10 Incredible Advantages of Dating Online

When it comes to online dating, most of the people get confused about whether they should go with the same or not. If you are also confused about whether you should date online or not, you first need to go through your dating requirements and budget.

When it comes to online dating,10 Incredible Advantages of Dating Online Articles most of the people get confused about whether they should go with the same or not. If you are also confused on whether you should date online or not, you first need to go through your dating requirements and budget. Yes, if you want to enjoy dating online, you first need to know about its benefits. If you don’t know the advantages of a dating service from latinfeels, you may not be able to make a right decision. So, if you are confused about dating online, you first need to know the incredible advantages of dating online. By going through stated below trending online dating benefits, you can be able to make the right decision.

1 – Free Account Creation on Dating Websites

Whether you are going to choose a free or paid dating website online, you won’t need to pay for the registration process. Yes, most of the top dating websites come with free registration process. For instance, if you want to join a paid dating site called Latinfeels, you can still be able to create a free account on the site. It means that you don’t need to pay money for using basic dating features of a paid dating site. It is certainly a great benefit of trending online dating for men and women.

2 – You Can Describe Your Dating Requirements

One of the key benefits of dating online is that you can easily describe your dating requirements. For instance, if you are looking for a Russian woman for dating online, you need to mention the same on the dating site. Obviously, when you write down your preferences about dating online, you can easily find out matching profiles. There is no doubt that most of the top dating sites display matches according to your profile preferences. If you are looking for hot Latina women for dating online, you aren’t supposed to find out Indian women for dating.

3 – You Can Detect Fake Profile of Dating Website

There was a time when most of the dating sites come incorporated with tons of fake profiles. But now things have changed. Now, most of the dating sites or dating apps concentrate on publishing genuine profiles of real men and women. So, if you notice that a specific profile on a dating site like latinfeels is flashy, you can report it to close. Moreover, there are dating sites or dating apps that simply need your contact number and even social media profile in order to create a profile. Obviously, it is a great thing to go with when it comes to interacting with profiles of real people online.

4 – Messaging, Voice Call and Video Chat

The best part of dating online is that you can easily find out plenty of dating features. You can choose instant messaging service of a dating site to send messages to a potential date. You can even make voice call if you grab a positive response from your potential date. Moreover, when you come to a mutual understanding, you can go for video calling or video chat. There is great buzz about video dating. Obviously, video chatting on online dating websites can help you unlocking the physical appearance of your chosen potential date.

5 – You Can Upload Lots of Photos and Videos of You

Days are gone when dating sites required only a single photo of users as a profile picture. Now, there are various top dating websites or even dating apps that allow uploading multiple photos and videos. Yes, there are various dating websites that can help you upload videos and photos online. There is no doubt that when you have the option to upload plenty of photos of you, your profile can easily attract potential profiles towards it.

6 – Security and Privacy

It is usually observed that many individuals worry about their security and personal information when it comes to joining an online dating website. Obviously, it is an obvious doubt that may hit the mind of many new users of online dating sites. But it is not a big deal with real top dating websites or dating apps. For instance, if you choose a bumble app for dating, you can easily enjoy its incredible features. Being a woman, you will never and ever like to entertain ugly messages. Thus, bumble app allows women to start a conversation first.

7 – Get Dating Services Customized

One of the incredible advantages of choosing trending online dating is that you can easily get your dating services customized. It means that you can get dating solutions customized according to your specific requirements. But for this, you need to choose paid membership of a dating website or dating app. If you don’t go with a paid subscription, you may not be able to enjoy this feature.

8 – You Can Decide Who You Want to Date With

Whether you are seeking men or women, you would always like to end up with the desired date. This is the point where you need to have the authority of deciding your date. There are various online dating portals that can help you deciding who you want to date with. Of course, it is an incredible dating feature that can help you control the situation.

9 – Enjoy Discount and Special Offers!

If you are assuming that choosing a paid dating site like Latinfeels for dating could be an expensive option to go with, you need to alter your perception. You should accept the fact that there are various dating apps and dating sites that can help you explore the benefits of a huge discount and special offers. Obviously, when you grab a discount or special offer on choosing a dating subscription plan, you can easily save big money on the same.

10 – Use Dating Technology in Vogue

When it comes to enhancing the user experience, the importance of innovative technology can’t be denied. Since dating sites know this fact, thus, they come with innovative dating features. The same alterations can also be witnessed when it comes to downloading dating apps online. So, if you want to experience something incredible in terms of dating online, you need to unveil t

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on 10 Incredible Advantages of Dating Online

Corporate Survival… How to manage yourself in the political playing field!

In my first … job, I had high … that … … on a solid work ethic and quality … I wanted to aim for thetop and make it happen. … my ideas of cor

In my first corporate job,Corporate Survival… How to manage yourself in the political playing field! Articles I had high expectations that promotions were
based on a solid work ethic and quality production. I wanted to aim for the
top and make it happen. Unfortunately, my ideas of corporate environment
were inaccurate. As a grunt, an engineer, and a manager, the games, turf
wars, and political thrashings taught me numerous incredible lessons. In
the end, I made it to where I wanted to be, but not without bruises,
scrapes, and experience.

Now, people come to me with problems that they have within their companies
or on their job. They want to learn how they can overcome a situation or
better adapt to make it within their companies. For instance, one employee
lost out on a promotion because the person in charge favored another person.
In such situations, you have to look at both sides. Of course, the scorned
employee was upset as his credentials exceeded the promoted employee’s.
But, when we examined the other side of the coin, one of the prominent
actions performed by the promoted employee was that he publicly supported
the boss. If you remove emotion from the situation, and apply some
“poli-think,” it made sense, according to the manager’s needs.

You can either fight it, or you can learn how to make it work for you. I’m
not condoning politics nor am I saying that you should use political tactics
in your everyday life, as this is not only exhausting, but it also takes
away from your work and personal time. But, if you can understand your
corporate culture and its politics, you can better learn how to handle the
situations that are placed before you instead of becoming stressed or

— The Corporate Culture —

When you enter Corporate America, you have two choices: dig in, go with the
punches, and make it into the inner circle, or you can hang back and just do
your job. Both postures are very necessary elements of corporate life and
both are just as difficult. It all depends on what you want out of your

* The Corporate Being

A Corporation is a living, breathing, and growing entity. It changes on an
irregular basis, adapts to its environment, and sometimes performs acts that
seem almost ludicrous. In this way, a corporation is very much like a human

You, as a part of this being, must learn how it grows and changes. Most of
the time, this information is not evident. However, part of the task of
becoming a viable asset to this being is to look beyond the surface and find
out where things are going. In this way, you can position yourself to be a
positive part of the growth and change.

Many of the political situations that occur within a corporation are a
result of this growth and change. These changes cause incredible stress for
some individuals; however, the stress can be overcome by not fighting the
politics and learning the culture of the organization. You will learn that
many of these situations have valid political reasons for why they occur.

Learning the corporate culture is an important step in managing the stresses
associated with any job. Take some time to observe the culture at your
office. This will not only give you an idea as to how to handle yourself,
but it will also help you learn how to handle others.

* Culture Shock

A corporate culture is a set of behaviors and rules that people use to
manage their interactions. These include formal company policies and
informal rules that you learn through experience. Many times, management
will not tell you the informal rules of the office, but they will use your
ability to adapt and learn as a sign of how well you handle yourself.
Additionally, behaving in an inappropriate manner for the culture could risk
your being labeled as uncooperative by your coworkers.

In any situation, you should analyze the culture, and, if necessary, change
your habits accordingly to minimize stress. To evaluate your corporate
culture, you should consider various important aspects of the environment.
For instance, communication style, teamwork, chain of command, appearance,
management roles, interoffice friendships, politics, individual attitudes,
and general workspace environment are important elements to pay attention to
so that you can better acclimate to the environment.

After you’ve learned the culture of your workplace, you should see how it
matches your personal style and expectations. To help prevent workplace
stress, it’s likely that you’ll have to adjust some of your own habits. Of
course, you should not stifle your originality or become an
indistinguishable android. With an understanding of your workplace culture,
you can make informed choices about your behavior and work habits, and
prevent stressful situations and conflicts.

— Corporate Games —

Before you can understand corporate games in the workplace, you must
understand one, core definition of the games: a corporate game is an
illegitimate means of getting things done. It is a way that people twist
and turn situations to reach a specific goal. However, those people that
don’t play, risk their careers.

Improperly managing power and politics can make or break your career, cause
many sleepless nights, and often has very little to do with your actual job
duties. Many people who fail in their jobs do so because of political
problems, not skill deficiencies. Many intelligent and capable people
aren’t as successful as they might be because they haven’t learned to cope
with office politics. Understanding why you might be having difficulty at
work involves understanding the basic elements of office politics and why it

* Politics

Politics and political maneuvering is the interpersonal conflicts and power
plays that exist in most organizations. Among the specific actions commonly
associated with office politics are intimidation, indirect communications,
covert tactics for advancement, manipulation for control, indirectly telling
the truth, hiding vulnerability issues, and playing for favors.

Some companies are better than others in the amount of political activity
required to do a job. In some companies, playing corporate politics is the
only job you have the time to develop. In others, it is only slightly
important. Politics is part of the corporate culture of every organization
and it’s important to understand how it plays into your organization.

* Why does it exist?

Politics came about as a way of handling intense competition. Generally,
business itself is a competitive game ranging from simple tests of skill to
full-blown battles. The game is driven by survival conditions induced by an
expanding world market in which companies must continue to change and grow.
There’s a constant challenge to overwhelm the opposition, reduce costs, and
acquire additional resources. All of these attributes trickle down through
the ranks to cause individual battles for promotions, rewards, and
recognition at all costs.

Another reason for office politics has to do with the hierarchical structure
of most organizations. The higher you advance, the less room there is at
the top. As long as people battle for the “corner office,” workplace
maneuvers will reign. This is where the most intense battles occur and
where most people find that they are stepped on or pushed aside.

Also, office politics occurs where personal matters are suppressed because
they are seen as interfering with the direction and the good of the
corporation. Certain arrangements help to keep individual feelings out of
corporations as well as prevent the discussion of sensitive issues and the
denial of interpersonal conflict. However, since human beings are social
beings, human needs appear in the form of political conflict.

— Surviving Corporate Games —

Whether you decide to play or not, don’t get caught in the middle. If you
become the individual that battles politics, then you become the scorned of
the organization. If you decide to stay out of it completely, then do your
job and stay out. Those on the other end of the spectrum that play will
respect your decision because that alone gives them less competition in
their own battles.

One thing you’ll notice is that no one will admit to playing games; however,
that is part of the secret of politics. You, on the other hand, cannot
confront anyone for playing games; however, you can identify the games and
learn how to manage them to suit your needs. Once you figure out how to do
this, then your stress level will drop, and you’ll be accepted in your

* What do you want?

Before you can learn how to use these games to your advantage, you have to
set a course and stick with it. This means determining what it is that you
want out of your career. If you roam aimlessly through your career, then
you’ll get nowhere as you are a benefit to no one, including yourself. If
you know what you want and are willing to work to get there, then people
will take notice and begin working with you to get where you want to go.
The objective of managing corporate games is to benefit those in charge and
understand how to use available resources to your own benefit.

* Learning the game.

People who dislike company politics usually associate it with backstabbing,
taking credit for others’ work, or getting by on personality rather than
performance. For the most part, these are standard characteristics of a
political game. However, you don’t have to play this way to make it in a
political environment. To survive, for our purposes here, political game
playing means developing good “people skills.” It means contribution,
diplomacy, collaboration, cooperation, and conducting a personal public
relations campaign. Some of the best ways to handle politics at this level

– Keep your eyes and ears open to everything that goes on around you. You
can use this information to your own best interests. Listen more to what
other people are saying and absorb what they mean.

– Learn how to communicate with others on all levels.

– Resolve disputes quickly and don’t allow them to linger and spread.
Conflicts interfere with production. Additionally, this will get you into
the rumor mill and eventually have you on the same level as Jack-the-Ripper.

– Compromise positions and issues so that you end up in a win-win situation.
You want to always leave the other person with a piece of the pie, if it
benefits you.

– Be open and willing to admitting you’re wrong. Holding out when you’re
wrong will only place you in a position of conflict and distrust by others.

– Take on leadership roles when possible. Demonstrate your abilities to
lead and manage situations professionally.

– Be professionally assertive without being abrasive.

– Make “acquaintances” within the organization. You don’t want to have
close friends, nor do you want to make enemies.

– Put the corporate direction ahead of your own. Being part of a forward
moving team that supports the company is the way to gain positive looks from
the inner-circle.

To accomplish your goals, you’ll need to be very people-smart. Playing
politics isn’t necessarily bad. In fact, it’s a key survival skill in most
organizations. Many good corporate politicians are both likeable and
effective—that’s why they make it to the top. Those who refuse to play or
battle against the politics may accomplish a lot, but they seldom last long
because they don’t fit into the overall scheme and are seen as

— What’s next? —

I’m sure that you’ve read one or more Dilbert cartoons by Scott Adams.
They’re very humorous, but what makes them humorous is that, for the most
part, they represent actual situations in an office environment. If you see
any of his cartoons and don’t somehow find humor, then you have a lot to
learn. Regardless of where you go or what you do, politics in the corporate
culture exist.

Political decisions encourage many of the situations that most people
despise, including hypocrisy, secrecy, rumors, self-interests, image
building, and cliques. However, politics will always be a part of
organizations as long as people are involved—to be human is to be
political. Whenever people’s priorities, values, and interests diverge,
some type of political ploy usually takes place. The amount of involvement
you choose is entirely up to what you want out of your career.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Corporate Survival… How to manage yourself in the political playing field!

The Matter of Political Philosophy

When an individual studies political philosophy, it is usually with the intent to understand the core principles that govern the political life of a city, a region, or a nation. What is it that motivates or causes a mayor to be just, or to be corrupt? What influence does the general consensus of the people have upon the government? In what way does the government manifest its power with the least amount of justice? In what way does it manifest its power with the most amount of justice? What definition exactly can we give to the term the general will of the people? All of these questions are ones that interested people will ask themselves and others in an attempt to gain answers. They will look back to philosophers like Machiavelli, Locke, Rousseau, Plato, among others, to try and find some opinion that has validity. To a large extent, when political philosophy scholars attempt to uncover the answers to these questions, it is not just to help defeat Fascism, or help bring about Communism, or help in strangling Socialism, or generally to aid or destory any other -ism; rather, these questions are asked because people are genuinely interested in discovering what method of government is best for the people.

Political Philosophy is the study of government,The Matter of Political Philosophy Articles of power, of authority. It is a question of who is in power, why they are in power, how they can maintain their power and how the public will respond to this power, and what powers certain authorities hold in certain societies. It is all these questions and more. In our modern society of today’s world, some political philosophy questions would be “To what extent does the authority of the policeman extend?” and “In what justification does a court issue a search warrant?” The reason why it is important and relevant to understand Political Philosophy is to help ourselves better understand, and perhaps one day alter the current society, with social justice as an end. By understanding these concepts, we are better able to grasp the problems that society has withstood for a great deal of time.

There are some basic facts that should be understood clearly before one progresses in depth the study of Political Philosophy. First, there is the question of the issues at hand. Every generation will have its own issues of social justice or political rightness. Those who have only a brief knowledge of history will be able to confirm this. There was a generation whose intent was to liberate all African slaves, another generation that wanted equality for a second class of citizens called Plebians, and at least five generations that worked for the equality of the sexes. Every culture has its rebellious side to it, its nay-sayers whenever the body politic combines. So we have seen groups work for reforms, for changes, for revolutions in all facets of life. We see Animal Rights activists working for similar principles as did the Abolitionists. On the other side, we see Christian Fundamentalists trying to implement an ideology in to the government. There are those who want to create a Communist nation, with free healthcare and education to everyone. And there are those who want to resurrect the Inquisition to deal not just with religious heretics, but with political and social heretics as well. Civil Rights, Free Trade, education, healthcare, freedom of speech, etc., etc.. These are all issues at hand. When we look to the issues, we must understand that they are not related to the study of Political Philosophy.

One might easily make the misunderstanding of associating these issues with Political Philosophy. The error stems from the fact that government bodies are often responsible for enforcing or not enforcing these issues, and the association that one is responsible for the other. While this may be true in some cases, there is a clear difference between Political Philosophy and the current political atmosphere of a nation. Political Philosophy deals with who possesses authority, on what grounds they possess this authority, and how this authority can be used on the public. As far as the issues go, it doesn’t specifically concern Political Philosophy. A dictator might issue a mandate enforcing a strong Civil Rights bill as much as he might issue a mandate enforcing the Bible as law. On the other hand, it might be an elected president who issues a mandate agreed upon by congress to reinstate the draft, or to invade a foreign nation, or to nationalize all industries involving food, housing, and clothing production. Political Philosophy is the question of who is in power, who has authority, and on what grounds that authority is shifted from person to person.

Before we immediately dive in to the tastey depths of Political Philosophy, creating a Utopia in our mind by using a system of checks and balances, or enlightened despots based on a certain religion, or some form of majority rules, or constitutional ethics, etc., etc. — before we jump right in to Political Philosophy to take a stand on what the ideal political state would be, or what the ideal state of mankind would be, there are some other facts that should be recognized. These facts should be recognized only insomuch that they will help guide us to creating a system of politics that will allow the greatest amount of social and political justice. The study of Political Philosophy is a sociological study, not dissimilar to economics in many respects. Much like economics, there are certain stern laws to Political Philosophy that ought to be followed. By understanding these evidenced laws, we are in a better position to make judgments about the body politic, about what is just, abotu what is unjust, etc., etc.. And, by being able to comprehend the outcome of certain actions better, we will be able to theorize a more ideal state of civilization. We’ve already recognized the principle that Political Philosophy is not a study in achieving Nazism any more than it is a study in achieving racial equality. It does not promote one social issue over another. It is the study of how conclusions to these social issues are reached.

Among these stern laws that govern the body politic of a society, there is the one that everyone differs in opinion. All throughout history, whether seperated by culture, language, race, or even era, we have found that people will disagree with each other. One tends to think that opinions become much more conformed when looking within the same society, that a low-income Chinese man in Hong Kong is more likely to agree with another low-income Chinese man in Hong Kong. When comparing this one man with, say, a low-income American man in San Francisco, opinions will differ, and probably greater if the man is from New York City, and then even greater if it is a middle-income man, and even greater still if it is a high-income man. Change the gender, the social background, the political background, the development environment from childhood, etc., etc., and the more likely you are to find yourself with a conflict of opinion. However, regardless of these statistical differences, there will always be differences of opinion. When we take two people of the very same background, even brothers of the same bood, we will find differences of opinion in such a great quality.

What is the point of observing the differences of opinion? Well, among one of the important reasons for observing this difference of opinion, it is to understand how government officials and the public will act when in conflict for each other. You cannot design a political system and define each sheriff or police officer as “having a complete and honest understanding of justice and fairness.” Nor can you design a political system in which the mayors and politicians believe in one issue over another, in Marijuana reform or in Isolationism; nor can you define the public in this political system as supporting Liberalism in every case, or opposing Communism in every case — you cannot design a political system where the thoughts of the subjects and the rulers are already in place. This is a dilemma that many political theorists are pointed to in their own designs of a perfect utopia. Some may be thinking right now that pointing out such an observation is overly obvious, overly simple, etc.. True, it is simple and it is obvious, but it is a stern law of Political Philosophy. You can argue for an enlightened despot that believes in the gospels and enacts them, but his interpretation of them might very well be different from yours. You have to understand that a society will breed, grow, die, whither, change, and alter with every passing month, and that it is the citizens, ruled and ruler, that are responsible themselves for making these changes. A political theorist, then, acts much like a parent — they can steer, but cannot control; it is their duty to instruct, not to legislate. This law of Political Philosophy of difference of opinion is just as solid as the law of competition in Economics. The fact that people will buy products and services of higher quality with lower pricing is as true as the fact that laws or social structure are incapable of creating the mentality of the people.

For example, imagine that you choose the system of enlightened despot as the ideal system for society. It might just so happen that the people are brutes, ignorant and thougthless, violent and cruel, and it is the king’s rule that protects the innocent and punishes the wicked. True, this could very well happen. However, it is just as probable that the king would be the brute, and his people would be just, and that it would be the rule of this king that would inflict so much damage upon the morale of these people. Hopefully, this example will illuminate the importance of this law of Political Philosophy.

Every study or field of interest should start with basic premises, certain provable assumptions, and perhaps even an ideology, a method of guiding towards progress. In medicine, it is the Hypocratic Oath, an agreement to never harm your patient. In chemistry, it may be the idea of aiding technology and the prosperity of society. In physics, it is to find higher truth about the philosophical nature of the universe. In history, it is to understand the truth about the events of the past, in an objective and relevant manner. Every field of study has its own ethical theorem, its own particular fascinations about philosophy, its own place in society. In Political Philosophy, the premise can be stated as follows: to create the most advanced state of human cooperation and co-involvement through theory and practice. It is a sociological science, yes, in that it observes and makes predictions about society and behavior roles of people. In sociology, the ethical theorem is to study the mechanics and dynamics of society, in order that we ourselves can be more knowledgeable, and thus able to make more-informed decisions about our actions in society. But, in Political Science, the ethical theorem is to create a utopia, or at least the closest thing accomplishable to a utopia. A utopia in this sense being defined as a method of cooperation and organization in social affairs that creates a long-lasting prosperity for everyone, justice available to all classes, and equity in the laws and contracts. How to create such a utopia, how to set certain powers or certain rights or certain privileges so that the human world becomes a better place to live, it is this study that all political philosophers have argued and bickered about for centuries. Many of them used logic based on the preceding philosophers, others of them used their own unique arguments. But, it is this field that is a study of how to improve the lives of everyone… And that is why it is a valuable study.

With this law of difference in opinion in political philosophy, we are given guidance on some of the proposed systems of government or rule. For example, we see an error in a system of an enlightened despot, whether that system goes by the title of despotism, dictatorship, monarchy, or aristocracy. Either way, it’s just as possible for the ruler to be the negative element as it is for the population to be the negative element. In fact, with the evidence that we have today, we are much more inclined to believe that the powers of authority will be in the wrong than the actions of the people be wrong. Power corrupts the best, as the phrase goes. If we know this fact, then by giving power to one person and one person only, we are allowing for corrupt power to reign. We also understand that, since the purpose of Political Science is to discover the best means for operating cooperative society, we cannot put all the power of a nation in to the hands of one person. By doing this, we are chancing the lives, liberties, and happiness of all the people in to the hands of one person, whose opinion could be of anything. This is but a simple deduction, and one of the early ones discovered in the science of Political Philosophy.

With all these bases covered, the understanding of difference of opinion, the purpose of Political Philosophy, how Political Philosophy is not a matter of discussing the social issues of the day but determining who has the power to control such issues, etc., etc., with all this covered, I think there is chance to get in depth in this study.

The interest of Political Philosophy is to uncover a method of society that will allow for the greatest prosperity. Who is in control? and In what way does this power structure operate, insofar that it effects society? are the questions asked by this noble science. When uncovering the difference of opinion law in this field, there is a new question that opens the door to hundreds of other ideologies in Political Philosophy. The question is this: in what way can the law of difference of opinion be extended? For example, are people more likely to believe one idea over another, and how universal are these inclinations? In what cultures and societies do we see these tendencies — and, are there reasons for these tendencies to exist in one culture and not within another? We might also ask whether there are particular or specific conditions responsible for people believing certain opinions over other certain opinions. There might be economic or political or social conditions that exist within a society that cause its inhabitants to fear everything they don’t comprehend, or to believe every claim made by religious authorities, or to become inhibited when it comes to expressing their will. We might also ask whether a difference exists on how these conditions effect the ruled as opposed to effecting the rulers. The opinions that people might hold, whether its reverence or irreverence for power, whether its respect or disrespect for tradition, whether it is value for truth or value for self interest, whether it is an affectionate association with dissenters or a staunch affiliation with established authorities — all of these opinions are capable of being altered (if not completed destroyed or created) by the conditions of society. We are attempting to understand all of these questions, all of these open-ended ideas, because we are interested in understanding the matter of Political Philosophy. That is to say, we are interested in knowing what organizational setup of society will best serve the interests of mankind, in pursuing justice, achieving peace, and realizing happiness.

So, then, what is the answer to all of these questions? What can be said about the inclinations of mankind towards believing one idea over another? Volumes and volumes of books have been written on the subject, by at least one million partial authors. An in depth study in to the matter is not necessary, but some guiding points could prove rather invaluable. Perhaps, expressing my ideas through analogy and example would most sufficiently prove my point. Look at the setup of the American government. There are three established branches of the US government: Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. The reason why these three branches of the United States government were chosen, that is to say, the reason why the founders of the United States government decided to create these three branches is because, in their minds, these three branches would act in a way to maximize the happiness of the people while protecting their security and liberty. What was the philosophy behind three branches? It was what our history books call a system of checks and balances. Each branch of the government was independently responsible for a certain part of administering the law. One part creates the law, one part enforces the law, and another part interprets the law; again, according to our history books. The reason why different branches are responsible for a different part of carrying out the law is so that each branch can act as a check on the other branches. Through this method, the intent of the majority of the people is more likely to be carried out than the intent of a single person whose opinions are out of line with the majority of the people. If, for example, members of the legislative branch want to turn a bill into law, and the bill will inevitably violate the rights of the people and create a greater misery, then the members of the executive branch are granted the right to veto the bill. And, if it still passes the executive branch, then there will be a situation where a person is standing in court, face to face, with a member of the judicial branch, where the law is questioned and examined. Unfortunately, our schools do not and have not ever taught why there are different branches of the government, but only how they work. Odd; it is almost as though they want people to believe in tradition and heritage, rather than believing what Rousseau professed: “…the voice of the people is in fact the voice of God.” [“A Discourse on Political Economy,” by Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1755.]

Another concept to examine is that of the constitution. In schools, we are often told how the Constitution works: it establishes rights and responsibilities of the people as well as of the government. We are not, however, told in depth the reason why we have a constitution. But, any person who is somewhat fluent in political science will be able to tell you the answer: we have a Constitution because the rulers of the people have always been so flagrant and disrespectful when it came to protecting the rights and liberties of their people. If you want to know the history of government, you will start standing on the pavement of Auschwitz in Germany and you will stop in standing on piles of skulls in South American dictatorships. You will uncover the omnipresence of secret police in nations with unstable governments; you will find people imprisoned and tortured for their beliefs about justice; you will find nuclear weapons programs started by mass murderers. This is all agreed upon by the historians as much as it is by the common man. It is just rarely talked about by the people who argue for more power for the rulers of a nation (i.e. the politicians). The reason why a constitution exists is to let the people know that they have rights that the government is not allowed to infringe upon. That is the reason why constitutions tend to be short and relatively simple — they are not speaking just to the rulers, but they are also speaking to the ruled. Essentially, they are telling the people, “You have the right to revolt and overthrow the current government when they have failed to meet these standards.” Of course, the United States government’s constitution includes what is called an “Elastic Clause” — strictly interpreted, it reads: “The American people have no rights, whether it is the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or the right to a trial, when the ruling class decides that you do not deserve these rights.” With the rights of the people defined, the purpose of the constitution is to grant a considerable amount of power to the people, or the ruled class. It tells the ruled class what they are to expect of the ruling class, and what it is expected of the ruling class.

The constitution and a branched government are both concepts of government that came about during the Enlightenment. As far as human civilization is considered, they are relatively early concepts. Consider some of the other, earlier concepts that were used in the processes of government. The courtroom, for instance, was created so that the grievances of the people could be heard by a figure that has authority to redress such complaints. The right to petition and freedom of speech is so that the rulers are capable of understanding the injustices done to the ruled class. All of these simple concepts are a part of all just governments because they allow people of different opinions to come together and express with each other the reasons for disagreement. Yes, in a courtroom, the judge ultimately has the right to throw away the rights of any who come to him — but without any judges, then the ruling class would never directly hear the difficulties of the ruled class. Without the right to petition or the right to freedom of speech, people could never come together in order to advance their cause. All of these rights and freedoms that the governments granted to their people (never out of their own accord, but out of the insurrection of their own people), all of these liberties exist for the sole sake of people having a greater leverage in the policy-making pocess. The right to life, to liberty, to happiness, to a trial by peers and the right to escape unusual punishment, all of this is granted to the people for two reasons and two reasons only: (1) that the ruled people can have a voice in the politics of the government, and (2) that the ruled people are living in a society that is organized to take into account their happiness.

Ultimately, the difference between the ruling class and the ruled class is very simple: it is a matter of knowledge and information. When the ruling class grants itself full custody of controlling the flow of information, it seriously debilitates the ability of the people to defend their own rights. The conclusion that can be made is this: when the government and the leaders of the world control the information, they will make sure that the people are only fed knowledge that reinforces the will of the ruling class. For this reason, and mostly for this reason, every person who supports Democracy, Anarchism, Libertarianism, and every other philosophy that enforces the rights of the people over the rights of the rulers, we must always stress the right to freedom of information. Every censorship law, whether it is founded on the principle of defending the population from indecency or whether it is simply protecting the prejudices of the people (both are the same) — regardless, all censorship laws simply work to debilitate the will of the people. When a member of the ruling class argues, “The people have no right to the books or pamphlets of the Anarchists. They have no right to hear the arguments of Communists or Socialists,” when the ruling class argues this, as they have done in the past, are they arguing for the rights of the people, or the rights of themselves? Are they honestly trying to advance their own nation, their people, and their culture, or are they interested in advancing their own interests? Do they want to rule indefinitely, taking the advantages that come with such rule, or do they really believe their people are better off being deaf, blind, and voiceless? All information and voices must be free.

These are all things that must be taken in to consideration. They must be considered by all people who are genuinely interested in creating a better society, in creating a world in which the will of the people is the direct creator of social conditions. Ultimately, we come to the final question of political science, the one question that has almost been deemed a quandary. This is the question of political science that few political theorists offer solutions to: what is to be done when the will of the ruling class violates the will of the ruled class? To Anarchists, the answer is simple: the ruling class has no right to violate the rule of the collective people. But, if we advance that argument further, we have this next question: what does one person do when his will is to violate the will of the majority? What if, for example, a person desires to drink alcohol or smoke Marijuana, when these practices have been banned by the majority of the public? What if a person is interested in cross-dressing, homosexuality, injecting heroin, reading illegal books, or anything else that a majority might make illegal? Well, the greatest argument behind Anarchism and Democracy is this: when the will of all people, average and otherwise, is what determines social policy, then we are more likely to be living in a society that is just and in line with equity. When the will of a one person, or a small amount of people, is what determines social policy, then we will find ourselves living in a society full of persecution, violence, and injustice. But, it is always possible (at least, every political theorist will argue), it is always possible that a true Democracy will ban a practice that is generally harmless and in sync with our own beliefs.

What is it that I mean by that last statement? What I mean is this: it is possible that one day, we will reach a state of civilization where laws are determined by the genuine will of the people. A bill will never become law when it violates the desires of the people. And, in this society, it is possible that a bill becomes law when it violates the will of a single person. Perhaps the majority of a population is interested in keeping Communist literature illegal, while a certain minority is interested in reading such books. Maybe it’s not even just to “familiarize ourselves with our own beliefs,” but rather, it’s a few people who want to become well-rounded and to hear the arguments of every side of an issue. As a far as any valid system of ethics goes, there is justice in the idea of Freethought, of exploring and discovering foreign ideas. What is to be done when a society, even if it is an Anarchist society governed by the will of the people — what is to be done in this society when the right to Freethought is violated without any justice or reverence for goodness. It seems to be the greatest question at hand, asked by every political philosophy, reasoned by some, and finally argued over and over by certain thinkers. In what way can we create a social process so that certain individuals are capable of escaping such persecution? Can we create a committee for personal rights violations? Can we create a department for public education principles based on philosophy and free ideas? What alteration can be added to the organizational setup of a society so that the majority does not violate the rights of the minority? This has always been the final question that so many political philosophers could never answer.

The reason why political philosophers could never answer this question is quite simple. The answer they sought out was a political answer. Political philosophers are men of systems, of protocols, of organizational setup. They wanted to a create a self-contained power system. They wanted to create a system for society where the will of the majority was enacted without violating the innate rights of the private sector. However, in between their constitutions and their branched government, their systems of checks and balances and their systems of rights of the rulers versus the rights of the ruled — in between everything created by political theorists to further advance the ends of justice, in between all of this, it seems that every attempt to master a system of justice has always fallen short. It has always fallen short because it is possible that a democratic collective could outlaw an activity that was both completely harmless and completely necessary to a certain minority.

The answer to a just society that outlaws a just activity is amazingly simple and might surprise a few political theorists. It is thus: crime is necessary in any just society. That is to say, the violation of chosen laws and policy is necessary for any society to find itself closer to the ideal of justice. It is true that Martin Luther King violated certain laws and regulations in order to broadcast the plight of his people. And it is true that Harriet Tubman violated property laws when freeing slaves from the south. It is true that a great deal of legislation was violated in order to attain a greater sense of justice to the people of any nation. This is not what I am arguing for. These people who violated the law so that their voices were heard were arguing for a greater sense of Democracy. They didn’t want to create a lawless society necessarily — they wanted to create a lawful society in which the laws expressed their direct will. To quote Martin Luther King Jr. himself…

Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. [“Letter From a Birmingham Jail,” written while in jail by Martin Luther King Jr, 1963. Quoted from The Portable Sixties Reader, edited by Ann Charters, a Penguin Classics, page 29.]

If one further investigated the grievances of the Civil Rights Movement, one would discover that they wanted every person to have an equal voice in government. Their cause was not about violating the law; it was about changing the law so that every person’s opinion was considered in choosing what was enforced and what was not enforced. My argument is thus: crime is necessary to the sustenance of any just Democracy. When every voice is considered in creating the law, when every person’s opinion is valued in deciding what shall become standard and what shall become illegal, the violation of these laws is necessary towards creating a just society. This may seem illogical, but when a just Democracy outlaws something like Marijuana or alcohol or literature or speech, then violating the law becomes the only logical action.

Consider the laws, for example, that were made by the government’s forefathers. There are laws that prohibit search and seizure. There are laws that prohibit the government from violating your rights of a private and secure life. There are laws that prevent the government from investigating (to an unreasonable degree) the daily processes of your existence. If the government was truly concerned with upholding the law in every way possible, then these laws that protect your private life wouldn’t exist. They would have been overrun. I suspect that the only reason why laws exist to protect you from the government’s “unreasonable” actions is to uphold the rights of the people to commit crimes. If this is doubtful, then examine the court records of any trial. You will find police officers discovering pounds upon pounds of cocaine, and this evidence won’t be allowed in court, simply because there was no search warrant. You will crimes such as Possession of a Controlled Substance, Distribution of Subversive Literature, Thought Crimes, etc., etc., and the evidence is thrown out a great deal of the time simply because the police failed to follow proper procedure.

The reason why these laws and regulations exist, when these laws simply defend and protect criminals, is for a very simple fact: when criminals, or violators of laws, exist and do not disrupt the process of society, then there is a serious problem with the law. If the law prohibits women from speaking their opinion, and district attorneys try to prosecute women for organizing themselves, the reason why it will be so difficult to prosecute is because there are so many constitutional policies that inhibit investigation. Imagine, for instance, if it a police squad raided a home and found a drug den, with over a million doses of LSD and at least one hundred pounds of Marijuana. The entire raid was videotaped by third parties. When raided, suspects were discovered using these drugs, and it was entirely caught on videotape. There are so many reasons here to believe that the suspects are guilty of committing these crimes; there is evidence upon evidence upon evidence to prove that these people are responsible for committing these crimes. But, once at trial, it is discovered that a search warrant never existed. And, as far as legal policy is concerned, that means that all evidence that came to light from the raid is now void and no longer admissible.

True, there definitely exists a reason for these laws besides protecting criminals. These laws exist for the sake of protecting the public from unjust government intrusion. Imagine if the police of the district attorney were allowed entrance in to any private domicile, and if the evidence of any such entrance were admissible in to court. The police would be raiding any potential suspect’s home in search of evidence, simply because they were outside the realm of responsibility. But, that considered, there are still many policies incorporated in to our own government and many other governments that grant criminals a great deal of rights. The reason why there are so many rights for the accused, whether it is the right to a lawyer, or the right to remain silent (best policy if you’re being arrested), or the right to interrogation without torture, or the right to a trial by peers, all of this — one of the reasons why these rights exist is not only to protect the public from unjust government involvement, but to protect the minority from the unfair laws of the majority. District attorneys, detectives, police departments — all of them constantly moan and groan about how the constitution and other government policies are responsible for the release of so-called terrorists, drug-runners, drug dealers, and so many others that express the will of a just minority. If you ask any die-hard conservatives, they will tell you that the police should be granted the right to search and seize anything they want, that the rights of the people are nothing when compared to the rights of their government. When an honest person decides to consider every position and weigh every opinion, they will come to a very simple and elegant conclusion: crime is necessary to the free flow of any society. When a crime does not throw any society off

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Matter of Political Philosophy