Goodwill Over Anything Else

From The Prince and The Discourses of Machiavelli, there is a part that states that it is not necessary for a leader to let his subjects know who he really is and what his limitations are. Aren't these things supposed to be known to his constituents so they may know if they've got the right leader for a position?

Is it safe to say that a prince being deceitful to his subjects such as pretending to possess good qualities- merciful, faithful,humane, sincere, religious - even though he is not could make him a good and effective prince?

Doesn't the way of living of the citizens of a certain state reflect the success of the ruler and/or the state? If the ruler is "not good," deceives his subjects, and exploits them in order to maintain his rule over them, then how can it be successful in the sense that it can maintain the order, morality and progress of that state and society?

The Machiavellian Ways

In The Prince and The Discourses, Machiavelli talked about the qualities mercy, faith, integrity, humanity and religion. But he stated that it's not necessary for a Prince to have them, to quote him, "to possess them and to always observe them is dangerous, but to appear to have them is useful". I wonder, does that make a good ruler? A ruler that deceives his subjects on qualities that he doesn't possess?

Machiavelli also concluded that a wise prince will make the citizens of his state faithful to him. He also mentioned that the prince who causes another to become powerful thereby works his own ruin. So does that mean that a leader should always keep his position as the most
powerful man in the state so for him to prevent his own ruin?

Is a Machiavellian leader correct and justified when he/she decides to industrialize his country for higher economic growth rate, that, on the other hand, would cost farmers their jobs?

The World Is So Hard To Decode

It’s quite sad that while the world is tremendously facing a lot of problems, various statistics show that there are even lesser people than those who really care for the world. If we talk about, say, capitalism and feudalism. People have not been hands on in learning these philosophies. A great number of the entire world population care less about how capitalism and feudalism fiercely affect and manipulate each and everyone's life.

For me, I think that everyday as we go to work for sustenance, as we seek to survive in this world of struggle, it’s as if capitalism is eating everyone alive. But will communism do us good, anyway? If yes, then why is it that people from South Korea, a country that practices democracy, “feels sad” for the people in the North that embraces communism. If communism brings common good to its people, can we equate common good to happiness and satisfaction? Are the people in the communist countries happy? Or are they just unaware of the kind of treatment by their government disabling them to determine what happiness is in relation to the happiness that the South perceives?

Revolt, But How?

The idea of revolution is very promising, very sincere in its intention to change radically, yet it appears vague to me. Before, I used to attend educational discussions and I had observed that most, if not all, educational discussions ended up with a proposal to revolt. Step-by-step plans were made, division of labor had been assigned to participants. Everyone acknowledged the fact that revolting is a long process and may be never-ending as long as there are pressing issues that need immediate action.

I am not against revolution nor its intentions of having one. In fact, I consider it an alternative too, to change the very corrupt system of society. But fear and anxiety swallowed my ideal part of me. Probably, because I am not yet too ripe, as me being an activist – open minded, and critical. I hope I can learn more info about this matter.

What Is In A Leviathanic State?

The famous thinker, Thomas Hobbes coined the word Leviathan. As he described it in his works, Leviathan is an artificial person whose body's made up of all the bodies of its citizens – the literal members of the Leviathan's body. It is therefore a metaphor of a state. The sovereign is the leader of the Leviathan. The people, its followers, will sign into a contract authorizing themselves to be under the order of the Leviathan for them to escape the horrors of the natural condition of men and the environment. It is the power of the Leviathan that shields the people from the abuses and maltreatment of one another.

In this work, Hobbes explained the process of creating the Leviathan, the rights of the sovereigns and the common people, and illustrated the civil and legislative mechanics of the commonwealth. He also explained the religious system of the Leviathan and compared it with the Christian doctrine. He concluded that to achieve a secure Christian commonwealth, there should be a political implementation of the Leviathanic state.

Thomas Hobbes And His Contributions

Thomas Hobbes recounted that on the day of his birth in 1588, his mother learned that the Spanish Armada had set sail to attack England. This news terrified Hobbes’s mother that she went into labor prematurely.

Hobbes was born in Malmesbury in 1588. He studied at Oxford University. And because he was a tutor for a noble English family, he had opportunities for travel. In France he was so fortunate he knew Mersenne, the great friend of Descartes. It was, in fact, Mersenne who induced Hobbes to write his critical observations on the Meditations of Descartes. At Florence he came into contact with the thought of Galileo.

Hobbes wrote one of the greatest philosophical works – this was published three times with three different titles. The first was De Cive (On the Social and Political Organism). Hobbes developed this and later published it under the title De Corpore (On the Body, The Leviathan). The final development was his De Homine (On Man). Among these three, it's the Leviathan that's considered his masterpiece of all time.

America's Transport System

The United States of America may be facing a crisis in transportation as the remarkably populous post-World War II generation begins to approach the age of 60. This is a milestone that many transportation researchers and analysts cite as a time when it is recommendable for some drivers to start abandoning the luxury of private cars for the safety of public transportation.

According to some statistics that have been presented in different media all over America, each year hundreds of thousands of older people who have outlived their ability or willingness to drive must depend on alternative transportation systems (like the trains, buses, taxi cabs) that, outside of the nation’s most urbanized communities, are usually unable to meet their needs. This gap between the driving expectancy and life expectancy has placed important and usually unexpected economic and social burdens on many seniors not just in US but in the whole world.

Living In Postmodernity

I have been running. Chasing away my life. Wanting to become successful somehow to the standards of this world. But its too late I realized that I am just drowning in the ocean of postmodernity.

Everyday I am living a lie, wearing so much pretension to survive from the world that is full of the superficial.

When I was in my teenage years, I cannot take the hearts of those famous and popular people who kill themselves. Yes it is a crazy act, you would think. For me it is a cliche, a glitch in the history of creating literature. For me, killing my own self should mean a lot of things -- many things. It should be symbolical – metaphorical. It should be out of something eternal that was broken. Somehow something that resembles the memory of love lost, of dreams, of falling in love with trivialities and nightmares. But now I understand them, quite, or something that resembles them, emptiness, death, drowning, superficial – beyond the common truth.

All because you know that you live in postmodernity.

Should Priests Be Political Leaders?

Can we really distinguish a man who lives according to man between a man who lives according to God? Because even a man who lives according to man can and does act nobly and a man who lives according to God can and does act otherwise. Is it important to know the difference? Why?

If God is not the author of lie, then who is it? I have observed that throughout the centuries we have been comfortably living according to man/lie even though we claim we live according to God. Do you recall the crusades and the tyrant priests who amassed large properties during the colonization period? Look at the priests who involve themselves in politics, the luxurious priests in Vatican, racial discrimination, partition of the society according to wealth, etc.? Such pilgrim, huh? Or should our political leaders be priests? Would developing countries be more progressive if the government is under the church (assuming that there is no separation between the state and the church)?

Cities Of Man And God

On St. Augustine's City of God. What is the meaning of the "two cities," one of which is "of this world," and the other of which is "of God"? How does St. Augustine's analysis of these two cities and their histories help organize and structure this work?

Is St. Augustine trying to say that all the cities which existed here on Earth are earthly, and therefore is bad and unholy?(Since the "heavenly city" cannot exist here on Earth...)

When St. Augustine talked about the "two cities" (one being the just and the other being the wicked), did he say that the two are intermingled in the society during his time? Because I think the each of the "two cities" exists, however they exist together and meddling each other.

If the City of Man is like a testing ground to prove that you are worthy to be in the City of God, how can a man be tested? Is doing good enough to pass to the City of God?

You Must Be Ruled First

According to Aristotle's The Politics, it is said that a person can be defined as a citizen if both of his parents are born citizens and also if his third or fourth ancestry also happen to be citizens. Unto a person's citizenry, does it mean that there is rather no chance for a slave to ever become a citizen? Does it also mean that the future children of a slave and of his children's children have no chance of ever becoming a citizen? If there is, what instances would that be?

What does Aristotle mean when he said that polis is a group of villages which "grows for the sake of mere life and exists for the sake of good life"? According to Aristotle, the polis is prior to the individual. Will this line of argument feasible at present times? I think people are too short-sighted for such an idealized concept.

According to Aristotle, "in order to rule, you must first be ruled.” Would this be applicable in a state wherein everyone is grabbing for power and influence by all means?

Will Abolishing The Family Bring Good

Plato's The Republic continues to bug my confused mind. Here are some of my questions left unanswered:

Was Plato successful in his goal in reshaping the society so that man might realize the best that is in him, as what The Republic is all about?

Are we obligated to tell the truth in all situations? If not, when is lying or deception permissible?

If the stronger party is said to be correct or just for some instance, probably to their interest, how can the weaker party represent themselves? What is the stronger party in today's context? The majority or the skilled?

I agree to some points of Plato but I do not to his concept on abolition of family. The family is the simplest or the most basic community, abolishing it means destroying the foundation of the country or state. is the idea of Plato for the abolition of the family a good point and can bring good welfare for the republic?

My Plead

I remember this. No one from them achieved what they have been fighting for. After years of war, all the efforts of combating troops remained futile. It was too late for them to realize that what they have been doing only gave people nothing but misery and despair. Blood scattered all over the place. The roars of people echoed from end to end. Despite all of these, fighting troops seemed not to care.

But what has been the cause of this battle? It is because basic rights are neglected, basic needs have not been met. There is an inequality in the distribution of the resources. The issue here is politics. For them, force is the only way to meet these lapses. This is for the rebels' side. The government on the other hand, has its share of idiocy. It approaches this kind of problem by using guns and deadly weapons without considering several innocent people around that might get hurt.

The worst scenario is this: the innocent lives are the victims here. Those poor people who have no idea what's happening, they are those who are affected most. And they don't know what's happening because they are rather more particular in their daily struggle for survival.

I plead. stop it now so that we may all live in peace.

Please Stop

I can barely forget it. I heard distant gunshots coming from a military camp just five kilometres away. All of us at home were so scared and we had no one else to turn to but God. Our village was so lucky because the rebels had not reached us but our neighbouring municipalities weren’t.

My heart aches every time I remember the days when the people suffered so much of scarcity and property destruction brought about by the conflict between the military and armed rebels. Almost all of the products of their hard work weren’t spared and the worst thing was, even the lives of their loved ones were taken. I can still imagine clearly in my mind the scene of people screaming while running for the lives, mothers trying hard to protect their children and fathers risking their lives for the safety of their families. They were all trapped in between flying bullets and exploding grenades. Those people had nothing to do with the conflict but they were the ones going through the cruel consequences.

Please stop. Stop.

NO-NOs

One crazy reason why I am still at school and bearing with law stuff is the kind of enjoyment I get when reading the crazy laws of all the lands and reflect on them. Why are these laws created? Who have thought about these? Here are few of the peculiar laws around the world:

Drunk drivers can be punished by death, even before a firing squad. This is true in San Salvador. In Chester, people are banned from entering the city before sunrise and from staying after sunset. Another strange law is in UK. When you found a whale in the British coast, it is automatic that its head belongs to the King. The tail, on the other hand, belongs to the Queen, just in case she needs the whale's bones for her corset. In Bahrain, there is a law that prohibits male doctors to examine directly the woman's genitals. These male doctors can only examine through a reflection in a mirror. In Vermont, a written permission from their husbands is necessary if they desire to wear false teeth.

Decapitation Is A Penalty In Indonesia

I find this one interesting. While all of us think that laws are supposed to be rigid and tough and firm, there are those who are even so cool, we think it's stupid for the legislators for having had passed such laws.

For example, it is illegal in the City of London that cabs carry rabid dogs and corpses. It is also illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament as much as it is treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside down. This obviously means disrespect for their royal family. In Miami, Florida, it is illegal to skateboard in a police station. Also in Florida, unmarried women who parachute on Sundays can be put to jail. In the UK it is very fine if a pregnant woman relieves herself anywhere she wants even if it is in a policeman's helmet. When you go to Indonesia, you will learn that the penalty for masturbation is decapitation.

Make Sense?

For my friend, Jessa, there are laws that are worth her read. While she was citing these all to me, I literally laughed out loud. I thought to myself, yes, they're really weird. Only if one doesn't think of the cultural differences, one may think all these are idiot laws. Take a read:

When you are in Massachusetts, it is against the law if you go to bed without taking a bath first. But there is also another law in the same state that prohibits bathing on Sunday. So what do we have here? Well, I guess the only solution to that is to sleep very late on Sundays. Take a bath when 12:01 am strikes. That means it's already Monday and you can already take a bath, at the same time, you can already sleep when you're done with shower.

In the year 1979. women in Jidda, Saudi Arabia were banned from using hotel swimming pools; I guess for the very reason that women there shouldn't be exposed in the public.

Both of these, make sense, eh?

That's Why I Love Laws

For people, laws may be boring and not-worth-a-read. This is personally true with my case. The only thing that I loooove about laws is when I heard and read crazy laws. I mean, these laws that are passed to the legislative body and are even ratified, they are supposed to be “proper” laws. Well, by proper I mean the common language game played by everyone else in this world.

For those horse lovers, beware when you go to Wilbur, Washington because it is illegal to ride an ugly horse. Biting someone with your teeth is said to be an assault, so never bite someone when you are in Louisiana. In Athens, Greece, if the driver is caught poorly dressed or unbathed, his license can be temporarily taken away from him. In California, it is against the law when you set up a mouse trap and you don't have a hunting license. You will be penalized for doing so.

But They Are Constitutional

It is interesting to know that as serious as we may perceive laws, there are, as a matter of fact, laws that we seem weird but are ratified and are deemed constitutional in some places. Here are some:

In New York, they have a law that is a sort of double insult to injury. The penalty for jumping off a building is death (so those who plan to commit suicide, better make sure it's a smooth one). In Pennsylvania, it is illegal that you tie a bill on a string on the ground and pull it away when someone tries to pick it up. If you forget your own wife's birthday, you will be fined when you live in Samoa. Farting after 6 p.m. on Thursdays is against the law in Florida. In France, selling dolls that do not have human faces is illegal. So “E.T” dolls when sold there are immediately confiscated.

Peculiar Laws, Anyone?

While we may think that since laws are ratified, then they have to pertain only to “serious” matters. Hey, there are laws in this world, which, one way or another, we may find peculiar. And take note, these are written laws.

If you go to San Francisco, you will realize that it's illegal to pile horse manure that is more than six feet high on a street corner. In Florida, cross-dressing is a big no no. Men seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown can be fined. In South Carolina, it is actually legal to beat your wife on the court room steps during Sundays. In Salt Lake County in Utah, it is not legal to walk down the street carrying a violin in a paper bag. In Bozeman, Montana, a law is mandated that prohibits all sexual activities in the front yard of the house when the sun sets.

Peculiar laws, anyone?

Greater Responsibility

If we place ourselves always inside the box of outdated Christianity we will never find the solutions which it has mainly caused.

Therefore, let us get out of this box which is formerly pure religion corrupted through the centuries, and stay out of that light-darkness mix, and stand on pure light, that is, the true pure Christianity.

I am a Christian. I believe in Christ. I have look forward to the interests of my citizens. I care for my country. I love my country. I know for myself that I am a responsible citizen. I work and move based on the dictate of the signs and times. I recognize change. But I continue to seek the truth. I live for truth and for justice.

I believe in pure religion. Examine and I would be glad if you could make your own assessment regarding our radical ideas. True Christians possess radical ideas based in the framework of love for God, neighbor and self.

City of God vs City of Man

St. Augustine's book entitled the City of God presents the history of mankind as being a conflict between the City of God and the City of Man – a conflict that is destined to end in victory of the former. The City of God is what we know now as heaven on earth, a place where we can heartily dedicate ourselves to the widespread of the Christian doctrines. To Augustine, the City of God is the Christian church. The City of Man is composed of those people who are strayed from the City of God.

In deeper analysis with his book, my understanding of St. Augustine's concept of peace is that there is no peace without justice. But he also says that there is no justice without Christ.

Did he therefore imply that one cannot be at peace without knowing Christ? What about those who have other belief systems? What about those who never really know anything about the concept of religion and spirituality? Was Augustine saying that they can never be at peace until they put Christ in their lives?

St. Augustine's City of God

A social scientist, St. Augustine asserted two things in his writing, City of God. First, the city of man is natural. Second, that each of us must live in this city in order to later on transcend the evils of the City of Man and move on to the City of God.

The second one, I can get it at some point. It actually reminds me of Star Wars, how Anakin had to become Darth Vadr and walked the dark side before he could return and bring balance to the force. It makes sense that before you reach the City of God, you must walk the City of Man to discern the difference and choose the "right path" that will lead you to the City of God.

But, if the City of Man is natural and people are born naturally in it, why punish them for it after? Why create the City of Man to be a natural thing?

Equality For All

For Aristotle, polis is the association of households and clans in a good life. He also said that the polis itself is prior to everything else. Aristotle compared this with the whole being necessity prior to the part, so the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual. But in order to have a good polis, you must consider your family too. And it is by human nature that we consider our families first before anything else. How do we resolve these opposing statements?

Justice, for him, is the bond of men in states. The administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society. But he also said, “justice means equality but only for those who are equal and not for all.” Who are then those who belong to his “equal” classification? Isn't it that everyone should deserve equality?

Polis Is the Highest Good

Polis, according to Aristotle, refers to a body of citizens. It is a community that is established to seek the highest good, that is, man should always render good acts for them to achieve a community that promotes the wellness of every man.

It is stated in Aristotle's Politics that the state came into existence and is continuing to exist for the sake of the good life. Why, then, was there the concept of slavery if every individual should experience good life? But of course, this does not mean to say that everyone should rule, but why does one have to rule over another? Then the issue on equality is at stake. As the thinker placed it, men are superior than women. In the households, for example, men play as statesmen while the wives, citizens. How then can one explain the concept of equality here? And in a society where equality is not given its premium, could a polis still be achieved?

Politics of Aristotle

Aristotle's Politics states that man is either naturally born to be a ruler or naturally born to be ruled. But what if a man who is naturally born to be ruled grows up in an environment of rulers? What if this man is given the kind of education designed for rulers? What if this man will be educated the qualities of becoming a ruler? Will it be just then to make this man a ruler if this is the case?

In a state where all the citizens are well-educated and professionals (law makers, doctors, engineers), would the state survive if there are no more less professional jobs because everyone has mastered their craft?

As Aristotle stressed, 'all associations are political, inasmuch as they aim at a common good through joint action; the state differs from other associations in that it aims at the highest good, the general advantage of all." Doesn't it that other associations also aim for the highest good for the common benefit of all?

Queries on The Republic

The Republic is a book written by Plato. The book actually talked on philosophy and political theory. I have some questions with regard to the book:

It has been clearly emphasized more than once that "justice is performing one's function in the community for which nature best suited him.” Should the definition of justice be limited to this? Does this explain the whole concept of justice? Now from this definition of justice, can we say tht the laws that we have now are just and fair?

Plato wanted to abolish familial concepts, yet he also believed that children with defects be taken away and reared differently. Also, he mentioned that woman and men are equal though women are always weaker in some aspects. How are these?

It was also mentioned in the book that "minding one's own business and not meddling with other men's concerns is justice." Does this statement mean to say that helping others is a manifestation of injustice? What does “minding one's own business” mean?

Every Single Vote Matters

Reality is this: some of the youth now who once have ideal minds, who aspire to be servants to the people, are now disillusioned in politics. Hearing from the news and learning from the opinions of others, the politics in the developing countries has been a game of power and influence so that if one has less power and influence over the other, then chances of winning are extremely low.

But of course, this cannot be generalized for there are those who value sincerity and goodwill; there are still those who value the people and give utmost respect to the government they're serving. These people are all we need.

That's why I call that in every election wherever that may be, I hope that people should give dignity and pride to themselves by giving value to their votes and taking their right to vote at its highest caliber. People should be aware that every single vote matters.

Ideally Perverted

Elections is not just about a candidate vying a certain seat in the government nor campaigning for your bets and voting for them. The rule of thumb here is composed of three Gs: gold, goons, and guns, whether we like it or not, yes whether we like it or not. The one who has an edge of these three over the rest have the highest probability of winning the elections. However, this does not mean that he is the most qualified person to fill in the slot. He will win because according to our barometer, he has the highest measurement. Ideally, it is perverted.

People, as responsible citizens, should know their right to vote independently and practice it. They should exercise their right to vote and they should not be threatened, they should not feel threatened to pick a candidate of their choice only because some higher authorities map out things for them, dictating them on what to do, who they should vote for.

Turncoats All The Time

What I exactly don't affirm about traditional politics is its rules of the game. These explicit ABCs in politics have been passed on from generation to generation. The character of these people involved: turncoat. Politicians and those who claim themselves as supporters tend to be swayed to the stronger, more influential people in the arena. Sad, because these people are eating up all their ideals, setting aside their inner conscience, and forgetting their principles just for them to belong. Isn't it ironic when they try to convince electors to support them because they have a better ability to lead the populace over their opponents, as they try to claim it?

I feel upset to those politicians who are turncoats. They fool not just their friends and colleagues in the political arena, not just their “supporters”, but beyond anything else. they fool their own selves.

Why would we support for these pretenders?

Reality Bites

There are people who treat politics as their source of bread and butter. They see the elections as the perfect time to solicit alms from the candidates – the official-wannabes. For these people who literally beg for money, this is the easiest means to collect funds for this wouldn't involve much of one's sweat, blood and tears. All you have to do is to be forward about what you want. Say it. Say it directly to the candidates. And then, voila! Without a single word of complain, they will provide you everything that you have on the checklist. All of these, in exchange with what the candidates ask for you in return – your vote.

This is very saddening because these candidates failed to give respect to your rights. Much sadder because you failed to give importance to your own rights and have these converted for one's gain.

Sad, tsk tsk. This is reality. And reality bites.

Living In Utopia

There have been tons of books written to merely understand the politics in us. There have been various critics on these books, different perspectives are presented and a handful of questions have been boggling me. For instance, in Plato's The Republic, it has been said that in order for us to understand ourselves and our commonwealth better, we must be wise enough to consult the national divinity, that is, our concept of God. This thinking may be applicable in Plato's time. But I wonder,in present times, would this concept still be applicable for us to consult national divinity when we know for a fact that there is a separation between the church and the state and that even with this law, the church (or vice versa) always opposes the stand of the other?

I understand that some critics say that Plato's The Republic is Utopian, but should we not envision this kind of world? Not that perfect but ideal at the very least.

Justice, Anyone?

In a country wherein majority of the people are living below the poverty line and survival of the fittest is the only fair game. In a country wherein severe graft and corruption are rampant yet the government do nothing about it, nor the people, even the church. In a country wherein the justice system is ambiguous, uncertain, questionable. In a country wherein the people no longer believe that the state can feed them food, give them shelter, provide proper health care, render good education, save their souls and leaving the country is the sole option of the people. In a country where hope has vanished and trust never is a concept.

When do we know that justice is being served? Or will justice still be served? What should be the bases of justice here? Who shall be allowed to seek justice? To whom shall justice be granted?

What is justice, anyway? Or is there still such a word?

Politics Equals Trash

When it comes to politics, people have so many inputs about it. For some, politics may not interest them but for people who are living below the poverty line, it has always been an issue for them. This has always been true for those living in the developing countries like those in Asia and Africa wherein the theory on survival for the fittest is deemed true. In this case, politics has been transformed not for public service but a main source of living, a main source for survival.

This is where dirty politics comes in. In dirty politics, people involve themselves to get money the easy way. Candidates buy votes, promote black propaganda of opponents, exhaust military force and threaten civilians just for these candidates to get what they want. And so because the civilians need money for survival, they tolerate this nasty behavior of the candidates. After all, they get a fair share of money that is being distributed to the masses.

So it will never stop. The trash. Politics.

It Runs In The Blood

They say it's in the genes. It runs in the blood. So no matter how hard you try to avoid it, it is just so irresistible. It's hard. Especially if your heart speaks the opposite of what your mind dictates. In my case, in politics. I've been so interested in politics even in my younger years. I am so engrossed in it that talking to people and dealing with them is my forte. It is very satisfying for me to know that in my own little ways, I am actually able to extend help to those in need. It may sound idealistic, but I treat this as my passion like everyone has, to begin with.

Now that I am already grown up (I would like to believe that I am), the picture of politics has

become clearer and clearer in me. I understand that politics is a very complicated and sensitive issue and it entails me my strong will and commitment. But I think I am ready.