The Weak Link

On our co-blog and IRL, Princess and I have been discussing some things. You can head over there to find out the online part, but it's the offline part (and an email exchange) that has gotten me to finally get off my butt and post this.

Before and during my path to deconversion I questioned myself about quite a few things. One of those things was government. I found the kneejerk reaction to communism silly. When a former coworker insinuated that Global Warming was a communist plot, I think he felt insulted when I started laughing. Granted, communism has its weak points, but even our system of government, a constitutional republic, has its flaws. The USSR got some bad press, but look at our current administration and we're not having a stellar performance either.

The point I'm getting at is the weak point in all governments is people. In every single form that I looked into the weak link was people. Everyone is so self-involved in being right that they want the government to conform to their beliefs.

Communism could work, in theory, if people weren't fallible. The idea of a government where everyone was equal (yes, this is oversimplified, but bear with me) could work very well, but then you put greed, thirst for power, an inability to admit they're wrong, and a whole horde of other human failings into the mix and it falls apart. Not to mention that it instists on people giving up their individuality for the sake of "The State".

In a theocracy, the weakness is still in people. They base their laws on their religion, regardless of whether those laws benefit mankind or not. Between the Teddy Bear fiasco and looking at the inhumane treatment of people in the Middle East (among other theocracies), the laws do nothing to further humanity. Not to mention their bias toward a certain viewpoint that has nothing to do with reality or kindness.

In a democracy, all you get is majority (mob) rule. Considering that no two people can agree on everything, eventually a democracy will fall into chaos. Everyone will be at each others throats because each will feel that their way is best.

Now, for a constitutional republic. The theory behind it, that a document will outline the rights of the government and the rights of the individuals, sounds pretty good. However, when those who authored the document are no longer around to explain what each part meant, those who are elected to interpret the document have a tendency to show a personal bias. Look at some present day examples. Does "freedom of religion" include "freedom from religion"? What about whether the right "to keep and bear arms" is a state or individual right? Like I said, even the one that seems the most promising has flaws over time.

Then, you have anarchy, which is a democracy without voting. Where the majority would rule with a democracy, the strongest and most capable would be the rulers in an anarchist (non)government. More than likely, you would end up with little pockets, or cliques, of people who agreed with each other. Some would leave everyone else to do their own thing, and others would insist that everyone follow their rules, most likely through force.

So, no matter what form of government you have, it doesn't work when you put people into the equation. I guess you could call my views "semi-anarchist" when it comes to government. The government should provide safety and care to its citizens, but leave them to themselves if they aren't intruding on others' lives. On paper, that's what the Constitution and Bill of Rights are supposed to do. In practice, all it does is make some people want to change it to fit their views.