A Primer on the Nucleus of Government

Liberty is the great savior and great destroyer of individuals, societies, and governments.

If we are to ever have a firm understanding of the nature of government, which is necessary to the preservation of good society, we must understand that law is the base of government once it exists, for without law there is no government and without government there is no law. Governing bodies create law and law is always their initial purpose, be they laws established to define government or regulate the acceptable actions of those individuals who exist within society. We can not have any government if we do not understand that fundamental concept. It is clear, as was covered in “A Mothers Wit”, that the genesis of government is society, the genesis of society the individual. We are not to expand upon that. We are at the moment of established government, which coincides with the moment of established constitution or law.

People are quite naturally social beings, whose wants and needs, actions and ideas carry them to interact and associate with those with whom they share society. Without the interaction that is inherent to shared society a person fails in the development that is all too needed, for any person who has ever been found to have grown up entirely alone and devoid of society has been unfortunately similar to the feral child, Genie.

It is also uncontestable that while we create societies among us, our natural attempts, and inclinations to regulate them are what drive the creation of government, for any attempts to do so without a government justly instituted are temporary at best, futile at worst.

Understanding where we stand in the conversation, let us move to what I intend to concentrate on – Our basic nature that impels us to associate with one another which in turn necessitates the formation of government and what should be at the heart of that government.

The answer to what necessitates the formation of government is found only through introspection, that yes, it is true we form government because we are concerned with what may affect others, we work even more diligently towards its formation when considering that which affects ourselves. What touches our own lives, affects our own emotions, cause us to change our expressions or offer sympathetic feelings is the strongest driver in the formation of government. For selfish feelings, consciously perceived or not, are the preeminent force in this regard. And as we have such a wide range of emotions which guides us, I should seek to now stick to facts, as emotions unbalanced have tendency to fog the mind and lead to poor decision making. A concentration on unquestionable fact shall be my guiderail.

While I make clear that our own emotions and that which affects us directly is the most potent form of motivation which leads us to form government, I cannot and do not ignore the idea of family or a closely bonded kinship. The bond between mother and child is as strong as any, and the bond two men share in war is likely unbreakable. But these instances are the exception rather than the rule. For the need to mention them, and the fact that they are the two most apparent examples to most, are indicative of the fact that they are true exceptions. Just as gravity is considered universal in general conversation, we do not ignore the rockets that defy it or the Space Stations that attempt to ignore it. These powerful, extraordinary examples are in many ways analogous to the mother and child, or bonded soldiers. They are something truly remarkable in this existence and thus an exception rather than the defining rule. But I would remiss if I did not acknowledge them.

The natural inclinations of humans to associate with one another have proven stronger than that of any other species, and the knowledge we have obtained and shared in this quest for social development has led to a level of abundance no other earthly creature can claim. The need for self-preservation, that driver spoken of previously, has also led humanity to higher intellectual pursuits, the devoted practice of religious worship, the development and application of morality in society, as these have been the defining aspects of our existence for several thousand years. But we have never been able to live outside of the natural laws of mankind for long, for any society or individuals who have attempted such have been short in their existence.

But it is that need for self-preservation, that natural inclination to work towards righting that which affects us directly that leads us to person-to-person conflict. It is what leads people to seek safety or happiness, justice or retribution, a willingness to sacrifice or an inability to compromise. We are all seeking self-preservation while acknowledging that we must remain within the framework of society. Thus, we attempt to govern it with constitutions and laws which we view as natural to its good order and function. But as we are seeking self-preservation, the numerous encounters we have daily are amplified exponentially when a nation of 330 million inhabitants seeks to remain as one. We become individual vs individual; our passions suspicious of our neighbors, jealousy leading to anger, fraud masking itself as honestly, as confusion and panicky chaos masquerade as normative existence. For in seeking self-preservation, we seek an appeal to mutually agreed upon power, for power acknowledged by society through constitution and law is government.

We constitute government to ensure the preservation of society, and we do so in hopes that we as individuals are able to work towards our own aims and means be they a perfection of the mind, moral qualities, spiritual enlightenment, or other self-derived meaningful purpose. It follows then that government is constituted primarily via the direct result of the individual and the indirect result of the extraordinary as mentioned previously. This explains the unnatural characteristics of the collective, and how they exist outside that which is proper to the natural order of mankind. If people existed to feel greater affect, care, and sympathies for others as opposed to themselves, then government would be instituted in a manner in which all individuality is lost and thus only the needs of the collective would be retained. For such a person to exist, to forget himself at every moment and always concentrate the entirety of his emotional and mental existence on others to the detriment of himself, a new type of human would have to exist. And in acting in such a way, this person would quickly become the most offensive and nosy person on the planet whose own existence would then be to the detriment of all he encounters. And yet, we have among us a portion of the population who falsely put on this persona in such a hypocritical manner I might add, for they do this to signal their own virtue among peers – an act of self-preservation for those seeking to retain in-group status. But that is now how we humans are made.

That God in his infinite wisdom has placed man into a social, intellectual, moral, and political world capable of adapting himself to the task at hand is a goodness overlooked by those who seek the collective over that of the individual. For the individual works to his greatest capacity when seeking self-preservation, self-enlightenment, and yes, self-enrichment. It is through these expanded social, intellectual, moral, and political states that we grow through adaptation to those challenges before us, so long as we act in accordance with natural law and order.

Formed governments, while necessary, have a tendency to abuse this natural law and order, abusing its power to the detriment of the individual. And this too is unfortunately a natural part of government, a point that speaks to the unnatural existence of perpetual unions, as those powers which are granted by society to preserve peace and stability, are also those when abused that repress and violate the rights of man. For perpetual union only leads to one place, and that is the eventual abuse and chaos that comes with the misuse of the power to preserve peace and stability. We are a people now experiencing these very calamities. Therefore, the levers of government must be pulled by those who are strong minded, moral, and capable of managing appropriately the emotional and social feelings that are known to drive hazardous decision making. The powers we invest in government are not to be misused and the prevention of perpetual government or union is but a single way in which this occurs.

Just as we say the genesis of society is the individual, and the genesis of government is society, law and constitution are the base upon which government is founded. As no functional society can long exist without government, no government can exist laws and constitution. What is of note is that government is far easier to construct than society, for society exists in an earlier state and predates government entirely. Order necessitates upon every society the existence of government in one shape or another. In our own country we have attempted to establish a more perfect union whose greatest charge is to counteract the natural inclinations of governments to abuse and oppress. We have failed not in the initial construction of constitution and law, but in the long-term carrying out of government function. In turn, this misuse or abuse of government has resulted in the perversion of a proper constitution and what was once good law. But lesser men and women have seen to it that such an example as that which our patrimony demands of us is no more.

So, if the natural tendency of government is to abuse the power which it has been vested with, and oppress the people whom it is intended to serve, and the existence of government is natural – How then are we to counteract these tendencies? Providing government with more power or centralization isn’t the answer, for to do so would be to offer another whip to that enraged master who sees our backs as little more than a whipping post. Those who grow government to fix a problem derived from government are nothing more than masochists seeking some unholy form of penance. Nor can we say that limiting the power of government to such an extent that it becomes a weak, un-serving participant that its own inability to secure the rights of man lead to the very abuse which we initially felt by the oppressive government at the hands of malignant individuals.

To try and place a figure or understood value on the amount of power which is balanced in a way that serves the people but doesn’t abuse its governmental mandate we must understand what type of threats face those whom it governs. Foreign foes must be considered. The government must be able to stop any invasion that reaches its shores, and equally as important, stop any large-scale violence and revolution within its borders. We know that mankind had a tendency towards war, the history of the world is written in the blood of armies, tyrants, and the innocent alike. And part of the reason for this is that throughout time, and even today, we place fear and anger towards those languages, customs, nations, people, situations, governments, economies, and other complexities that are foreign to our own. There are thousands of communities on this earth, hundreds of governed States each trying to act as an independent body. And today, in 2021, they share the same tendency towards war as those governments that existed in 1700AD, 900AD, or 200BCE. The feelings of self-preservations extend to the group or collective only when an outside, blatant non-group threat arises or encroaches upon the belief systems of the many within society. For societies feel more aligned and sympathetic with their own members than they do with those who exist outside of their self-identified boundaries. This is natural to mankind. It is so natural in fact that this powerful force whenever it has arisen throughout the course of history has led to warfare, strife, famine, genocide, conquest and/or plunder by every society across the globe that existed long enough to feel threated or encroached upon by an outside non-group entity.

As this is a natural state of man, the need for government to exercise control over the usage and implementation of specific resources related to security in times of war will continue to be needed. The concept of self-preservation only expands to the community in its entirety when faced by an actual act of war that threatens the existence of society. The danger that exists in keeping a government from being able to command an army and the resources necessary to protect society when a true threat emerges is as dangerous to the society as the threat. So, with this in mind we must now question what can be done to prevent the government who can command societal resources and how they are used from abusing this ability?

People have spent entire lifetimes trying to figure this out, from the Babylonians to modern America some of the best and brightest among every society have tried to answer this question in a way that fits the purpose of their own society and government. Some have seen success, many have failed, and nearly all have experienced an incomplete final product. History has seen mankind resort to all manner of method of practice, ceremony, prayer, superstition, technology, and law to enforce better government whose ability to abuse power is limited. In 431 BCE, Pericles tells us “Athens’ constitution is called a democracy because it respects the interests not of the minority but of the whole people. When it is a question of settling private disputes, everyone is equal before the law; when it is a question of putting one person before another in positions of public responsibility, what counts is not membership of a particular class, but the actual ability which the man possesses.” Their attempts to manage government abuse and misuse resulted in the placement of only those seen a the wisest and most capable in positions of power. This had its uses and worked, for a time, for those in Athens. In Ancient Rome a set of uncodified guidelines and principles were passed down from generation to generation, the idea that acting on agreed upon and established precedent was best for society. We have taken from this ourselves, as United States common law is a precedent-based system. In utilizing agreed upon and established precedent, government is restrained from enacting overly harsh or uncharacteristic penalty in most cases, though not all. The Magna Carta, created in 1215AD began limiting the power of government by placing protections on church rights, protected Barons from illegal imprisonment which many faced, provided for timely justice for those accused, and limited the payments that were to be made to the Crown. We have also taken much from the Magna Carta, as we protect the rights of the church, prevent illegal detention within our own nation, have established due process and place a premium on timely judicial proceedings, and attempt to discourage government from placing undue and burdensome taxes on the population. Again, as with all things, these are practiced within our own nation to varying levels of success. And throughout history in the same times that saw the successful implementation of these restrictive measures, we saw growth in ideas, advances in society, technology, order, and civilization which worked to the benefit of those within those societies and their posterity. But, as can also be seen, any time that governments were not limited in their powers to exercise control over society, little progress was ever made and the failed, abysmal state of man the outcome. North Korea has seen little progress since the ceasing of hostilities on the Korean Peninsula and they continue to have one of the most burdensome, and omnipotent governments anywhere on earth.

To claim that I can tell you exactly what is needed, to explain every nuanced detail and prescribe every tool or law to be implemented for the necessary constraint of government isn’t possible. The human experience doesn’t allow for that. But what can be examined and explained are the larger principles of limited government as we should hope to experience them in our lifetimes to avoid these natural tendencies to abuse power. The nucleus of any government is not its people, or society, but its Constitution. If we are to form a government that works on behalf of the people then its nucleus must be tailored specifically for the purpose of the people, not the government. This is where many societies fail, for when they form governments whose nucleus is designed with the intent to preserve government, they at the outset are restricting the rights and freedoms of the individual. When power is placed into the hands of government whose nucleus, which will always henceforth mean Constitution or Founding document, is designed with the object of continuity or to elaborate upon expansive government powers, the likelihood that the government becomes the ruler is guaranteed. And the only thing that can challenge force is force, you meet power with power, arms with arms, manpower with manpower. To have a government that prevents a people from exercising their own authority over government means that they can in no way, shape, or form resist peaceably. It will not be possible. They will only have manner of arms to resort to and that form of resistance leads to short, unhappy lives for the many involved on both sides. Government, therefore, must have at its nucleus a prescribed right to resist and protest those who carry out its functions. We have this in our first amendment; the right to petition government, more commonly referred to as the right to protest. In protesting government, we must also have manner to make and amend our choices to whom will govern us. The right to vote is a must in any government formed to serve the interests of the people. Along with this right, stipulations must be made and laid out in proper form as to how often these votes will occur that place officials into elected office and by what manner we may hold them responsible for their actions. This is vitally important in our modern discussion, as currently we the people find ourselves wanting in our ability to hold government officials accountable. Proper provision must be made to ensure the people are able to hold these individuals to account. But primarily our responsibility is to elect through the vote those who will carry out government function and ensure the nucleus of government remains rooted. All good governments should have this at their nucleus. When the rights to petition, vote, amend, and hold to account government are in place any people who are educated in an honest way to the interests of their society, and as Rush Limbaugh put it are not “low information voters”, should be able to properly protect the rights and liberty of the society in which they exist.

These rights as outlined are the core of the nucleus which is why they are listed here first; without them too great a danger exists in the formation of the rest of government. Americans typically fail to realize how difficult it truly is to form a good government, and how much more difficult it is to retain some semblance of it for any length of time. Since 1990 over 30 new countries have been formed around the globe, many of them struggling with the drafting of a nucleus that protects the individual, thus serving society as is proper. Some have already found themselves at war, abusing their own populations, or struggling with civil wars. At the core of every nucleus should be the right petition, vote, amend, and hold government to account. We can look most recently to the disaster that has befallen the nation of Haiti. The clarity with which its nucleus was formed provided a discrepancy in which the now dead President Moise felt he had another year to rule, and many others in government and society felt that the Constitution showed that his term ended in February 2021. Without clarity in how these core rights are reserved to the people, no government can survive. It is one of the things that has made our nation so durable for these past 245 years. While the nucleus we have is not perfect, it does lend itself to being on the side of the people, even if as of late it is not interpreted that way by our leaders. Not only did the lack of clarity in the Haitian Constitution led to a crippling national emergency in which the people felt elections were months overdue, but it led to the overthrow of the government and assassination of President Moise.

But the rights outlined above, though primary, are not all that are needed within the nucleus to form good government that is less prone to abuses and oppression.

Altering or abolishing government, be it through petition, vote, the right to amend or hold government to account is strictly the right of the people. But in making this the right of the people, it means that act of carrying out the functions of government are strictly the right of government. This means, the people can only act so far as that which is outlined, for any government that is given power holds power, and any government that holds power will make sure the people only express that power which they retain. It is a tricky situation to say the least. This makes even more important the idea that a people must only elect those who are honest, moral, and steadfast in their representation of those who elected them – as opposed to being beholden to corporate, personal, or other outside interests be they bureaucratic, aligned with a political party, or foreign. The idea here is allow the society sovereignty over the government, as society is made up of the individuals who comprise it and in doing so transfers the true control over government into the hands of the people, while still allowing government the appropriate power to exercise its authority and carry out its legal functions. In this regard we have failed to uphold this necessary relationship between the individual, society, and government. All three pieces of this relationship have failed abide by the necessary honest, moral, and steadfast qualities required of them. We should ascribe to a society capable of executing the functions of government as if it doesn’t even exist, as if we didn’t require representatives to vote for issues on our behalf. We should act as if have enough sense to make every one of these choices ourselves and carry out their functions independently without rule or writ of law. To do so would maintain the individual in his happiest nature and society as a functioning, capable body and in turn prevent and reduce the tendency of government to abuse and oppress. At current we are not such a people.

We are often told that if we have a problem then take it to the ballot box! That our right to petition and amend government starts and ends there and we should be so happy as to be afforded such an opportunity to affect change, to deal with those who rule over us. They are not wrong. But they are also most certainly not right. This would be true if we lived in a homogenous society, in a society in which everyone thought the same, felt the same, lived the same, and believed in the same things. Then voting would be enough. As one was affected by the action or policy of bad government, all would be affected by the action and policy of bad government. To this they would respond in a unanimous way and quickly counteract the negative that had occurred and place society and government back into a natural harmony. For a people like this their only real question would be who to elect, who among them was brightest, wisest, most able to carry out the functions of government on behalf of the people. And each election cycle would seem more a merriment than the hurricane which we are saddled with at every turn.

We know this is not how the world is, and this is not how society or individuals are. For us, the ability to institute government and have it carry out actions which are for the benefit of all is beyond difficult. What is good policy for a farming community is not necessarily good for an urban one; what is good for one borough is a disaster for the next, and so on. And in recognizing the difficult nature of equality in governance, we quickly realize another way in which government can abuse its own powers. Government takes to the task of punishing one group while faithfully representing another, providing handouts to one segment while impoverishing another, allowing free and radical sentiment from one side while censoring and illegally surveilling another, all of which is done under the guise of equality, equity, security, and good intent. And to complicate this further we find ourselves in an expansive nation populated by hundreds of millions of people, tens of thousands of communities all falling under one single government. The varied nature of our country, our local, regional, and industry specific economies, the diverse realities of the individuals finding their way here in America, those with vested interest and those with none at all are factors (among countless others) that allow us to see just how quickly government can become exploitative, oppressive, and abusive of its power. Our national debt and the actions of the Federal Reserve are example enough.

What these varied interests naturally lead to are political divisions and affiliations which serve the purpose of specific interests within society, or at least claim to, as opposed to having individuals who are wise and moral act in an honest and faithful way to represent the people who elect them. The need for power is a natural response as we understand self-preservation is a key component how the individual reacts to the actions of society. The same thing occurs with groups within society; they seek power to protect themselves from any encroachments they may feel and work to insulate themselves against the actions of individuals, other groups within society, society as a whole, or government. To do this they seek positions of power and authority within government so that they may best affect their own group with positive laws and governmental action, which, often occurs as the expense of societal out-group members that reside in an area close to that of the group from which the individual now in power came. What we experience today as result of this natural tendency to divide along political lines are two great parties, both of which claim to represent one half of society, and neither of which functions to that aim. Instead, regardless of what they platform on, the great majority of those who are elected from these parties and those unelected members who may wield control within one of the two parties exercise the powers of government strictly for the advantages it confers upon themselves. They are not honest, wise, or faithful representatives of the people.

People may or may not recognize just what advantages individuals in positions of elected government may have. The government must, as we outlined earlier, be able to respond to threat of invasion or large-scale violence or revolution with the necessary resources of society, and to do so must have not just the trust, but the capability to command such from society. This means that certain scaled institutions are necessary to a government if it is to be the faithful representative of society. Civil and military institutions are necessary of some kind or form if they are to be capable of defending the population in times of need – this means a capable Air, Naval, and Land force, as well as a force capable of working to the advantages of Space. With these types of forces all the necessary equipment, arms, manpower, and installations are required so that when they are needed the government does not fail society by having to create them from the ground up. What comes with such a force and structure bureaucratic expanse, officers of the government, agents, and employees of all manner many of whom are to be entrusted with portions of power, or entire swaths of it that require immense responsibility, care, discernment, and the same honest, wise and, and faithful representation that we require of our elected representatives. Armies are expensive, bureaucracy is expensive, expansive government is expensive and the amount of influence that can be garnered by those in control is substantial, often as much or more so than the influence of those who are elected. Another unfortunate consequence of this need for some level of standing defense, whatever level society deems necessary, is the taxation, as well as the proper management and distribution of the funds which secure these armies and institutions that protect society. All of this is under the control of government and is a target as large as any for those who would wish to work to their own desires and not those of society. This is a threat in its own regard and requires a strict balance, for the abuse and misuse of funds and power can be as detrimental to society as the reason for we created the armies and institutions in the first place.

To achieve this balance that portion of unelected government that is required to sustain such armies and institutions should be as few as are required to render proper function of their designated duties. Between taxation and the expenditure or disbursement of said taxes a government working on behalf of the society from which it is formed has little else to do when speaking of monetary or fiscal purpose. Much beyond these two actions is typically when government ventures into overreach and abuse. When properly executed money is collected via tax from the individual States, where original intent is best kept, at a rate set and designated for a specific time and no more, requiring a re-legislation of the matter to initiate another proposed tax. This should also include the concept that each tax bill be a single item bill. The bundling of hundreds of taxes and pet projects into a single bill is yet another abuse and misuse of legislation by government. However, by establishing finite time frames and amounts, the people may shift the size and scope of taxation based not just on economic prosperity or poverty, but upon shifts in generational attitudes, experiences, and a growth in knowledge on what best aids each State. As an example, a State may increase taxation upon its population for a period of 2 years to pay for its contributions to the defense of the country should the need arise, but at the 2-year time frame will have to create a new tax through legislation or simply not legislate a tax, leaving the people untaxed at that time. By our current system we bind those who will live in the future to our own poor decisions and have in some areas of the nation increased taxation to upwards of 60% of income when local, State and Federal taxes are all fully considered. Federal grounds for taxation should be naturally limited by the nucleus and taken with only the greatest of care and deliberation and forced to follow the same guidelines as those laid out above for individual states, limiting both rate and time frame with which the tax may exist before it must be reconsidered or dropped. This is also to be a single tax bill, with no ability to add multiple items one upon the other. While this may seem cumbersome it is better for government to have a sound nucleus and slow development than to have a weak nucleus and malignant proliferation. With all of this considered it is understood that some portion of the community will always seemingly receive a greater portion of the expenditures and disbursements than another and some portion of the community will always feel the greater burden of taxation. The ability to limit taxation by applying the above rules eases this in many cases.

What all this also limits are the expenditures and disbursements of mass foreign aid. While government may vote to raise taxes on a society to funnel money to foreign countries for the purpose of Aid, appeasement, or militaristic measures it will undoubtedly be limited in scope and appeal. And forcing the tax to be reconsidered at a shorter interval than we now have should quickly wear on those forced to vote to make every consideration of time, meaning, should they spend time voting to raise a tax to send money to a foreign government when in fact they could be voting to raise a tax to better serve their own society. Aid bills that serve 100 countries are our current approach, however, 100 individual aid bills requiring deliberation and consideration are costly in both time and patience for those forced to consider them thus limiting the potential for waste and abuse by government.

What must also be considered fully is that any community that acts as a seat of government will see unequal reception of taxes compared to that which they paid in. This reception of large sums of money are indeed required for the provision of government, however, it must be managed in such a way that the reception of taxes does not act as a channel for gifts and lavish expenditure. Our current system has created such a class of people that those counties surrounding Washington, D.C. are some of the richest and profitable places to live in the entire country, though Washington, D.C. has no major industry, is no tech hub, has no major port, and creates no product worth buying. Taxes have become nothing more than a treasure chest to be looted under our current scheme and the improper management and disbursement has led to a section of society that unequally receives a far greater sum of money than they pay in and use it to their own corrupt and abuses ends to the disadvantage to the greater portion of society. This cannot be clearer as we continue examining the areas around Washington, D.C. where lasting members of government and bureaucracy reside abutting some of the poorest urban areas anywhere in the nation. The wealthy here are at the levers of government, the poor at the will of those behind the levers. The residents of Anacostia see a poverty rate that settles around 30% regardless of administration or party in power. And less than 20 miles away, the power brokers of D.C. reside in Great Falls where the median income is $311,000/year. This is not that Great Falls produces product, nor does it have industry or anything else for that matter worth purchasing. It is simply full of those who have access to the treasure chest that is the American tax dollar and use it for their own benefit to the detriment to all others.

The lasting effect here is that we enrich and strengthen the authority to centralize and power of those who are at the levers of government, allowing themselves to self-insulate against out-group threats which become the entirety of the voting public. Once the voting public becomes the out-group, and the elected & bureaucratic players become the in-group, the entire government has corrupted. Therefore we must ensure that taxes are raised properly, managed properly, and spent properly. For to allow a single corruption or abuse in any of these parts is to allow for the growth and proliferation of corruption and abuse - which undoubtedly leads in time to oppression. This in-group and out-group experience has led to the very 2-party system that Washington so warned about and abuses us at present. The Establishment Democrats, and Establishment Republicans, and those bureaucrats who reside in the halls of power have created, given rise to, and profited off the conflicts and struggles we find ourselves in both at home and abroad, all in an effort to obtain and control the levers of government, the taxes that are held by government, and the power that is inherent to government.

Also, in need of recognition is that those in the majority will, in time, become the oppressors while still acting within the system, for they will find for themselves the manner and mechanisms to work to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of the minority. The vote will still be held, will still be legal and binding, and will still carry the full weight of the law even though only one group could possibly succeed in such a 2-party dominated system. We find ourselves in such a place now in some areas of the country, and indeed in the federal government, where the forces of each party are neither equal nor just. Both work to the detriment of the other whenever possible as opposed to the prosperity of their own voters. Both tend to abuse and misuse tax dollars at every turn and prefer the idea of being a ruler as opposed to simply legislating on behalf of the populace. At present we see the Democrats in the ruling majority able to control the votes, government, halls of power, and social constructs of society. They are true rulers in this sense. And they make and execute laws typically not for the benefit of those they represent but in opposition to those whom they do not. This is the natural course of voting and power in a 2-party system.

And this is true in all forms of representative government, be they local, state, or federal. The worst abuses do, however, happen farther from home so we see federal waste, fraud, and abuse eclipsing that of State or local waste, fraud, and abuse. But make no mistake a two-party system at the levers of government at the State level will eventually turn towards the oppressor-oppressed relationship. The benefit of government at the local and state level is that government closer to home is more easily reformed. A vote representing 3 million individuals is easier managed and contains issues more relevant to each represented individuals’ social issues than a vote among 300 million individuals. But they all bear the same relationship when placed under the lens of the two-party system and no matter how much prudence is exercised the natural evolution into this form will occur. This in turn calls for the need of term limits and regular elections to be a foundational portion of the nucleus of government. For in doing so we can prevent the rise of government aristocracy in the vein of the Clinton-Bush-Kennedy families. By holding regular elections and instituting term limits we offer the ability to prevent a permanent ruler-subject relationship. As much as an individual may find themselves in the minority at present, the ability to run a campaign and enter office enables them the prospect of inverting that relationship through the vote. The need to limit terms and the length of time that a person may serve in elected government is needed not just to prevent the rise of a governmental aristocracy, but to prevent the abuse and oppression that naturally emanates from government itself. Individuals may not seek to see themselves as aristocrats or monarchs, but to maintain oneself in the halls of government for 30 or more years (at current our President has been in elected office for 1/5 of the time our nation has existed) is an abuse in and of itself. No person should be at the trough for such a time, for we know we cannot keep the tax dollar from being abused, we can certainly keep any one individual or family from abusing it in perpetuity. By managing duration, we can limit the power and abuse of power exercised by those who seek their own benefit out of government and bureaucracy. Tenure combined with a self-serving 2-party system cannot act to the best aims of society and will only decrease the relationship between the rulers and the subjects, leading to further oppression and abuse of power. This relationship always ends in collapse or revolution.

As voting, regular intervals, and term limits are not enough to make government responsible and responsive to the people who they represent, what other options are available? The removal of corporate, foreign, or monied interests from the base of politics is the most difficult question, and perhaps, the biggest part of the answer. To prevent corporate, foreign, or monied interests from taking advantage of the government for the exclusive benefit of themselves, we can insulate the prior understandings of what is needed within the nucleus: votes, regular intervals, and term limits. The wrapping of votes, regular intervals, and term limits in the cell wall that is the prevention of corporate, foreign, or monied interests from controlling government, we can create a system that stands the test of time, at least several generations, so that those who live among the future we create can decide for themselves what other measures may be needed for the preservation of society, liberty, and freedom. Now, it may be difficult to imagine preventing these outside interests from entering the body politic for they are representative of the interests of society. This is true. This is why governmental retention of sovereignty at the State level is so important. States must be able to work on behalf of the interests of those in their communities in a way that fairly represents as many different portions of the community and industries within as is possible, without the act of attempting to becoming burdensome to the people or lucrative to those government officials involved. If an act of legislation is to be taken against a specific industry, the industry itself, which is composed of the people who live within society must be able to voice their concern if they view the legislation truly injurious or having some disastrous outcome for their respective industry. Now how this is done is rather specific and not something we have now. For if we did it would certainly be abused by those most powerful industries among us. To offer any industry that would be injured or disastrously affected by legislation the means to prevent unfair action by government, industry must be afforded a representative that is able to work alongside government in re-drafting the injurious law or have the power to veto a law that will injure them in such a way. Now the burden of proof of injury is on the industry, and they should be given quorum to hold publicly available, televised, and/or streamed debate in the halls of government to not only prove that said injury will occur, but so that they may not be stymied or slowed by government in any way. For the legislation itself is the government’s argument that what they are doing is an attempt to remedy or care for society. They made their argument during the drafting and passage of the legislation. This industry argument should be heard by a jury of citizens who are from the State involved in the matter, and separate and apart from that injury claiming injury; or should this be some piece of federal legislation, from a jury comprised of members of 13 states selected at random. If this is not to be the manner implemented, then the people of the State should be able to call for and hold a direct vote after the passage of the legislation on whether the bill in question is unacceptably injurious to the industry. Should it be deemed to be so by direct vote by the people, the industry should have veto power over the piece of legislation or the ability to participate in the re-writing of the bill. The inclusion of industry in legislation and government is necessary, but our current means is untenable. We are experiencing a level of corruption and cronyism that is exploitative at best, and downright evil at worst. By offering one of the two methods, or both, of industry inclusion as mentioned above the nucleus of government can make sure that all community parties are as protected from government as possible. Both manners of industry inclusion mentioned work to the consent of the many.

What has been outlined thus far is to be included in the nucleus of any government that aims to make itself a Constitutional Republic representative of the people it serves. By furnishing government with individuals and laws that provide responsibility to those whom they function on behalf of, the prevention of the hasty evolution of ruler-subject can be avoided; and, by making it impossible for industry to buy influence into the halls of power and making them reliant on the people, we prevent them from becoming oppressors aligned with government. It is there solved, that if we have a properly educated populace, wise and honest representatives, secure voting, regularity, term limits and industry inclusion as outlined, we can counteract the natural tendency of government to evolve and expand into the bureaucratic nightmare that we have today which is that of abuser of power and the oppressor.

I view these principles to be correct in how the nucleus of any representative government is to be formed. Whether or not the people are carrying out such a charter and task is not for me to say. But I think that if we can create the monstrosity that we now have, we can certainly manage a slimmer, more streamlined, and effective government that represents the individuals within society, and the society as a whole. While even in time this system could be abused by poor governance, a complacent or uneducated society of “low information voters” or corrupted outside influences worming their way into power. No system is to be perfect, or perpetual in its binding society to its laws. The purpose of this system is not meant to be perfect, nor perpetual but to provide the principles which best serve and protect society.

Voting in and of itself is not enough to protect the rights of the people from bad government. The additional steps outlined are meant to aid and protect the right of the voters from abuse and exploitation. The purpose of these extra steps around voting should also help to fully capture the bet wishes of society while preventing unnatural internal and external influences. The way the vote occurs be it electronic, on paper, or a mix of both should be left up to the society, and in my firmest of opinions, should be decided at the State Level by representatives of each voting district with the majority decision being carried forward for several cycles until the issue reconsidered. Counties should then carry out the elections in an effort to prevent the larger state apparatus from undue influence. By having the County carry out the wishes of the state, it keeps larger cities from taking unnecessary and perhaps, dishonest measures to ensure their voters gain improper advantage and it prevents the State from overburdening small towns and cities from having to conduct their own elections should they not be capable financially or otherwise. The county government should be sufficient for this purpose.

Therefore, what is required to offer any society the most protected and proper form of representation is not just the right to vote. While the right to vote is essential, it has been demonstrated that the right along is not enough to represent individuals or a society in a way which is proper. Voting is nothing more than tallying the individual sentiment of society and as has often been demonstrated throughout history, he who counts the vote matters far more than he who cast it. And even if we are to have a fair casting and account of the vote it will simply be the numerical majority opinion that is carried forward. While this is correct in the numerical sense, it does not account for the varied interests, concerns, and conflicts that make up the individual communities that comprise a society. To consider both interests as a well as the numerical vote is, at times, the proper way to govern for what this does is takes a measure of each community & the interests within, as well as a measure of the whole. In our own time we hear that we are governed by the majority, that in a Democracy or Republic that majority rules but what we are never taught and those making the claim never explain, is whether they are talking of the simple numbers, or of the measure of the whole to include interests? The Absolute Majority (only numbers), or the Majority of the Republic (numbers and considered interests). Almost universally I suspect they mean to imply that we are governed by the vote, when in reality we should be governed by the Majority of the Republic, and in practice are governed by considered interests without the proper guard rails in place as have been outlined in this paper. We do vote people in most directly, but when they reach the halls of power their votes on bills and pieces of legislation are entirely dependent upon considered interests. How many times have we been presented in the papers and press with leaked knowledge that an industry or group has paid for vacations or given donations to a representatives or agent of the people who has then voted in favor of their interest time and time again, without the least consideration for the community? There is great liability in this and is a failure in our own constitution and structure of governance. If we were to practice by way of the Majority of the Republic as so far outlined, we may avoid the folly of undue influence and the abuses which beset our current system. For if we continue to take only the majority of the votes without consideration for interests, these private interests will continue to take advantage of the system and work around it as they are now. By incorporating other majorities: industry, banking, community, farming, healthcare, education, etc. – into the nucleus and outlining exactly the way in which these other majorities may have their interests considered, we provide a safe and effective route for them to weigh in so that they are not tempted to work around and dominate the system as they do now. It is foolhardy to think that the only majority in this nation is the voting majority, which in fact is not only incorrect but also certainly one of the weakest majorities that exists for it is forced to work within the guiderails laid out within our current constitution while all other majorities are able to utilize work around, money, and influence to see to it that the system responds to their wishes. And as we are not governed by honest, wise, and faithful agents, we – the voting majority – are often the forgotten majority when it comes those who represent us. It could even be asked, are those – what we call considered interests – which are currently not considered within the nucleus of our own government, attempting to make the nation more democratic by having other majorities – their own – heard at the seat of government? And, in attempting to democratize government, have they then usurped its purpose and led it down a path of irrevocably bad policy and corruption. I think so. To better represent the whole of a society, the nucleus of government must take into consideration not just the individuals, but society which carries with it the interests of society. By excluding societal interest any constitution in the making is doomed to the same failures as that which we see of our own by the practice of forced inclusion through illicit means. Those who argue that the counting of only individual votes is the only way to properly represent the whole of a nation fail to address the interests of individual communities and how they may participate fully. For if this were true, that the simple tally of the total of votes were enough to govern society properly, then such a model would not lead to the undue influence our system now experiences. Therefore, the nucleus of any government must consider and provide for the voting majority, protection of the voting majority, and in doing so provide structure for the considered interests of society so that they do not topple the system in their own attempts to see representation.

If we wish to see our system continue, we ought to find ourselves determined to amend the system in such a way as to improve its construction. While the bones of the document are sound the errors are laid bare over time, this, the mechanism of the strict numerical vote, is one of them. And we will continue to find ourselves poorly represented by those selected by the numerical majority should we not implement structure and guiderails on concerned interests. The error is too obvious to not take it into account, and too damaging to not act.

Our current nucleus has considerable advantages to many others, though it must be understood that it is primed in its formation to be exploited by a two-party system, or by those politicians, bureaucrats, or agencies who engage in perpetual governance to their own advantage. As they are the individuals, working groups, or agencies that have power, they utilize the very constitution that allows for their own creation to impose restrictions upon the populace in an endeavor to garner more power. When examining the two-party duopoly, we see those in power utilizing the very constitution that was established to protect and preserve society to their own ends. They expand and grant worrisome (and often very abusive) powers and oppose any restriction upon themselves by interpreting the document through distorted legal opinion designed to meet their goal.

As the party in control expands the grip it has over society via government overreach and new provision of power, the party in opposition will naturally take the opposite stance so long as this is appealing to their base. And this stance will be taken, typically, in word only or in the moments in which a vote against the ruling party will not be of much consequence. Here they may vote for their constituency without much worry that their vote matter in the grand scheme of this, a ceremonial nod to the subjects. This leads the people to the belief that one party takes the more liberal position of expansive government and centralized control, while the other takes the more limited, stricter interpretation of the constitution. Such an existence acts as a pendulum in which each party has been over time representative of both sides of the argument. Both parties have stood for expansive government and the growth of federal power just as both have, at times, stood for limited government and a stricter, more formal interpretation of the role of government. It simply depends upon which party is in power, and which the minority.

We saw this after the attacks on 9/11 in which the Republican Party, the party in power, took the broadest and most expansive interpretation possible of our constitution to enact the Patriot Act and formally turn our nation into a police state under the guise of The Global War on Terrorism. True too, that the Democrat party, now in power, has taken these very powers and turned them inwards on the people declaring some large proportion of the population, certain estimates have it upwards of 15-20%, as Domestic Terrorists for their political beliefs. In doing so they have granted the massive surveillance and war-time infrastructure created to combat those who attacked us on 9/11 the ability to surveille and attack the citizens. This too, if not taken to an extreme which leads to true civil unrest or war, will swing back until it is the Republican Majority that leads government to chase and acquire some new form of power over the populace. At current, Elected Republicans only speak out against the infringements as mere theater for to think that one could successfully resist by way of discourse, reason, or some obligation to the people those who control the ballot box, the security state, and the physical might of the country is simply not so. The end of this shall be the subversion of the constitution to one end or another, by one party or the other until the government is that of unlimited, unregulated, and unchecked power.

It is here where we find ourselves, in the hands of the leaders of the majority party and the insulated measures that they have taken for themselves over the course of time which prevent a reduction in bureaucracy, an amendment to our form of government, a check of power by another branch of government, or the influence of the people to such a degree that it should right our government and prevent their further abuses. We find ourselves subject to such level of propaganda and diversion from truth, for at this stage no principle exists that is not malleable in its fullest to serve the purpose of any current narrative, no falsehood to grand, no fraud to malicious, no slander or deception too great to meet the needs of those who seek further power. In truth, no principle exists at all, for the very nature of it being malleable makes it no more a principle than any other whim of the powered interests that lead us towards treachery. What is suspected to produce good government should not be interpreted through the wishes of any modern-day political party; the wishes of modern-day political parties should be interpreted through what is known to produce good government. For this we are lacking, and without sound and reasonable debate or representation. We have reached the point where the constitution, the nucleus of our government, is truly quite useless against the expansion of power sought and exercised by those two parties whom power swings back and forth between. No party tends to hold power for longer than a term or two on the national stage, the pillaging of our tax dollars and the funneling of funds to their own pockets and that of their own interests has hit such a fevered pitch that every few months to year we see a spending bill in the several Trillions, the sole object of this personal enrichment and power. This back and forth between the two has made the nation nauseous, sick to our stomach, and ready to disabuse ourselves of this corruption, chaos, and malignant oppression which we are forced to swallow. This end of this 2-party system will either be collapse or revolution, or a chaotic omnipresent government that flails in every direction to subdue the mere appearance of contrary thought or sentiment.

On the one hand, our nation has eased its way into corruption and oppression, having taken some 245years to get where we are. At one time, early one, we were a nation of smaller communities whose populations, lifestyles, habits, and beliefs were suitable to a representative form of government, for they elected wise and honest people to faithfully act on their behalf. As we have grown, we have found ourselves a more diverse people, with overlapping and disparate belief systems, thousands of communities set on a variety of goals, poorly educated on morality and good government, largely amoral, wealthier, and more superficial in our beliefs, and willing to be abused and oppressed so long as our internet is fast and our television on. In truth, our system of government and the laws on the books are too complex and cumbersome to guard against any tyranny, and if anything, guard against the expression of individual rights and liberties to protect and preserve the government. Our government is now less suited to our own society than the Crown government was to the Colonists who rebelled. We are moving towards, and in fact practice in many ways, and oligarchical model in which Aristocrats carry out the function of government to their own ends while fraudulently making the appeal to the common citizen when it comes time to take a numerical vote.

That which we have been luckiest in for the longest of time is that neither party has controlled the military or security apparatus, nor have either grown or raised their own armies. Unfortunately, we are now in this very year experiencing the first major wave of politicization of our armed forces by the Democrat party who believes those who do not align with their beliefs to be domestic terrorists. What is unfortunate is that the initial counter to this would traditionally be the opposition party, the Republicans, who would in some way resort to an expression of their own force if they view themselves as not in-group enough to remain at the levers of government in Washington alongside the Democrats. This is yet to be seen, but unlikely as the upper echelons of government are two parties acting as one at the behest of concerned interests.

The dangers of developing into a system run and managed by Oligarchs and Aristocrats under the guise of Democracy or Republic is that these actors have, throughout all of history, abolished governments and instituted, in one form or another, absolute government derived solely to work to their own ends. This tendency is, unfortunately, a base part of the nature of man. It is why we form governments in the first place, to practice self-preservation. But the tendency to self-preservation turns to exploitation when speaking of lasting and expansive democratic governments. This is not to say that democratic or representative forms of government are inherently bad, they are not. But, over time, they will degenerate through the imperfections of man. It is then the responsibility of the individuals within that society to abolish, amend, or reform government to better serve society. Our current government leaders nothing like our founders in their respect of citizenry and are more accurately described as being akin to the Aristocracy of 18th and 19th Century Europe. It is vain to think they will employ their powers to strengthen the rights of voters, or reform government in any meaningful way.

What an advantage we would have over government, and those industry players who wish to abuse legislation and enrich themselves off our tax dollars if we had the guiderails which I have laid out. The advantages of inclusion and guiderails extend in such a way as to aid in the prevention, not entirely but to an extent, of aristocratic tendencies such as when coastal elites ultimately ignore what they consider dependent portions of the population be they poor inner cities or rural “fly-over” country. As the coastal areas of our nation become more populous and wealthier, as they view themselves with an increased woke refinement the perceived gap between themselves and everyone else becomes more dramatic and less able to be traversed through policy or law. The likelihood that conflict between these groups arises becomes more apparent as the notion of what once may have brought them together disappears permanently. And the tendency for the most ambitious and least moral among them to seek out and exert political influence runs in accordance with the growth in divide. Guiderails prevent and slow the aristocratic tendencies of coastal elites as they are themselves their own type of majority, typically a majority of inherited wealth and vaunted institutional membership. One would not be wrong to think that the aristocratic elite would act as protectors and sovereigns who would justly aid in identifying what is in the best interest of the poor and have policy crafted to help them, acting as a guiding parent figure if you will. However, this is not the case.

This growing divide is only enhanced by the unaided numerical vote as we have now. For when the sum or prize of a nation is placed up for a vote in which winner takes all and consideration of majorities other than the numerical are not taken then it should be of no surprise that we find ourselves separated into two distinctly corrupt and un-serving groups dominated by Party Apparatchik. This also breeds the unnatural loyalty and attachment to the party and among members who, at every turn, look to the party for how they should react or respond to an instance to ensure alignment with the proper narrative. Such unnatural tendencies are exploited by those who view themselves as woke guardians of society. In this we have developed a nation of people in which a sizeable majority show a stronger devotion to party than country – view the interests of the party as primary, and its triumph in elections the only goal of their vote. What happens as a result of their parties’ gained power is secondary even if that result is as basic as negligence in government, or as grand as to produce malicious tyranny.

By providing for varied interests among the vote any conflicting interests are given more representation which allows a sense of commonality and bonding among people that doesn’t exist when the vote numerically all or nothing. It relieves some of the tension that breeds partiality, poor governance, and back door seeking by industry or Aristocrats. And in relieving that tension a nation would see the rise of patriotism, a sense of community, harmony, and the promotion of the common good.

A further consideration when taking to the formation of government is morality. As an individual’s private morals parallel their public morals, it is difficult for us to say that the only thing that corrupts the numerical vote are outside, unconsidered interests. That which works to corrupt a government does so because it has already corrupted, or been corrupted by, the individuals who are its agents and operators. As a community goes amoral and finds corruption to be desirous, so does the government to which they are bound. A lack of morality among those who lead government or seek its rewards through influence or lobbying leads them to practice fraud, slander, bribery – any amoral practice is considered legitimate – to gain power, influence, and in-group status. The question then remains that if we provide guardrails for the vote, should we provide guardrails for morality, something that is ever changing among our society now not bound to any religious morality. What non-religious morality may be referenced in the nucleus of a document that is not transient is that of truth, integrity, and fidelity to the community which the individual serves should they find themselves an agent of the people. In modernity, the level of power that comes with a seat in government is unparalleled. Influence and power are the objects most eagerly sought out by those who seek these positions, and if we were to be so lucky their own intellect, honesty and integrity would match and surpass that of their own desires. Just as influence and power are the driving elements behind those whose actions destroy government, honesty, and integrity in purpose to one’s community are a part of what lead to good governance.

Outlined in our own founding documents are the ideas that we must protect society from government, preserve good government for posterity, and work to continually perfect our government. These three pieces are key in the ongoing conversation that relates to what should be at the core of government if it is to serve the people. If we fail in one, we fail in all.

For the perfection of government, we must maintain a population of people who are morally sound, intellectually capable, and honest in their willingness to serve the community. Self-preservation shows us that the development of the individual grows to its greatest potential when government is good and serving. Any government that is good and serves its people provides for Liberty and Freedom, while respecting the rights of the individual to live in a manner suitable to their own Aristotelian happiness. For the security of the people actions undertaken by government are necessary, though they are not to be burdensome or overt in such a way as to suspend or encroach upon liberty and freedom. As no person should be forced to turn over the fruits of their labors to rogues or criminals, so too they should not be put into a position in which governmental overreach in the name of security threatens their very labors. But to force government into such a position that it can not provide for security is to place the progress of the individual and society at risk. For, in having no security the impulse for self-preservation doesn’t lead to a burgeoning of technology, scientific, moral, and religious enlightenment, but rather to a hasty scramble to survive each day’s anarchist realities. A proper balance between liberty and security is essential to the perfection of government. In this, we are greatly out of balance having a security state whose power and influence in unrivaled by anything the world has ever seen. By finding and maintaining the proper balance, keeping liberty and freedom alive and well while being able to provide for an acceptable level of security, the conflicts that occur between the state and the people who seek to exercise their individual liberties and rights will cease as each in in a cooperative state one with the other. At that point one of the most basic purposes of government will be fulfilled.

However, the extent to which any community is willing to sacrifice liberty for protection and security is entirely dependent upon the community. Some, in their most local form, will be unwilling to go so far as to establish much beyond a Sheriff’s office while others willingly place the security of the majority over the rights of the minority. In this regard, we get community implemented authoritarianism as seen is Pasco, Florida. The calculation of what level of security is to be balanced with liberty is based on numerous factors be they real hazards of crime, gangs, and hostility, or moral based factors that drive communities to prevent the inevitable crumble. At present, we see one or the other tend to hold dominance in certain areas. However, it must be understood that moral failings are typically what lead to the real hazards or crime, gangs, and hostility. How a community facing such hazards can place the necessary moral individuals into positions of government is unknown, and typically does not occur. These communities tend to elect or have in positions of power people who are equally as moral or immoral as the average population in which they serve.

It is this principle, that we are served by those who meet the moral or immoral quality of the average of our population, that tends to designate what level of power and what level of liberty we live under regardless of voting conditions. To allow total liberty in an amoral population is to allow for anarchy. To allow for total power in a government run by the amoral is to allow for abuse and oppression. We can see that no amount of liberty can be given to a people who are without morals, for they are not fit to form preserve and perfect such a government or idea. When liberty and freedom are forced upon an immoral people, we provide them not with a blessing as we see it, but with a curse that leads to further oppression, violence, and abuse. No community or people can practice and enjoy liberty without maintaining some semblance of morality, for it is morality that leads to the preservation of liberty when existing under government as we all do. In being served by a government that truly reflects us as a society, we are suited to the condition which it provides be that liberty or oppression. Therefore, people will have as much liberty as they are willing to preserve, and no more than that which reflects the moral attitudes of the society in which they exist.

Liberty leads us to our greatest blessings, but its existence is also bound to another tenet of equal importance: power. For it is the power to protect and preserve liberty that leads to improvements in society and mankind. In designing the nucleus of government, a people must be aware of not just liberty and freedom, but the dynamic governmental power will have upon its existence. For it is this governmental power that can preserve liberty or destroy it. Liberty exists for all; it is not a reward to be earned. However, it is a blessing that requires work to keep for not every people and community are moral enough, intelligent enough, virtuous enough, hard working enough, independent, or resilient enough to keep and maintain such a blessing. Our own nation is one of patchwork liberty, existing in grand ways here and there, and as absent as a void in others. What should be included in a declaration of intended government is that the greatest distinction of the society that forms it is that it chooses to be a people of wise and honest intent, noble to its cause, and fastidious in any encroachment it allows upon it. So long as a people are in that practice, liberty may be preserved. Upon which time that they deviate from that honored oath, liberty is no more permanent than the transient thoughts of the immoral. And at such time that a people are no longer of the moral quality set out by those who created the government, government is no longer to be that of the people though be assured government will continue to exist.

And this is right for liberty, such a blessing should not be thought of in any lowly or inconsiderate manner. We should always be proactive in how we think of liberty for its existence is always in opposition to abuse and oppression by government. Liberty is to be another foundational aspect to any nucleus, for it is the great savior and great destroyer of individuals, societies, and governments. In this understanding we can see that we as a people are no more capable at present of defending liberty than the Iraqi’s who we so futilely thrust it upon, or the Afghans who failed to recognize our own version of the blessing. This truth, that liberty exists only for a moral people capable of preserving its blessing, is yet another natural law of mankind and no people have been able to exist outside of this natural law while retaining liberty.

In our own national dialogue, we hear of equity and equality more than we hear of liberty. Let it be understood that equality – NOT EQUITY – is so entwined with liberty to the extent that they are from the same blessing. Liberty is short its full existence when equality is not preserved alongside it.

As to define what manner of equality is necessary to aid in liberty and should be at the nucleus of government, let us outline it now. Neither equality in outcome nor the darling of the left equity, are to be a part of any foundational law. Equality in the eyes of the law is all that is required for its own part in the maintenance of liberty. For, if we were to have equality in condition, what would that mean? That would rightly mean that there would be no inequality in condition. And as such, there would be no need for progress or improvement for the condition of all would be universal. And in finding a universal condition, any improvement that was a result of the efforts of an individual or group, would have to either be given to all or taken from those who worked to their own benefit so that all remained the same. This is not liberty served. We already established that the primary springboard which motivates the individual towards achievement is self-preservation as people naturally want to improve their station in life, and should we make everyone equal in outcome and condition, then there is no need to risk anything as the hardest worker will reach the finish line in time for the laziest among us to be carried across by the system. This, of course, results in the death of the system and that which created it, society. Inequality in condition is both the engine of progress and those at the front work ever harder to succeed, while those at the rear apply themselves to not just keep up, but to achieve an elevated condition and improvement in their daily existence. It is this impulse that would be killed by equity and equality in outcome and with it the death of progress. If we are to believe that all of mankind is born equal, then we can not subscribe to equity or equality in outcome. For to do so we must admit that some are better, and some are worse, and in designating who to elevate we are in a de facto sense stating that they are lesser people. And this is not true. For in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the law all are to be equal when considering how to form the nucleus of government. Anything else leads to oppression and abuse.

Having said all that I have thus far on what should be included in the nucleus of government, I want to ensure that it is understood that this is not ALL that should be included. But it is a start. And in having shown that liberty must be balanced with power and measured alongside equality as defined – we can see what form government should begin to take if it is to serve a people appropriately. Now, it must be shown that the aided vote is superior in every form to the numerical vote taken alone as we currently have.

The aided vote which includes guiderails for industry and considered interests is a superior to counting the numerical alone. By including industry and other considered interests we create a system which increases the power and scope of the vote, provides improvements to the integrity of the governmental and bureaucratic system by limiting the need to take the backdoor into power, and restricts the exertion of power against liberty which works to the protection of the larger society and the individual smaller communities therein.

By forming a nucleus better suited to the protection of society as a whole and individual smaller communities, the amount of liberty that can flourish and remain safeguarded is the greatest extent which is available within any society still regulated by government. Governments natural tendency is to move into oppression and abuse while simultaneously destroying liberty during course of its own abuses. By implementing natural safeguards up front it prevents society from having to make attempts to correct abuses already carried out.

On the contrary, those of the numerical, instead of opposing and counteracting this tendency, add to it increased strength, in consequence of the violent party struggles incident to them, as has been fully explained. And hence their encroachments on liberty, and the danger to which it is exposed under such governments.

And as the modern left loves to see themselves as stratified individuals made up of intersecting identities, a nucleus formed as outlined above secures their belief in the stratified individual and allows them to participate in government in as many different ways as they can identify without feeling left out of the process. So too can the Conservative individual who is many things increase his own level of participation to any extent that suits him. In forming government this way, we have retained the rights of the individual, preserved liberty, and provided for the diversity of interests that exist in a complex society such as our own without giving undue influence to any, without locking any out of the process, and without incentivizing the need for abuse, bribery and fraud which is so endemic to our own system. Once a system grows to such an extent that rebellion and revolution is the only avenue of resistance, then the system has failed. And any people that can exert such force as to overthrow a tyrannical and oppressive system are equally capable and powerful enough to institute a system of oppression all their own. Therefore we must formulate the nucleus of government in such a way as to prevent oppressive and abusive government, and the rise of revolutionaries who will become oppressors all their own.

We have reached a point in our society and government that intellectually capable individuals and the numbers required to direct the course of the nation are not enough. In this advanced stage of governmental decay strategy, influence, technology, manipulation, fraud, power, and money are the tools of government progress. We have elements of offense and defense in the spheres of both politics and war that are continually developing and driving the course of our nation to a far greater extent that any numerical vote of the people does. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump was proof enough of that as he was usurped, stopped, stymied, ignored, and prevented at every turn.

And while our present condition shows just how much liberty we have lost, it also demonstrates just how much progress a people can have so long as liberty is retained. We are the most technologically advanced nation to have ever existed. Our progress, improvements, national developments, and inventions have provided the world with cause to celebrate and have infiltrated to one degree or another most communities across the globe.

Had we instituted the necessary guiderails 245 years ago who knows what fortunes and improvements would have arisen. I should only hope that when fate grants us the opportunity to amend government, we take a rightful look at the nucleus and work to create a document that preserves liberty to such an extent as is possible.

CulturalHusbandry, 1776/2021