|Some of us have the keys to unlock the world's challenges...the first lock being the cold hearts of men.|
All governments of men can be measured and judged by how they protect, manage and grow their people...or how they trouble, divide and diminish their people.
What if a government (or the people who manage the government) is just and its laws are just, yet certain people are rebellious and inconsolable?
To the inconsolable, their government is unjust.
Would the opinions of the inconsolable mean their government is unjust?
What if the laws are just but the government (or certain people who manage the government) are unjust?
Would a corrupt government also mean the people governed are also unjust?
Remember that all governments are occupied by human beings, and these humans are individuals with individual fears, dreams, strengths and weaknesses.
A good government clearly reflects the sentiments, values and ethics of its leadership, as does a bad government.
Imagine someone, or a time in your country's government, that you believed its leaders were doing a great job and were 'good'.
Now imagine the worse example, either in your country or elsewhere during another time, of a bad government / leadership.
Did that good or bad example in government also mean that the people governed were also good or bad?
The righteous exist despite other people's manners.
A righteous leader can exist while the people are corrupt, and righteous people exist while the 'leader' is corrupt.
When reading history, a government's leadership sometimes mirrors its people...and sometimes it does not.
The reflection is sometimes seen as one-way, like the image seen in the mirror is the government and the people are looking into the mirror (the image causing the reflection in the mirror).
But the image in the mirror can also be the people and the leader is the one looking in the mirror.
If the king is honorable and just, most likely his government and his people also reflect the king's values.
So opposite is also true, and the influence isn't always from top to bottom (leader to people), but from bottom up.
Sometimes, the leadership of a government, or whomever occupies the highest seat, reflects the sentiments of the people.
The manner how 'right' and 'wrong' is defined depends on the values leadership holds, but also on the value sentiments of the people.
The role of leadership brings great responsibility, yet the people also have their responsibility.
The highest modern offices of public office have such ideas as immunity and impunity.
These are beneficial safeguards when the weight of an important position may cause so much stress that clear judgment and good efforts may run foul...and the leader(s) make(s) bad decisions.
Grace is then extended to the person having made bad decisions.
Some people dislike this clause in their country's law, but if you were the person who made a bad decision while thinking you were making a honest and good decision, this clause may be a saving grace.
It is because of the bad examples and evidence of culpability that people dislike such forgiveness for crimes in government.
It is when purposeful decisions that, regardless of being found popular, do unjust harm that immunities and impunities are a tool to escape punishment for evil deeds.
Moving the goalpost (a fallacy and cheap trick) is what any political entity does to best manage its collective interest.
Let's look at the issue of refugee / immigration as an example on its surface (not delving too deeply into the issue).
Immigration from one political entity (nation / country) to another is a decision not done flippantly by an immigrant.
In the past, we've seen both affluent and poor people migrate in order to survive genocide (one extreme), or to realize a better quality of life (lesser extreme).
To leave one's place of birth or known surroundings is a risk not taken lightly.
The immigrant / refugee has a motivation outweighing the fear / problem realized in their homeland, leaving all they know for uncertainty...a search for a semblance of hope.
Lawmakers write many things and call it law.
Whether the law is 'right' or 'wrong' sometimes seems a secondary issue when considering the factors and unforeseen affects of the law.
Almost every law can be argued and justified through an economic definition.
Prejudice is how people react to the economic plight or economic leverage.
The complexities are usually never mentioned nor even understood by the people making opinions but lacking an objective and broader view.
By the stroke of a pen something 'legal' one day becomes illegal the next, for such is the fickleness of men's minds in either attempting to prevent, or correct, something else.
Each individual has their limited horizon when regarding their fellow human beings and why mankind does as it does.
Some laws embody the popular consciousness (or consensus) while others are quite void anything morally valuable, but more about managing people like animals and encouraging economic growth at the cost of people.
At the risk of sounding promotional and biased for one particular political entity currently in existence; it seems some people are confused about what the U.S. government is and what the endgame is.
Depending on who you talk / listen to, U.S. domestic and foreign policy is usually expressed negatively and cynically.
The negativity usually overrides the positive or the good that has come from the United States.
I think with a proper historical point of view, and considering past empires and humanity's graduation of social order, the good becomes clearer and the negative is better identified, and evidence of purpose is realized.
It is illogical to consider order comes out of chaos...while this is what is usually argued, I think it is all a matter of perspective.
Isn't the policy of the U.S. to export the good ideas that built America into the opportunity it is for those who work hard for it?
Have you noticed how one person's hare work benefits many others who don't have to work so hard.
This is a constant in almost every aspect of life, including law and government.
Notice how, although it has taken generations, some people who were once considered chattel property are now atop the fixtures of government and private industry...lawfully on-par with all other people.
This is a self-evident good thing.
When people desire to vilify one government idea for another (like pro- or anti-capitalism in favor of pro- or anti-communism, or any other ism), some things are being misunderstood.
Have you noticed how communism added to the quickening of equality and a better understanding between wealth and labor?
Is it noticeable the good that communist ideas have added to U.S. policy, while the ongoing discussion between isms has also identified the bad ideas and how to avoid them?
It takes time for people to see the good and bad things of any particular ism, or government, or individual brother and sister in humanity.
Have you noticed that some immigrants / refugees eventually return to their places of origin to further the opportunities and experience they realized stateside?
This agrees with the idea exporter the U.S. (and previous empires) have been!
Instead of top-down nation flipping through war, how about bottom-up policy changing through generations?
Enjoy this article about city growth and, despite the seemingly overwhelming challenges of proper people and land management, Lateef Sholebo is sharing their American experience in bringing the good he learned in America.
In places where democracy is the idea (government's where people can voice their ideas and cause change in their government), bad policy can be corrected and made better, or good in due time.
'How' or 'how quickly' it will be corrected is another matter.
Notice how bottom-up policy is how missionaries have changed the people and places the Message has served over the generations since Grace appeared.
Cultures, peoples, governments, landscapes and ideas have forever changed.
Once priorities are corrected with the individual (whether that individual is a leader in government or a leader among the common people), the machinations are realized to have been most justified.
The good (intention and effort) outweighs the bad (human mistake) every time.
What is described herein is the endgame and purpose for why America was written into existence.
It is all a matter of 'seeing' things beyond the noise, doubt and harsh criticisms.