Maybe the concept of government isn't necessary.  Within a war of all against all, there really isn't a need for representation.  The means of war maintain that we will just dominate each other according to the natural law of the strong destroying and exploiting the weak.  

False crowns all around.

The concept of government also wouldn't be necessary if we were mature enough to know everything about everything. We could just exist in peace according to a perfectly calculated plan.

The problem we have faced from the beginning is that we will always be immature in our efforts. There will always be diverse problems facing our species. Our natural diversity rejects the theory that calculated plans and solutions can achieve a healthy existence. We all make choices every day both individually and as a species.

There will always be conflicting theories, experiments and beliefs. What decisions should we make about things such as the economy, representation, justice, nourishment, medicine, shelter and so on? 

Everyone will have their own opinion for what the best strategies are to achieve a healthy and peaceful existence. All of us will maintain different definitions of what a healthy and peaceful existence is. We all have our own version of existence and life doesn't stop for us to figure it out.

A calculated form of government will have problems. For example, could we possibly find the perfect balance between equality and freedom? Who has the authority to define the balance? Some of our historical experiments in government can be explained along the lines of this argument.

The government leaders who want complete equality for everyone stress the importance of giving everyone an equal version of life.  The problem is that we live within the natural diversity of existence.  We are only equal in the fact that we are a part of existence.  Should we try to maintain equality by rejecting the diversity of life?  What would the standard condition of equality be?  Who has the maturity and authority to determine a state of equality?

Complete equality does not allow any sense of personal growth or achievement.  There is no freedom to be different from anyone else.  We are who we are.  Trying to dictate the lives of everyone equally goes against the very nature of our existence.  We can't solve the diversity of existence through conformity.  The forms of leadership stressing complete equality are usually called communist governments.

The government leaders who want complete freedom stress the importance of allowing everyone the freedom to live how they want.  However, if everyone is free to do what they want, people will have the freedom to exploit or kill other people to achieve their goals.  

The problem with complete freedom is that it directly supports a war of all against all. The forms of leadership stressing complete freedom are usually called fascist governments.

Where do we draw the line between equality and freedom?  Can a permanent line be drawn or will we need to allow for reforms? 

Who will have the authority to make the decisions?  Is authority reserved for the most brutal members of our species?  Should we find a family that owns a golden crown?  Maybe we could have an authority auction?

Human history is filled with totalitarian solutions where a small group of people make all the decisions.

Individuals favoring an open and flexible approach to the problems of equality, freedom and authority have organized democratic governments.   There are many types of democracies.  There are socialist democracies, capitalist democracies, proportional representation democracies, winner-take-all democracies and corrupt democracies just to name a few. 

The problem with trying to balance the concepts of freedom, equality and authority is that there is no calculated solution for how it should be done.

Democratic debate never ends.  If the debate never ends, then how will it proceed?  Will democracy be an open forum with public influence over public consequences?  Will the minority factions be allowed to participate in the debate?  Is all information available within the debate or is information restricted?

Is the majority trying to balance equality and freedom to achieve peace?  What is the definition of peace being used?  Is it peace on Earth or is it peace for the team by means of war and domination?  If the government is fighting for their own version of peace through means of war, are we on their team?

28: Patriotism and loyalty

If we choose peace, are we being traitors by not supporting the home team in a war of all against all?  Must we reject patriotism and loyalty in order to choose peace?  There is no question that we will support the individuals we love.

We are all part of many teams.  Most of us define teams by race, nation, gender, religion, associates or family.  There are numerous means of division once we begin breaking life down.  Some people look at themselves individually as a team.  Many people are willing to die for the concepts of team loyalty and patriotism.

The question is not whether we should support our team. The question is how to support the team.  Can we choose to support our team through means of peace rather than through means of war?  Do we have a choice?

War has no compassion.  War simply dictates that other components of existence are enemies marked for destruction.  Domination is easily justified when choosing to live by the means of war.  You want to survive don't you? So support your team!  Once engaged in a war of all against all, domination is presented as the only option.

If every aspect of existence is a resource for use in war, then what is the difference in how a team should treat the resources?  What is the difference between a mineral, a plant, an animal or another human being if only considered as an enemy or a resource for team survival?  There have been many loyal and patriotic team members who have justified pollution, slavery, torture, death camps and exploitation as means of supporting their team.

Will the teams always remain the same?  Will we be on the correct racial, gender, religious, corporate, class, genetic, or family team?  How exclusive will teams get before everyone realizes we are just fighting for ourselves?  How long will it take before we realize that peace is an option for securing a healthy existence for all of us?

We have the ability to live peacefully within Earth's circle of life. We can maintain a healthy existence for ourselves and for our loved ones. We can explore and enjoy life without killing each other as a means of survival.

What type of loyalty and patriotism forces our loved ones into the insecurity, chaos and violence of war as a means of achieving a healthy existence? Peace is available as an alternative to war. If humans exist in peace, it is only because individuals have chosen to support and promote peace on Earth. 

We all have an interest in maintaining a healthy future no matter what team we are a part of. Peace is the alternative to war and destruction. It is the only option that will ever lead to long term security and prosperity. We all have an interest in peace.

Our natural diversity is a foundation of our existence. History repeatedly shows that war and domination are false means for achieving a healthy existence. Families, communities, nations, alliances and species have all found benefits by existing in peace. Be loyal and patriotic by contributing to legitimate, healthy, and peaceful communities of life.

NEXT CHAPTER