The 19th century era in which Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels lived, although quite different in many respects from these early years of the 21st Century, nonetheless retain the problems between the business community, the government, the general public, and inter-play of religious idealisms. Most prominent is the conflict and associated concerns involving wages, work-place conditions, and associated benefits. Though there are many other issues for which people protest (environmental, animal rights, vaccinations, and various extemporaneous philosophical dramas such as creationism, artificial intelligence, embryonic stem cell research, etc...), the old refrain of jobs and joblessness continues to be a recurring problematic issue. While some claim this is the result of the type of (Capitalistic) economic philosophy that is being used, the same refrain occurs if other forms of economic-based survivability perspectives are used as well. However, it is difficult to access how wide-spread joblessness or full employment instances prevail in such social organizations such as ancient Mesopotamia, Babylon, Egypt and china, much less later pre-Middle Ages societies like Ancient Rome or during the supposed "Romance" ("speech of the people") [12th century] or "Enlightenment" [17th - 18th centuries] periods; there is a general assumption not to include various hand-to-mouth forms of existence with those involving organized forms of distinctly incorporated pre-and post industrialization... though the public works projects involving the construction of Egyptian pyramids appears to have involved representative worker gangs that competed against one another like different shifts of workers in present day companies are found to sometimes engage in, with respect to quality and quota of goods produced.
In using a hierarchical model of social governing philosophy, it is difficult for people to focus their sights on personal growth when they are constantly having to worry about paying high costs of living under the conditions of a precarious social environment of employment. In short, working conditions for people remains fraught with insecurity. When we couple this with the conditions of civic leaders on the local, state and federal levels whose personal lives frequently involved immoral or criminal activity, the people are continually plagued by the prospect of having to interrupt the stabilities of their lives with the possibility of having to make adjustments in their careers like members of an ancient tribe having to adopt a nomadic existence in order to deal with transient working conditions. While it is understood that the idea of removing governing leaders from political positions creates the condition for ensuring no one is permitted to establish a type of monarchy which could invite a sustained undesirability, a good monarchy provided the advantage of stability over longer periods. And while a change in the American Presidential Leadership is a Constitutional directive, this same directive does not remove bad leaderships which occur in other social venues such as business and religion. It also does not prevent abusive leaderships under those who occupy departments within branches of government... such as the Supreme Court, Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Agriculture, Tax department, etc...
In fact, a change in the Presidency of the U.S. government instigates the chance for instability, despite the arbitrarily chosen four-year practice of an election requirement which affords either a good or bad president to remain in office by being elected again, through an electoral process which allows the Will of the People to be undermined, and should be a political priority to remedy. There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions in the American political system that its results produce favorable social conditions only because of a resource base which helps to conceal its problematic design. But as resources become scarce, by way of depletion, over-zealous hoarding by a few, or an increased population size, the numerous inaccuracies of the governing system will become visible, leading to greater instances of more violent protest. The lack of political effort to address the problems of basic needs without the usage of a bureaucratic nightmare, is an issue that remains in a simmering state. Because the U.S. government (and many others) do not practice a means of dealing with a spectrum of issues which range the gamut of a hierarchical structure of consideration, it will eventually be confronted by an overwhelming force of protest aimed at making corrections that those in government do not have the experiential nor intellectual capacity to deal wisely with. Because the office of the President is being looked upon as a large law enforcement precinct engaged in various "policing" efforts (combat/war, environmental, economic, etc...); comparisons regard it as the public does police officers: they are not known for their intelligence.
Indeed, not only must protestors often have to deal with general police units with officers who are widely known as having average or just above average intelligence quotients, they must deal with political bodies with similar levels of inconsequential perspicuity coupled with life styles that appreciably remove them from being able to fully apprehend the day to day contingencies of job insecurity derived from a vast social system of discontinuity concealed by a large resource base which helps to mollify acute recognition of so many prevailing disparities. And when we add to this an emotionally engage populace whose anger and frustration bears down so hard on them they at times can not collectively see straight, there arises a precipitation of underlying rebellion and revolution awaiting to be ignited. When we have an existing gaseous stage of developmental considerations which falls in sprinkles and accumulations which settle into various cultural pools that frequently solidify by an expressed callous disconcern for a leadership that treats the people in a like-minded way, the three states of matter become as one... and is a very formidable force to be reckoned with.
Thus for those protestors whose considerations range beyond the mere street-side positions of confrontation, we have begun the preparations for implementing a new design of governance whose incomplete designs can be worked out. Yet, though a New Government is desired, the present (old) one(s) do not want to be so disrupted as to cause needless disruption in public services that would create a backlash, unless the need for short-term sacrifices are seen as a possibility and necessity while governing adjustments are being made. So too must the potential of stopping and hunting down those whose positions harbor vast resources seek to abscond from having any interest in complying with new government directives. As is the case in the search for the development of a computationally directed, electro-technologically based system of artificial intelligence being directed from either a top down or bottom up approach, the design of a New Government can occur in like-fashion, but must incorporate a third, middle proportionality because of the organic functionality of a dynamically fluid system which a human society participates in.
In many respects, we need to permit the institutionalization of a governing style which incorporates a research and development of itself as a total mechanism... that may at time create situations which unintentionally causes social disruptions. If such a philosophy is adopted and incorporated as a large social project, the citizenry will be more accommodating in the trial and error model of application... if they are active participants. If the people are permitted to grasp hold of the rope in such a tug-of-war, the occasions of falling and getting their hands dirty become a recognized potential that they can move beyond. Today's governing processes do not permit the public to have a direct hands on participation, though some would argue that "participation" is supposed to be limited to giving taxes so that the "right people" can make the "best choices" for everyone, as if they were some super- intelligent being. Instead, the United States governing methodology is to advertise a democracy but undermine the effective use of it, thus rendering the public into a state of indentured servitude... to serve the interests of a few whose ideas are particularly self, short, and speciously-centered on a frivolous ideal. It is the incongruity of this servitude that needs to be addressed in order to effectively deal with multiple other social issues.
In developing a hierarchy of issues, we come to formulate a means of acknowledging a series of cause and effects by which we can better grasp the underlying origin of a problem to which our energies and other resources can be directed with an intent of achieving a solution. Necessarily so, each protestor might well devise their own hierarchical formula of concerns and consideration that, when compared to the ideological standards of others may lead all those who are interested, in reaching a compromise so as to be in needless conflict with one another. In most instances, issues are human-generated, either intentionally or accidentally. However, while it is difficult to definitively assess whether a whether condition is caused by the nature of a human cause, such as ideas involving the idea of a global warming, how we address human responses (or lack thereof) can be dealt with from a directly perceivable cause and effect profile. For example, when a region is consistently "attacked" by tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, insect infestation, rodent infestation or whatever, responsibility for remaining in such areas can be addressed. In other words, populations can be moved to more suitable areas. If people refuse to move, the refusal to do so should be emphasized as a reason that future aid can not be placed into a situation where good money is followed by bad money... in that some situations deserve to be viewed as a sustained lost cause. The resources recurringly used to make repeated repairs would be better utilized elsewhere in more stable environmental areas of population habitation.
Far too often we find that individuals or groups of citizens are rewarded by government assistance, for recurringly bad choices. Some of these presumed choices are deliberate activities costing the tax payers multiple millions, such as through construction projects given to contractors who knew all too well that costs for a given project would escalate, and that their primary interest was to provide a sustained temporary employment situation... until the next frivolous government contract could be awarded and the same scenario with the same company could be carried out, or they periodically trade off with another company so as not to arouse suspicion with the public or news media. But the situation exists that not only does the government continually reward bad behavior amongst the citizenry, but the citizenry also does with the government. When we have multiple governments throughout the world with multiple forms of structural or employee dysfunctionality but the public has no legal means of correcting the mistakes of design, what are the people to do but try to change the problem from within... whereby they too may thus become part of the problem, or by external pressures?
Whereas in previous generations there were single individuals or small families that held dominant or total control over a government, business or military force, change could be brought about by an act of instigating murderous forms of internal rivalry, or through externally executed forms of assassination. While vast changes in a given social operation through the replacement of a given leader in business, government or religion can still occur, such an event does not necessarily lead to vast international changes unless such an occasion is intentionally set-up to be used as a "reason" (excuse) to promote military action. While there may be large-scale social ripples involved with the death of a given person, such as a large public funeral, institutionalized occupational adjustments and other ceremonial processes (media recited condolences, lowering of a national flag, replay of personal histories, etc...), nothing of great, substantial change in operational policy may change. For example, the structural practices of the United States government would not be altered, even if both the President and Vice President were assassinated. Nor would the government process be altered if the leadership positions of all the security divisions were killed by intent or accident. However, in the event of intent... such as being murdered, the government might well be altered to incorporate more defensive measures to protect all its different leaders... but the structure of the governing processes might not be appreciably changed. In other words, no New (better) Government would result.
Hence, using the tactic of killing various heads of State and State departments does not insure that an effective measure of desired change would ensue. Whereas in multiple cases there may appear to be a change in the process of governance, what actually takes place is a change in attitude of those in leadership, and thus a reciprocating change in public attitude; that can at times control the attitude of an often recalcitrant news media whose independent leaderships have their own personal agendas, many of which are not in the best interests of the public. The news media often acts as a self-serving fickle sycophant that must be kept on a short leash of observation. It is not above biting the hand which feeds it... so to speak. Journalists frequently incur a reputation worse than that of a used car dealership who engages in any tactic necessary in order to make a (ideological) sell. And what many a Journalist tries to sell is a character affirmation or character assassination. But in as much as protestors have widely engaged in the practice of perpetrating the character assassination of a portion or the whole of a government, the government and its many divisions have developed varying shields of immunity. The protestors are viewed as whiney babies, children and teenagers, or disgruntled adults who murmur disparagements below their breath, but don't engage in any real opposition.
More to the point, a protestor could put a bullet into a given politician's head or create conditions from which perpetrate a bad public reputation, but in many cases, the person has nothing whatsoever to do with an underlying governing process which is at the root of a particular social problem. In effect, like a President under most modern conditions, are little more than office managers or maintenance personnel. The overall governing machine neither stops nor becomes subjected to a redesign. Situations of over-haul, are more in line with the over-haul of an engine, transmission or extended drive-line mechanism that merely represents a renewed functionality of an old system that was tuned up... and not wholly replace with a more efficient model.
White-washing a fence does not alter the underlying structure of a fence, nor does changing the owner of the property upon which the fence sits. The new owner may have purchased the property because they like the fence. And even if a new owner didn't like the fence, they may well replace it with a worse model, or with a more expensive one that is not as durable in the long run, but is in tune with the accepted superficialities of embellishment of a given era. For example, the wooden fence may be replaced with a more expensive plastic molded kind that is not as strong nor as durable from multiple weather conditions, but is the "new" model being widely sold and utilized because of its lower labor requirement. It's design incorporates a pre-molded formula that copies an old model used to designate presumed property lines of ownership, yet "ownership" is an illusion because taxes have to be continually paid... thus representing a condition of long-term leasing... and no new thinking is being applied to the overall type of living people are engaged in. Traditions are being maintained that may well be unrecognized symptoms of a problem involving the lack of perception regarding the overall decaying environment in which the fence occupies as a product of the antiquated form of conceptual disregard for living in an influential cycle of decay that needs to be addressed with a better governing philosophy.
In this analogy of fence building to governing structure, a reader might be inclined to make mention of a more durable iron fence, yet the costs of such are quite prohibitive for most general "home owners" (who are actually "home leasers" or "home renters"... because they have to pay the government a yearly property tax fee to live in the house). Not to mention that visible home improvements such as a more costly fence may be a reason that a governing body increases the tax of a property. This is why many people do not register for a construction permit for adding a room, or making some change that can be governmentally interpreted as an improvement, because the increased value of a property will be accessed a higher tax. Because community, state and federal governments have people who want to exercise their judgments by trying out one or another program to be described as a needed social benefit (or improvement of an existing benefit); the costs for such an exercise must be collect by any means the government can institute to develop a source for desired revenue... particularly in covering up mistakes. One of the problems with this activity is that a public voting session may involve having the public vote on what is described as a small increase in a given tax to supply the needed funds for a project, but after the project is completed, the increased tax is not removed. In other words, there is a routine by which governments practice tax increases under the guise of a presumed temporary measure, like a person saving up for a given interest, but the person is then expected to keep up the savings plan without having a say-so about the directive. The people are permitted to vote in a raise under the guise of it being a short-term venture, but are not allowed to discontinue the tax increase after the object of the increase is acquired. It is the practice of a double-standard which adds to the condition of a mounting distrust of government.
Though many people are fully aware of different types of double-standard being played out by business, government and religions, they do not fight against these institutions because they can see not alternative with which to replace them with. The people are confronted with so many different double standards, including those they must engage in as a participant in a society organized on a system of exercised double-standard practices, as a personal survival technique, the lack of alternatives being offered to them for a direct replacement, creates the situation where they simply go along with the system, though they may harbor undisclosed anger and frustration. When most protestors are offering them bandaids for a deep wound of dysfunctional governance, it's no wonder they are filled with a perspective of futility concerning espoused social protests; that may or may not contain a shred of hope that someone(s) sometime may provide them with an outlook for a National and Global future. When current models of governance are unstable practices providing occasions for uncertain living conditions that have not even adequately addressed the basic needs of one's citizenry, yet engages in preoccupations of global charity for ulterior political motives having nothing whatsoever to do with establishing greater stability or economic certainty, it is an incomprehensible distortion of simple logic, because it is a logic of personal ulterior motivations.
When a public is faced with the prospect of having to chose between two or more political leaders, though the vote is subjected to a process of manipulation such as in the case of an American Electoral system... that is set against business and religious situations in which leaders are chosen by an internalized selective process that very often could careless about the collective perspective of all employees or all belief-practicing adherents; one must surely be able to recognize the lack of Communistic, Democratic, and Socialistic practices. In most instances, the collective Will of the People is ignored or rendered negligible. Yet, in recognizing the, what then do we do if the conventional forms of trying to instigate change do not accomplish desired alterations in governance? How does a true change in governance come about when two major processes of government (business and religion) use policies which effectively resist a change in their forms of governance? In some instances, there are not only double standards, but triple (or multiple variability) of standards being accepted as rationale. Surely the occupation of different kinds of standard in human cognition can effect a principle weight against the usage of a single standard.
Because of the presence of cognitive habituations which are directly tied to the incremental processes of environmental decay, instigation of a protest that seeks to align the different cognitive forms into a cumulative orientation requires multiple forms of interactive integration. In such a view, assassination of multiple heads of State would be an effective means of creating conditions of change, if such a model of protest was widely seen as a necessary action because all other legal options are meant to deflect protests into irrelevancy. This is why a manifesto must involve a publicly noted hierarchy of attempts to achieve a change in government. But protestors can not rely on the news media to be the best avenue for disseminating information to different segments of the population. Not only the process of protest with the intended goal need to be outlined, but the design of government to be implemented and the reasons for the implementation. We can not have a group of impulsively acting protestors achieve a position of leadership and then find out they are muddle-headed.
All of us, in one way or another have an invested interest in keeping things the way they are, even those whose efforts appear to be focused on the verbalized accounts of participating in an anarchy. Such anarachies require that an in-anarchic situation must first prevail. In other words, most people don't think in terms of having an anarchy within an anarchy, unless its to assassinate the leaders of an ongoing anarchy in order to make one give the impression of being the major or king anarchist. You can't have a Cause if the Cause is not an effect of some other effect that was effected by a Cause having caused an effect... and so on. Likewise, one's protest to create a New Government will surely, eventually, be the cause of yet some future protest as an effect of the established Cause that has caused a New Establishment. While the U.S. Independence Declaration declared the rationale for the justification for establishing a New Government, it is a perspective that is relegated to being a reactionary principle dedicated to a specific time, place and set of conditions, but is of negligible importance because it is assumed, by many, that the modern form of supposed "interactive" government incorporates a process of change to make needed corrections... even though this is only partially true in light of the Constitutional amendment practice.
Though the U.S. government (and others) were set up with an underlying representation of addressing public needs without the adoption of a hierarchical chart as the basis of a Constitutional framework, a hierarchy was prefaced in the early Independence Declaration:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."---
..."That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."---
The list of three unalienable rights "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" can be set into an hierarchical chart. The problem is, that when something is actually or even believed to have been achieved, some achievers begin looking about for a new goal or task to be achieved. Whereas the former government may have been adequate in helping a populace acquire certain believed-in basic needs, it may well be found to be inadequate for helping a populace acquire higher-order needs... or desires. As it stands, present governments are an impediment to assisting with the accomplishment of both basic-order needs and higher-order goals. Whereas variations of Communism, Democracy and Socialism may serve populations in their strivings to acquire basic needs in one or another respect, they may well be wholly unsuitable for effecting that which is necessary for higher-order goals to be achieved... along with sustaining those whose consciousness develops the cognitive orientation for goals beyond mere basic needs such as food, water shelter, safety, security, medical treatment, hygiene requirements... etc..., though some readers may see feminism, sexual orientation, spirituality, and racial interests as "their" basic needs.... perhaps because they have never been faced with a prolonged absence of basic physiological needs.
It actually is a stretch of the imagination to interpret "pursuit of happiness" as a distinctive higher-order need, when all three are philosophical generalities which become defined according to personal tastes. However, if we wish to arrange them in a hierarchy of ascending order, the term "life" can be construed as referring to our basic biology, the term "Liberty" can refer to freedom of choice, and the "pursuit of happiness" as a third order... with each being acquired only after a preceding one has been achieved. In a social order where slavery is an accepted practice, surely "freedom" and "pursuit of happiness" must be defined in accordance with the standard under which "life" is defined. Likewise, current social models of these generalities have not been achieved, and can not be achieved because of the type of governance being practiced. Because current models of government throughout the world inhibit even the first order to be fully achieved by everyone within, alongside, and outside the contexts which people are familiar with; a collective attempt to pursue higher-order goals is met with conflicts by those protestors who remain subjugated to strivings to acquire basic needs. In such a situation, the pursuit of basic needs, and those who are an impediment to the acquisition of such who think their higher order goals are best achieved by dolling out basic needs by way of a bureaucratic labyrinth or high cost structures within religious (spiritual) or business (commerce) greed; protestors seeking a New Government (Cenocracy) must take the knowledge of such a hierarchy into consideration when developing their architecture of to-be-proposed governance.