This chapter contains controversial issues and recommendations that best represent the personal empowerment concepts of Destiny. Unfortunately, some people in positions of power in government and its ancillary activities will be more than irritated by the discussions. Some decades ago, I would not have been concerned about freedom of speech in the USA. Today, there is a law in place that allows for expedient interpretation of purpose as treason. I am saddened that I may be at risk of being accused of treason, for treason is certainly not my intent. I am, as honestly as I can, identifying societal problems and providing my best ideas for their solution, but I cannot soften my words and remain intellectually honest. I must and will risk my freedom in the name of freedom for all of us. Let us begin.

Before one can discuss responsibilities of governments, it is necessary to define them. In short, a governmental body is a specialized group of elected or appointed people whose purpose is to provide protective and infrastructure services that individuals need but cannot readily provide for themselves. The military and the development of the interstate highway system are two obvious examples. Thus, the concept is one of efficiency, based on the belief that a large body of individuals can rely on the specialized group to know and to act on those opportunities that will protect them or improve the common good. Therefore, humans agree to be governed and to support the physical needs of the governing people, in the belief that those governments will fulfill their intended purpose.

Based on the historical experience of virtually all civilizations and cultures, the above definition is too optimistic, perhaps foolishly naïve. Realization of defined ideals requires committed yet practical idealists who remain focused on the common good, not on ruling or parenting. That is not our experience in the USA or elsewhere, currently or earlier in history. Still, too much has been written about the abuse of power by individuals and governments, however true those writings may be, for we have lacked solutions to most of the identified problems.

For better or for worse, our successive governments in the USA in the 20th century have kept their fundamental promise to protect us from external military attack. They have also contained domestic unrest such that most of us do not have to fear a life as it was some decades ago in Beirut, or more recently, Bosnia. Government programs like the creation of NASA and funding of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta are strong indications that our federal government can be, and sometimes is, most effective in promoting our advancement and wellbeing. Therefore, it is necessary to have a balanced view of both good and harmful results from our past and present governments.

The Destiny comments on Government are complex and they cover a wide range of topics. For that reason, this chapter is broken into parts to assist overall understanding. We will look at the trees first, and then see if we can get the perspective of the forest.

Part I - Governments for Better or for Worse

We do need governments and we are responsible for limiting or directing the domain of their endeavors and the application of their power. This is perhaps the most common oversight of ordinary citizens, for it is easy to forget that you need to exercise that right, or that you even have the legal right to force change. When a democracy is allowed to degenerate to reflect primarily the wants of the wealthy, or of any other minority group, it means the ordinary citizens have given up their birthright. Even if they participate in the voting process, and too few of us do. This comes from citizen ignorance, however that is allowed to happen, brought about intentionally and/or maintained.

For example, our schools teach our children to honor the founders of the USA federal government, in keeping with our Human Condition practice of irrationally adulating people from the past. Other than students of history or political science, how many of us realize we carry a personal insult with us each time we carry a $10 bill? Alexander Hamilton, promoted in children's history classes as one of the good guys, was a very strong believer in the stupidity and unreliability of the common man. His views of governing would provoke strong negative response if ordinary citizens were aware of the legacy of Hamiltonian political philosophy today in our present federal government.

We also teach our children that it was honorable for us to revolt against the government of Great Britain when we were a part of the British colonial empire. They were the designated bad guys. We referred to their oppressive behaviors as tyranny, e.g., taxation without representation. We also teach that it is treason to revolt or demonstrably work against the interests of the current USA government, outside the controlled voting process available to us via the government. That means our government was and is exempt from tyrannical behaviors because we can change it through our votes. Do you believe that is practical when we are ignorant and/or misled? Is it treason to question our regressive evolution by focusing national attention on the applied stupidity of some of our leaders in any non-violent format?

At a practical level, the inconsistency of logic posed above regarding treason is seen as necessary by governments to avoid anarchy and provide stability. Do realize, however, that human rights as addressed by our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights and the various constitutional amendments are not a constant. They are "interpreted" to provide political expediency for the ruling people at each moment in our history. If you study the decisions of former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, you will recognize that this famous person was certainly no friend of the ordinary citizens. He was a first class example of the practice of expedient interpretation of law to benefit the wealthy and oppress the weak.

The early ideas of our founders are utterly dated, for they could not foresee our evolution in any but the most general terms. That is, of course, the curse of generality and the later weakness of having a static view of life. The founders did, however, perform an incredibly fine job in defining values for our nation when it was new. Some, perhaps most, of their concepts are still relevant. But the realization of their stated intent has been sadly mutated into oppressive control, at least from the perspective of the common citizen. We have evolved in accordance with the earlier statements about government in the foibles discussions, i.e. regressive evolution.

Part II - Politics: The Control Craft

As a strategic matter, it is normal for the members of any government to assure their permanency by whatever means are practical. Note that I said practical, not ethical. We all want to be secure and we frequently have very high opinions, warranted or not, about our importance. Why should individuals in government be expected to be different? More to the point, if politicians are convinced of their right to be leaders, based on their own assessment of their intelligence and the rightness of their opinions, what motive do they have to listen to the general population? Ah, yes, polls and elections. The promises presented to the public are what the public wants to hear, based on what they have been told are great problems or opportunities. Need I say more? Beyond election time exposure, politicians find that they are usually free to do as they choose in the execution of their responsibilities, limited only by the governmental hierarchy within which they exist and from which they draw legislative support. The citizenry is not trained to understand that their rights and responsibilities do not end with the voting process. And it is reasonable to expect regressive evolution in government in a stepwise process that gradually but ultimately undermines the primary goal of democracy, which is the power of the citizens to create and ensure better lives for all. You are disempowered. You do not participate.

As a tactical matter, a politician must assure that the constituency is mollified by grants or visible "government funded" projects, or, that there is some bogeyman, like crime or drugs, causing their problems that the politician is fighting valiantly and regularly. These are seen as necessary diversion tactics to keep the ordinary folk from interfering with the processes of government. And they are used regularly to keep the public uninformed about implications of actual pending legislation that could in fact become controversial if citizens became fully aware in time to impact congressional voting. Thus, representative democracy in the USA operates, at a practical level, in a "fait accompli" mode. We unwittingly allow that practice to continue. Can you imagine the congressional hilarity that would greet any representative or senator who would regularly entertain discussing current issues candidly with the entire constituency and taking direction from them for voting purposes?

Part III - Limiting and Directing Government Power

The primary responsibility of government is to ensure a physically secure environment for the citizenry so that Destiny can be pursued without the destructive results of war, famine, etc. It is not the responsibility or privilege of any government to impede efforts to achieve Destiny through legislation, i.e. laws that limit or discourage developmental human endeavor. Imagine the impact of a sunset law that would require re-passage of all legislation every ten or twenty years. What would happen if we had to re-examine all of the laws passed by earlier generations and have, in a pure, temporary, rather than representative democracy, to continue to have a solid majority of yeas for a law to continue to affect our lives? That is one example of true distributed power. It is also the way to avoid having the past views of societies unnecessarily affect the present and thus the future. The precedent for popular vote on legislative issues has already been set via the Proposition processes of California and Arizona. There is nothing treasonous or otherwise illegal in extending that process to federal legislation, and we must, in the name of our own enlightened self-interest. We must also learn to execute that right responsibly and intelligently.

Our global experience is that government has increasingly dominated individual lives through the legislative process. Think about the sheer number of laws that exist today relative to 50 years ago, and ask yourself if you are so deficient in your decision making processes to require all the laws and enforcement agencies directed, presumably, at keeping you from hurting yourself and others? Should laws that reflect the competence levels of our weakest or our "lowest common denominator" citizens affect the entire population? Does the collection and re-distribution of a third (perhaps more accurately 38%) of your earned income provide results that you can trust and respect? Are you empowered to exercise your constitutional rights or are you diminished by dissembling and fear of retribution? Are we learning values, relevant facts and means to self-manage with each coming generation, so as not to need a government as a parent? Why not?

The essential issues are performance of the government within its assigned areas of responsibility, and a practical system of checks and balances to avoid abuse of power. No constitution has value except at the action level so you must look at actual performance, not theory. You must look outside your own experiences, for most of us experience only a tiny part of what occurs around us, and our perceptions are thus limited by our experience, and hardly aided by the media.

Perhaps an examination of performance is appropriate by historical example. Note that Genghis' troops could trust him to deliver what they sought, regardless of what we think of his methods. Thus, he had their respect. Note in particular that respect is an earned form of admiration based on an individual's performance, not a matter of a person's job title. The job does not make decisions; they are made only by the individual. Decisions that lead to perceived progress lead to respect, while decisions that impede progress deserve, and should receive, ridicule, regardless of the position of the individual in the social or political power hierarchy. Only a blind fool respects "the job." Only superb performance entitles a politician to be addressed as esteemed or honorable, privately or in public.

A counter argument is found in operating a military force, where individual will is necessarily subordinated in a strict hierarchical environment to produce efficiency. One does not want each soldier making independent decisions as to where he/she will be and what he/she will do. The problem, of course, is that our government leaders have historically extrapolated the military necessity to everyday life for the common citizens. The military view of life is essential to military effectiveness, but it is absolute poison to a freethinking democracy. Failure to grasp that point is why governments which are responsible for our physical security, evolve into organizations that crush freedom.

When you review the legislation of the past 50 years and it's impact on your development, consider what levels of trust and respect are actually appropriate. Thus, in a significant departure from the past, it is essential to refine and reform governmental responsibility to confine legislative domain and process. That needs to be accompanied by a repeal of a majority of the laws currently in effect in the USA, which in actuality serve only special interest groups and those in business and government who choose to control the population.

Thoreau wrote that "I heartily accept the motto - the best government is the one that governs least." How true! So one responsibility of government today is to learn how to empower us, do it, and then get out of the way. For example, has the collection and redistribution of a third (and more) of our earned income in the form of taxes efficiently aided Destiny goals? Have laws, criminal justice systems, and severe punishments had any lasting, positive effect at all on the commission of crimes? Can you actually believe that each generation of humans has a certain percentage of "bad" people?

Uh, oh. Do you recall the discussion of the emotional communication style in the Foibles chapter? It seems that I am now venting my frustration with current realities that I do not like or support. Please be patient with my, umm... vigor.

Part IV - The Best of Intentions go Awry

Both the prejudicial laws we pass in legislatures and the symptoms they appear to address as fundamental human behavior problems are way off the mark. We are simply acting irrationally and reactively in our attempts to control problems we do not understand or otherwise think we can solve. Individually, we are allowing our frustration with personal economic failures and destabilized lives to influence us to identify and punish scapegoats through our legislatures, our criminal courts, and our comical and sad civil and family courts.

Do you understand the unwanted outcomes that result and the negative impact on progress when governments interfere with our lives via socialism? If you are willing to be adult in your thinking then you will be unwilling to have your government perform in a parental role. Do you need to be told how you must interact with others by a government? Are not your parents and yourself responsible for development of your early values, your teachers for expanding your knowledge, and you for your later behaviors? Are you not entitled to make virtually all the decisions regarding your personal actions, provided they do not directly affect or impede the freedom of others to do the same? Do you understand the golden rule? Do you recall an old American belief in minding one's own business? Is there a government analogue?

Government must be downsized in concept of role as well as budget. Physical national infrastructure, education, including research, security from external and internal physical threat and limited international relations are about all that government should manage. Oh, yes, let us remember protection from monopolies. All of those functions should be executed exceptionally well. Lobbying, as we know it today, should be altered radically to legally require the presence of opposing sides on any controversial issue in order to gain an audience with a senator or representative.

Entitlement programs have nearly destroyed us financially because legislators have lacked the wit and the conscience to stop going into massive debt for over 30 years. It is now long past the time for government to get out of that area of socialism, except for education. Recognize that a knowledge based society can contribute to the present and the future, while the ignorant and elderly cannot. Chasing votes through entitlement programs has resulted in large populations of non-contributors, actually and in terms of attitudes and expectations, and entitlement programs have bled our national financial resources, and thus decimated our commitments to research, education and national physical infrastructure.

Most of us alive today are aware of the 19th and 20th century changes in government in most developed nations that have moved us away from feudal monarchies and raw capitalism to socialism. Starting with Kaiser Wilhelm's version of social security, before World War I, we have embarked on a path where governments have taken an ever-larger role in managing the lives of individuals. Today, we see that the most notable and productive effort, that of the Soviet Union, failed.

The fundamental problem with socialism, and its cousin communism, is that it extrapolates the necessary beliefs and behaviors for successful family life into the larger domain of a nation. Note that the concept of "From each, according to their abilities, and to each, according to their needs" (Karl Marx, The German Ideology) is the model for successful family life. Show me a family that does not operate according to that concept and I will show you a failed family.

Yet, when we attempt to extrapolate that essential family social system across a nation, it fails. The reasons are many, but at the deepest level, individuals make it fail once they realize that idealized behaviors on their part do not lead to individual success except for the top of the ruling hierarchy. This makes communism, socialism, fascism, and democracy, et al., rather similar in results, except that communism and extreme socialism also stifle economic development based on personal ability and motivation. When you stifle economic development, most everyone suffers, which is why democracy/capitalism is touted today as the best system. This is the reason why China has been a huge non-contributor to human advancement in this century, while numerous emigrated Chinese have been high contributors. This is the reason why Russia, after the economic failure of many decades of rampant communism, is having such a difficult time "growing up."

Of course, our various systems of government are not particularly good once real people in government make real mistakes in interpreting their constitutions as they apply to daily life for the citizens. Even our best-intentioned efforts to share the largess of society across all of the society have failed, not because of motivation, but because of a fundamental lack of understanding on the part of our elected leaders and our voting public regarding the Human Condition.

Part V - Inappropriate Endeavors and Misunderstandings

We have major foibles. We have inherited limitations that cannot be addressed successfully by any past or present political process for income redistribution or job rights. To expect politics to address our inherited limitations successfully is the same as expecting aspirin to cure cancer, and, as we know, too much aspirin is fatal. We are left with the stunning conclusion that the best we can do with politics is to contain the damage wrought by large and sometimes unintentionally oppressive governments.

It is well known in science that the observer cannot both be acted upon by an experiment and simultaneously provide objective observations about the experiment. Einstein's theory of relativity provided useful examples of that truth (the clock example). We persist, however, in believing that we can operate governments and our society from an idealized set of conditions of intent and produce reliable and effective results. We do not, and cannot, up to now.

Enlightened behavior is not something that congressional idealists can disseminate across a large population via legislation. Enlightened behavior is an individual experience based on broad knowledge and development of positive values. Ever increasing numbers of laws and more powerful enforcement agencies are the obvious signs of failure to grasp that essential point. We have experienced 50+ years of general societal regression in the USA at the same time we have experienced vast technological growth. The solution to the regression problem will be found, outside the law, when we accept that our people must be meaningful to their own Destiny.

Part VI - Our Legal Systems

Let our laws reflect the more timeless and meaningful concepts; for example, the "golden rule." Consider, for example, that there is only one kind of crime. It is most aptly named assault. Any harmful activity on the part of an individual or group or institution, including government, is an assault on one or more people. A simple list of ten levels of assault, with murder as the highest level, could replace all of our state and federal laws that define crime in twisted detail. Note also that our laws fail entirely to recognize assault as it exists in the workplace, where individuals can and do effectively and legally undermine each other's careers. Consider also the larger domain, where industry can poison people by careless or thoughtless manufacturing processes or waste disposal. Finally, consider the government domain, where organizations like the FBI, ATF and CIA are used for "dirty tricks."

The degree to which an individual is harmed by another's considered assault could become the basis for restitution, in which the harmed individual(s) chooses a sentence based on a rigid menu of allowed actions that lead to rational restitution. Note that there are some crimes, like murder, that do not have a logical form of restitution. In those instances, the court must select the nature of the sentence, for the victim cannot. Note also that government functionaries must become liable for civil and/or criminal prosecution when they engage in assault on private citizens. For instance, when a convicted murderer serves ten years in prison and is then found to be innocent, is it not obvious that the government that incarcerated that individual is liable for civil penalties to replace the prisoner's lost income and lost living time? When a criminal suspect is beaten to obtain a confession, is that not grounds to arrest and incarcerate the offending police officers? Perhaps you are aware of the laws that keep our court systems and their operatives exempt from well deserved civil prosecution. How would you like to have a comprehensive solution to the varieties of injustice identified above? Well, read on.

There is no need for a system of courts, lawyers, juries, etc., even remotely like the systems in place today. It is well known by technical experts that lie detectors used in combination with drugs can be used with total effectiveness to determine the guilt of any individual for any given crime. Polygraphs, the current term, is a euphemism, which while technically accurate does not capture the real intent of these devices, which is to discover lies about commission of crimes. Lie detectors can be used to test the veracity of people who accuse others of crimes without physical evidence, or with planted physical evidence. If you doubt that, then consider how our federal government and numerous businesses use lie detectors for applicants for high security jobs.

Do you think the employers are ignorant regarding lie detector test reliability? The stories about individuals learning to fool lie detectors, or using drugs to attenuate their responses, are mostly bunk. Blood or urine testing for use of drugs of the tranquilizer type would be rather easy and effective if used in combination with other physiological/psychological responsiveness testing. Our more advanced "truth drugs," known to the CIA and other federal organizations, could be used most effectively to enhance physiological response, as well as to reduce psychological resistance. Anyone can have their knowledge of criminal events vacuumed for legitimate legal use, including psychopaths. In so-called intelligence operations, like the CIA, operatives know this process under the name brainwashing. It works, and it does not require physical torture.

Some perceptive readers will counter the above proposal by noting that innocence would be falsely apparent if a criminal consumed a drug that produced temporary or permanent amnesia before or after the commission of a crime. Aside from the fact that such drugs may be detectable, the event of amnesia is a telling truth in itself, for the individual would have no memory of doing anything in the questioned time period. What about implanted memories? The process of memory implant itself is remembered. We do not forget what happened to us, we simply block our memories, which is why drugs to reduce psychological resistance and enhance physiological response will work. An individual subjected to this type of testing will certainly have other life experiences explored to establish character traits and general behaviors, and memory of events that led up to the time when the crime was committed.

Have you ever wondered whose purposes have been served best by excluding the use of lie detector results in the courtroom? Certainly not the public purpose, which is to protect us from criminals and from wrong accusations.

Proof of guilt or innocence by drug enhanced lie detector tests is simple, and, inexpensive. Refusal to take the test is a guilty plea. Our law enforcement agencies could save much effort and frustration if that process became standard procedure. A simple law that requires an individual to submit to that test environment in the company of legal and medical advocates is the answer to our outdated practice of trial by jury. That holdover from our past has become an unreliable and unnecessary farce, due both to the limited functioning capabilities of the actual jurors and the legalized deceptions of them. For example, consider evidence exclusion, so-called expert witnesses, and attitudinal posturing to evoke emotional response instead of rational thought, etc., by defense and prosecution alike. Both sides, and the legislatures behind them, are guilty of massive deception of simple people. And make no mistake, our juries are composed primarily of well intentioned but simple people who reflect the lowest common denominator of our population, which is poorly educated and not trained in objective thinking. They are known to make decisions on an emotional basis, not on demonstrated factual proof.

Simply recall the outcomes of the O.J. Simpson murder trial and the original McMartin day care center sexual abuse trial and you will recognize two horrible examples with opposite results that demonstrate that manipulation and not fact are the primary characteristics of our legal systems. Juries voted wrongly from their emotions, not from demonstrated facts. You might also consider the outcome of the initial hearings of the police officers involved in the Rodney King beating. They were chastised mildly. That is the criminal justice system in action. It is pathetic and not deserving of perpetuation or respect in its present form. It has "legally" evolved into a warped psychological game with strong political overtones. It does not rationally determine actual guilt or innocence, and it is a playground for exploiting prejudice and ignorance, with predictably bad results. And as much as this author rails against the media for their role in distorting information, it was only because of the uncontrolled use of the media, that all of us could see, live, the travesties in the Simpson trial and the absurdity of having a conclusive video ignored, re the Rodney King beating. It is too bad we could not see the original McMartin trial to observe how poorly our "peers" dealt with accusation and insinuation instead of proven facts.

Let us remember that the whole point of our trial by jury system was to use the best means we had, hundreds of years ago, to assess the veracity of any witness or defendant at a trial. The objective was simply to determine guilt or innocence, based on the believability of those giving testimony and the presence of hard or circumstantial evidence, if it existed, and that objective has not changed. Our means to realize that objective reliably have changed, if we are willing to use them.

This also means we citizens are the hapless victims of our legal systems, financially and in efficacy of results, as illustrated in the examples discussed above. We fail to become outraged because most of us do not appear as defendants, so we are willing to take the established methods for granted, never assuming that we might one day be on the receiving end of that system. Also, as jurors, we have a built-in bias or belief in our objectivity, our ability to assess the character of other people, and we also like the power of decision re the fate of other people, for seldom do we get the opportunity to exercise real power. If we approach our jury assignment with an unconscious agenda, e.g., personal economic or marital strife, feelings of oppression or memory of being a victim, will we be objective? If we see idealized results in television shows or movies, do they not irrationally convince us that "the system" works?

It is essential also to redefine what activities are crimes. For example, drug users are pitiful, but imprisoning them for possession of drugs is cruel and expensive. More to the point, the law does not address "why" those individuals would choose drug use as a way of life. Or the fact that prison will not alter their life view in any positive way, i.e. better prepare them to participate in society. Our most successful efforts in addict rehabilitation are the live-in houses that require occupants to hold outside jobs and to be continuously monitored during their treatment program to reestablish values and good living practices. More examples of foolish and harmful laws will be discussed later in the Topics for Action chapter.

It is equally important to revamp the concept of prison to become controlled, productive labor, with earned income, which would be used to cover the cost of the system, the restitution to assaulted victims and to the maintenance of the prisoner's dependents. Those dependents are in fact additional, innocent, economic and emotional victims as a result of using our current laws. Length of sentence and living conditions during the sentence should be directly impacted by the criminal satisfying the condition of restitution. Failure to cooperate means a life sentence in marginal living conditions.

The price of freedom is responsible behavior. When freedom is again earned, the debt is erased, i.e. there is no criminal record. If that thought is difficult to accept, consider the consequences of permanently denying an individual complete opportunity to succeed legitimately or even vote. Recidivism of one form or another is virtually guaranteed and caused, to a major extent, by our current laws, cultural and business practices regarding education, voting rights and employment of people convicted at some point in their life of a crime; i.e. any thing that any legislature, anywhere, anytime, decides to define as a felony.

Earlier remarks about the use of drugs and lie detectors apply equally well to our civil courts. Lawsuits brought by individuals and businesses could also be addressed very effectively by requiring the parties to submit, sequentially, to extensive drug enhanced lie detector testing to determine if either party should even be allowed to take court time to sue or to defend. How many lawsuits would we have if the "skeletons" in each person's closet were guaranteed to be exposed? The assumption of victim status associated with individuals who file civil suits, normally called plaintiffs, will be rectified by that approach, rather abruptly. Simply consider the cost of your automobile insurance and the size of punitive awards granted to the best plaintiff/actors in the courtroom. We are punishing ourselves, not the poor drivers or the big insurance companies.

Where are our laws and lawyers useful to the progression of society? Quite simply, we need laws to define fair and consistent human interactions in business and personal endeavors. Laws and lawyers do help us with rights to property and in assuring that our business interactions and personal responsibilities are met regarding ethical behavior, tax obligations and impact on our environment. They look beyond our limited understanding of allowed or disallowed practices to assure that our individual ignorance does not destroy or undermine our society or us. Yes, we do need lawyers. We must avoid negative overgeneralization about lawyers that results from the disreputable behaviors of some of them in our criminal and civil courts.

In summary, the legacy of government, as seen in our criminal and civil laws and our courts, is mostly a confused and unnecessary mess. We are as children who have become increasingly soiled making mud pies, but we do not have a mother to bathe us and dress us in clean clothes. We actually must undo the complex problems we have created, while keeping the body of society in operation. In addition, we must focus more on the real causes and solutions regarding assault. This means learning to understand human frustration and the need to feel meaningful, relevant and good about life without resorting to assault or self-destructive behaviors.

Part VII - Dynamics of Government and Citizen Interaction

Government does have a responsibility to protect citizens from harm. Sources of harm are external, as represented by military or economic invasion or the cocaine and heroin drug trade, and internal, as represented by organized crime, the PCP, prescription tranquilizer (e.g., Quaaludes), LSD and Methamphetamine drug trade, and harmful behaviors by gangs and individuals. All of these sources of harm disempower us in the pursuit of our happiness, and we are foolish if we do not see the necessity of supporting our governments strongly in those areas. But, as illustrated earlier in the FBI example, when our governments or police agencies trample our individual rights to protect ourselves in the process of trying to control threats to our security, then the entire process falls apart. That is because our disempowerment to help solve our own problems results in a citizenry that wants no responsibility for those same problems.

I cannot be responsible for that which I cannot control. If I have power vested in me to address sources of harm effectively, I will so do, to the best of my abilities. If I do not, I will not. This is the critical juncture between theory and practice of power in government. Individuals need responsive governments and governments need responsive citizens. In short, we must simultaneously demand the preservation of our individual rights to protect our communities and ourselves, while being wholly committed to our governments in the elimination of major, real threats to our security. This means that the real identification and elimination of sources of harm must be a joint effort that relies on the instinctual, individual need for security. That is not our current status.

We cannot expect any designated government agency to be effective when we live in a we vs. they environment. That environment is pervasive within the USA, and for easily understood reasons. It is not, for instance, in Switzerland, where citizens are required by law to own guns and empowered to make what we used to call a citizen's arrest. Even the most superficial examination of human nature explains why this is true, and in particular why centralization of power at the expense of individual power and responsibility results in a disconnected and apathetic society.

Our experiences in the USA with mind altering drugs provide a rich source of errors for discussion and correction. The essential reason that any individual consumes a mind-altering drug is that the individual wants to feel good about life. The implication is that any deep source of frustration that the individual cannot reasonably overcome by other means, according to their own definitions and sense of power to change their circumstances, results in an individual primed for the use of mind altering drugs, including alcohol. Even our use of tobacco results from our frustrations. Our questionable eating habits are an obvious sign of the same problem. We are fat because we seek relief from frustration through the enjoyment of eating. Thus, it is not necessary to look at drugs of any form in a scientific way to understand that humans respond to deep frustration in whatever way they find to be effective. The degree of frustration and feelings of helplessness determine the risk levels individuals are willing to take to feel good.

Our educational programs related to drugs, alcohol and tobacco, which stress the damage done by habitual use, are fundamentally ineffective because they do not address the real issue identified above. We deal with symptoms after the fact, not root causes. Knowing the possible consequences of our actions is not enough. Seeing those consequences in terms of other peoples' destroyed lives does not change us either. Present laws that presume to control our behaviors regarding drugs are laughable, in that we have full knowledge of the history of Prohibition and how it did not keep alcohol out of any community where a significant percentage of the citizens wanted to drink. Education and laws work only when the citizenry has alternate or better means to accomplish the original objective, which is to feel good. This is a real cause for concern. Guess who, on a per capita basis, consumes the most mind altering drugs?

We need neither positive nor negative reinforcement to do that which we believe useful to our wellbeing. Ditto the avoidance of that which we believe harmful to our wellbeing. So when we find major societal problems like mind-altering drugs affecting the very structure and progression of our society, it is time to acknowledge what is actually going on and to act on that problem, not its symptoms. We do need the help of our government, not to mention our businesses, in that endeavor. The drug issue is not simply a matter of character flaws or individual foibles. Religions have nothing to say of value either, for drug use is not a willful behavior in and of itself until the individual is "hooked" through repeated use. It all starts with feelings of disempowerment, whether a person is born in a ghetto or into a financially secure environment. Welcome to socialism, inferior education, dicey job security and irrelevant media. No power equals no progress.

We do need our governments and our businesses to support Destiny concepts in order to empower individuals to have meaningful lives. That means we can overcome the frustrations that lead to all forms of substance abuse, from heroin to French fries. We cannot make real progress, however, until we are honest about cause and effect and take the steps necessary to make individuals feel meaningful. What will you do to effect this change?

Part VIII - Our House and Our Back Yard

I originally ended this chapter with the above challenge. Since then, another set of violent events took place with the bombing of the USA Embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. I realized that the discussion of responsibilities of government lacked an essential component. We need to understand the rage and subsequent violence on the part of citizens against their government, against other governments and against total strangers.

The USA has no special place in history in that subject area. Apart from serious racial problems, the USA has experienced assassinations of important political figures and the bombing in Oklahoma City. In addition, the USA has had a variety of serial killers, and the Unabomber. Look at the years of bombings and other killings in Ireland and in Great Britain. Think of Pan Am flight 103, and the terrorist attack on Israeli athletes in Europe during the Olympics. We could explore many periods of history and many countries and easily find hundreds of examples of individuals and small groups who simply went beyond what we would like to call normal human behavior. Did they?

These events all have something in common. It is the decision by certain individuals to resort to major violence because of feeling disempowered to have a decent life. The level of rage or deadened values necessary to participate willfully in the killing of strangers, when not under immediate physical attack by them, is more than frightening. No, there is nothing good about the behaviors of those people or in the results of the tragedies they caused. However, have you considered how these individuals could arrive at the conclusion that murder is justified? If, like me, you consider these types of people deranged when they start to commit murders, then it becomes important to understand how they became that way. Then we must take the necessary steps to assure that this type of disaster will not continue to happen.

Governments cannot be held responsible for the behavior of each citizen. There is a clear personal responsibility of all individuals to seek their destinies in non-violent ways. However, we simply do learn our behaviors from the examples set by others. And the obvious indictment of our various governments throughout history and all over the planet today is in setting the worst examples from which our citizens learn their values. In short, the leaders have, by their own behaviors, licensed random, violent insanity within and outside their countries and populations.

Stripped to the essentials, the crimes of government are found in every behavior that a government does not want from its citizens. To assume the mantle of moral right by virtue of elected or appointed position is utterly pathetic. To use power to do what citizens are not permitted individually to do by law is asking for the very events that I identified at the beginning of this discussion. If you do not understand the relationship of Waco, Texas, or Ruby Ridge, Idaho to the Oklahoma City bombing then you are submerged in a mud of confusion. That does not mean that the perpetrators should go unpunished. It was and is right to uphold our laws to maintain peace. It is not right for a government to kill its own or other citizens and expect those citizens not to respond in kind. These same things are true regarding today's bombings of the USA Embassies. The only difference is that the perpetrators are not likely to be USA citizens. This leads us to the subjects of foreign policy and economic and military intervention.

Who in the world outside the USA, in a sane condition, will accept our modern version of economic Manifest Destiny? Who, within the USA, believes it is our right to seek world dominance, either economic or military? Who elected us to be punishing parents to Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, etc? Unfortunately, our behaviors globally remind me of the question about where a 600-pound gorilla will sit. The answer is, wherever he chooses to sit. That is our rather unenlightened behavior. Thus, our citizens in Foreign Service pay the price, along with many more foreign nationals who died because they worked for us. We live and die by the sword. We do not seem to understand that violence begets more violence. We could not crush the will of North Vietnam by military attack, nor can we stop terrorism by attacking the terrorists.

Our federal government in the USA has not respected the sovereignty of other nations or other peoples in the past or the present. Not that other governments did or do either, but that is effectively saying that we will use our economic and military might to control and conquer instead of our capacity to teach and to promote shared global sufficiency. When the single most powerful nation in the world elects to behave as a bully, we deserve what we get in retribution.

If, as some people believe, John Kennedy was assassinated on the orders of Fidel Castro as a response to the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis, was Castro wrong in doing to us what our leaders tried to do to him? Can you think of any other ideological or legal reasons why we would openly expand our trade relations with communist China, which killed students who demonstrated on behalf of democracy, while failing to make peace with Cuba and Castro? Are the Cubans a threat to us now? Should USA citizens be fined $1000 for each Cuban cigar they might try to bring into the USA? What is the message from our federal government to our citizens, those in Cuba, and the rest of the world?

Properly directed, our moral outrage at the Oklahoma City and Embassy bombings should be focused on Washington. Our leaders have invited and encouraged terrorism by their blatant dominance behaviors. In addition, we citizens are responsible for our willingness to permit our leaders to behave locally and globally as they do. We fail to penalize or prosecute our elected or appointed leaders, like our Attorney General, for what are in fact crimes against Humanity. Yet, we do persecute our President for extra-marital sexual relations. We have demonstrated no sense of proportion or balance. These blatant injustices and illogical behaviors are clear indications that we are not worthy of taking a dominant world position militarily or politically. We have proven multiple times our propensity to be arbitrary and unreasonable, indeed, criminal. Centralized large power and temporary military and economic dominance do indeed corrupt any government we have known in world history. Do you support tyranny? Is it possible once again that distributed power is critical to our future?

Part IX - It is Time to See the Big Picture

What does make sense is to use the United Nations very soon as a limited global government, complete with strong military forces to deal with aggression, crimes and human rights issues definitively. These responsibilities must be globally and equally shared, both in voting power and financial responsibility. It is not the right of any single nation, or of any five currently dominant nations, to drive global policy. If Saddam Hussein, Muhamar Kadafy or Slobodan Milosevic need to be stopped, then it is the responsibility of all the other nations to make that decision through their votes in the United Nations. Instead, we do not even pay all of our dues to the UN. It took a well-intentioned capitalist, Ted Turner, to pay one billion dollars of our UN obligation, just to get the shame of poor performance of our federal government exposed. What will you do to help our members of government to behave as adults, globally?

Participation in a newly defined United Nations would be better regulated by one vote per country, regardless of population, because we have so many different countries that represent a broad mix of values and ideologies. The only caveat is that each country must pay its percentage of total UN cost in order to have a vote. If a hypothetical annual, budgeted cost is one hundred billion dollars, and a hypothetical one hundred nations belong, then each nation must pay one billion dollars to have the right to vote in that fiscal year. However, no country can choose to buy additional voting power, directly or through paying another country's share via grants, loans or any other means. Nor can any country be permitted to split itself into multiple countries. Global policy must become democratic.

This power and cost-sharing concept is fair in one unique respect because no country is directly responsible for the size or wealth of any other country, nor for the number of citizens that live in any other country. It is also fair because it rightly represents all current ideologies, cultures and recognized legal governments. All countries that take the responsibility to support the UN, and thus the world, gain a real vote in global policy, even if they have to join together to afford to buy one vote. Like India and Pakistan. That means all nations eligible to vote will support the voted policy whether or not they like the voting outcome on specific issues. There will be no veto power. That is true global representative democracy, not the economic and military oligarchy we have today.

National sovereignty can still be respected, provided a nation does not export trouble in the form of drugs or terrorism or weapons of mass destruction or demonstrate chronic human rights violations within its own borders. Focused terrorism will become extremely difficult to export, for when a majority of the world community decides policy, offense and defense, no single nation is an obvious target for terrorist response, and no terrorist wants to take on the world. Even China with its huge population is no match for a world that decides to end opium production.

UN military forces should occupy regions of the world roughly in line with continents that contain two or more adjacent countries, with one or two bases per region, occupied by officers and troops always originating from a different continent and rotating every two to three years. Nations could still maintain their military forces within their countries, of whatever size they found to be necessary. The UN forces would thus be distributed, able to support each other to suppress major conflict, and able to respond quickly and with force to needs in the assigned regions, as decided by vote in the United Nations. The total UN military force and its support staff might be limited to 200,000 people per region and provided by purchase contracts with the latest military hardware for local, medium and long range application. Individual nations could supplement UN military forces temporarily upon UN request, if needed, provided the forces were entirely under UN military control. There would not need to be much of an offensive UN Navy. There would, however, be transport vessels with defensive support. At first there would be, alas, major use of reconnaissance satellites and orbiting mass destruction missile and laser weapons under UN control.

Eventually, I would expect that large, internal military budgets would be redirected to better ends in every nation, as we got used to the idea that international, national or regional aggression was ended.

The issue of voting in a new United Nations demands a standard or law for majority rule that would not provide a specific advantage to any region of the world or any ideology. In general, a two-thirds majority vote should work well. You might note that wealthy, developed nations would then have a real stake in helping educate citizens of less developed countries.

The exact rules of fairness need to be defined. It is time to get our best minds working on that opportunity. Checks and balances to avoid regressive evolution will be essential in a global UN government too.