouraged by their factions to remain, they will justify the need to remain in power." There is no doubt and no argument against this fact. We see it throughout the literature in the early days and we see that recently this notion has conveniently been forgotten. To our detriment for sure.
In the creation of the Federalist 2.0, it is our goal and commitment to you the reader, to share with you the pieces of that original intent of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and why it is critical that we claim this moral imperative to ensure the health and safety of our future generations and our capacity to continue as the Originally Planned United States of America. Through that vision and goal, as Publius I do commit and declare from this day forward, that if myself or others that are deemed to be worthy representations of Publius, will only hold ONE tenure as a representative at the State or Federal level. This means that if I become a Representative of Congress or Senator of Congress that I would only hold 1 term in that role. Yes, this does mean that one can hold different positions over time, but it prevents the Senator forever model that is causing so much concern and issues in our political system today.
Come join the Federalist 2.0 effort, help us resurrect the beliefs and understandings that made this United States of America the greatest nation on the planet to date. Let's make America great once more!
In the end, what do you have to lose?.... Maybe you can be Publius too?
- Publius
(C) 2020 Federalist2.org
(TM) Federalist 2.0
NOTE: In Our next post we will look at, "Relative Political Power is based on Length of Time", a deeper dive into the notions that positions held over long periods of time are problematic.