Ideology and Its Effect on Morality


Boy, all government is absolute.  Once we realize this then the only thing left to discuss is the division of the power of government.  The authority of government can be declared as irrelevant for authority only ascertains from where that power is derived from.  In other words authority only gives moral credibility or legitimacy to the idea of government.

When speaking of the authority of government we must allow the possibility of three sources.  The first source we must accept as a possibility is from God.  And to accept God as being the source requires a belief in the existence of a God. And this requires that God does, in fact, exist.  And if he does exist then we must declare that all laws enacted by the people of government must be consistent with the Will of God regardless of of how any form of government is structured.

The second source of authority we must consider is from the people.  And this, from a deterministic point of view, would require that God does not exist.  It would also imply that the people of government abide by the will of the people.  And this also would apply regardless of how any form of government is structured.

The third source of authority is from the government itself.  This would declare that the people of government need not answer to no one.  It would be any form of government where all abide by the will of the people of government. In the best of lights it would be a government where the people of government believe that they know what is best for everybody thus have the right to mandate it of them.

Once authority has been established sovereignty can be declared.  Sovereignty can be defined as the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.  It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. In theoretical terms, the idea of “sovereignty”, historically, from Socrates to Thomas Hobbes, has always necessitated a moral imperative on the entity exercising it.

 Once sovereignty is declared we have the foundational basis of government.  And as we have seen through history all governments have the same basic structure.  It is in the recognition of sovereignty that a territory can be defined as a State.  Now, before we go any further we must clarify a few terms.

 A State is not a nation nor is it a country even though they are usually used in a synonymous manner.     And those who use them in a synonymous manner can only result in misleading conclusions.  The word country refers strictly to the territory within a certain set of boundries.  The word nation refers strictly to the people that live in that territory.  In other words, a State rules over a nation that live in the country where sovereignty has been declared.

 Ideally a State serves but one purpose, to serve the domestic well-being of a nation.  Ideally, it serves to protect the individual from the abuse of the collective within its realm of authority.  Ideally, it also serves to protect the nation from other States outside of its realm of authority.  The fallacy of this principle lies in the fact that we do not live in an ideal existence thus the ideal of the State can never be achieved.

The problem lies in the political ideology that continues to promote this principle.  For this ideology will always see the existing form of government as a failure and seek to change it.  This failure would be seen in all forms of governments of the past.  Thus any form of government they promote must be a government of theoretical construct, one that does not nor ever has existed in the history of mankind.

 Perfection is the goal and the ideology declares that perfection can be achieved. The ideology will accept no argument that states differently. And given the belief of the achievability of this goal it is an ideology that declares that the end justifies the means. Would not the achievement of perfection justify any means that was used to attain it? And it is from this we can see why those who adhere to this ideology consider themselves as being morally superior to others.

 And since they are morally superior then a different standard of behavior for themselves than the standards they hold others to is not only acceptable but expected.  It is from this sense of moral superiority that hypocricy does not exist in the eyes of those who adhere to this ideology.

 

Advertisements
Categories: History, Politics | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

Post navigation

Be respecful or your comment will be deleted. Also know that Alinsky tactics do not phase me

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: