Governmental systems are a byproduct of  a consciousness that has not evolved to match our newer social reality as a culturally modern species. If we look at the history of political and social systems we find that mankind is caught in a repetitive pattern of systemic failure. This is either due to our unwillingness to create an equitable system of governance or our failure to mitigate against man’s intrinsic drive towards power and self-interest. At the root of this problem is our advanced cognitive abilities that has made us masters of our domain, but has also driven man to seek power over his brothers. Is man willing to evolve and eschew his will to power to embrace the ideal of a utopian eschatological future for the world? The answer lies at a crossroads between benevolence and oppression, cooperation vs domination, humanism vs materialism or in a broader sense good vs. evil. Can mankind evolve and in doing so sublimate his animalistic drives? If this is part of a potential evolutionary process, what are the catalysts or environmental pressures that can precipitate change? 

At the root of this discussion is the reality that consciousness and cognition of the masses are forever limited in function to survival within the everyday world which they inhabit. One can argue that the masses lack the intellectual capacity or the interest to understand the constitutive reality of their everyday world.  This problem, while discussed at length by many philosophers, does not extend to a strategic discourse regarding whether we are morally bound to guide and protect our unthinking fellows, or are they forever to remain the low hanging fruit to be forever oppressed. Man being morally bound is a noble philosophical precept, but it is problematic on a multitude of levels, who determines what is moral, and moral precept has never overridden self-interest or man’s own will to power. If there is no moral guidance, what then is our motivation to change or to create a better more equitable system? 

(The Bolshevik revolution or the liberal revolutions in the west may offer some guidance as to how to create the bottoms-up pressure necessary to move the masses) Revolutions in both cases were against the elites, HA the gentleman’s class. Yet in both cases, a new gentleman’s class or bourgeois arose due to the manifestation of human drives. 

There must be

1. An equitable system 

2. A vision for a better future

3. A means to draw consensus

4.  A way to counter governmental push-back 

5. Leadership that can appeal to the masses from a psycho-emotional perspective. (Great men are usually from the upper classes and are highly educated, but they only appear at times of crisis. HA)

6. Revolution or referendum is what has worked are we missing something?

7. Self-correcting mechanisms that cannot be manipulated 

Organic models 

Hayek proposed that the human mind that created government is inadequate to resolve the problems of government. Of we look at natural systems, we find elegant perfection that is beyond human constructs. The key signature of success within these systems is homeostatic balance.  

Neutrality of Democratic Government 

(The law of large numbers suggests that if we aggregate the beliefs, ideals and intentions of the masses the outcome should be neutral.) the question is how are biases defined deliberately weaponized to break neutrality.  The causality is found in the intersubjective nature of human discourse, and our inability to separate crafted narratives from rational truths. 

In democracy the will of the state should be neutral if in fact it is a government for the people, by the people and of the people. Government has however achieved elevated status over the people due to the  self-interest of its officials and the corporations whose interests they support becoming superior to the polis. From a psychological perspective this can be explained via (Zimbardo, psychological model of “leader”)One must then question the purpose of government, is it to create individual wealth  for its politicians,  to express power both internally and externally, or to promote equitable, balanced systemic model that supports a fair and balanced reality for her constituents.   As a psychological institution, government becomes the expression of the will of those elected  into the domain of political leadership and their selective focus on the sensitized issues that created their path to governance.  We must be reminded these issues are driven to relevance due to their significance to a large group of constituents as well corporate interests. 

If government were a ship could she sail smoothly to a safe port or is she caught in storms of her own creation? If we accept that government and all systems created by organic creatures model the natural laws of science, we can posit methodologies that move the ship smoothly forward, plotting a rational, scientific map. While this might sound like an oversimplification, given the apparent randomness of politics, it actually requires a continuous attention to multivariate systems that must operate in  concordance  either one another. No architect can build a complex building without an engineer or without knowledge of HVAC or plumbing.

Human systems are the product of human cognition that is limited to historical and academic knowledge and feature the full array of man’s intrinsic and extrinsic biases.  One of man’s greatest failings is his inability to see himself an  objective fashion.  In the creation of social systems, human self-interest is expressed as a “will to power” that is expressed throughout all political systems and is the root of social stratification and inequality.  It is important to recognize that eliminating social stratification is a faulty precept philosophically tied to Marxian ideals, mankind like all organic beings is indeed inherently unequal, therefore their must be an organic division of labor within any social system.  Socrates explained this convention by stating that there are men of gold, silver, brass and iron, while this may find criticism in those attaching themselves to certain post-modern liberal ideals, it is statistically relevant  to any academic discussion of social systems as it would be foolish to argue that human design is different than other organic entity. 

while organic have not evolved to the level to that of ants or spiders who can rely on algorithms that are instinctive to create the necessary structures within their world. Nor does the human mind provide for instinctive faculties to guide our reality. 

Sharks and predators keeping herbivores in check

It is a far fetched notion that the human mind alone can create governmental systems without historical and scientific guidance 

In the past 150 years political theorists have discussed the polis in terms of power and wealth of the elite ruling class dominating and oppressing the underclass.  This has fixed our theoretical “human” mindset in an oppositional reality where our objective is helping the underclass overcome oppression and moving towards a model that eliminates classism and oppression.  Acknowledging the human construct of mind, it is not hard to understand how these models gained popularity.  If we change course and look at humanity in a scientific naturalistic model, it is clearly evident that we are tacitly accepting a hypothesis that states that equality is a natural human state.  If this were in fact the case, removal of oppressive forces would result in a “neutral,” “natural,” equality. If this hypothesis is true, then all men are indeed created equal. 

to scientific psychology for answers we find models that discuss and measure the composition of personality in a “natural” model.