the moral democracy...
could form to be our kind's first "real democracy" to
include a redundant "morality" if knowingly we'd not continue to
ignore our one humanly-common source and would apply
to that purpose. We then could apply our language in
order truly to produce that rule "of, by and for all the people" the moral
basis of which we rationally in common could describe to be a "democracy."
That is we socially must institute the political prescriptions and
proscriptions which form first and commonly to be "moral"
given that only one unified
logic even reconciles our common
social formation morally with that possible description.
applies socially to include the public and private and autonomous
(APS) such that all the people inclusively within a social
contract morally even could have
a secondary political
authority. That is, all enfranchised
citizens socially bear ultimate custodial
responsibility individually for the
custodians with that secondary authority
if morally all rationally would form
a democracy or not. Their ultimate
custodiality follows from their own
political acts, if institutionally
only to vote for their instituted custodians
or sit as jurors within the
trials a trial
court conducts within a
moral judicial system.
those purposefully within the public sector always would
institute politically with custodial responsibility, first secondarily
to contract socially from the people's political authority. They'd serve
corporately within legally-instituted interest groups ultimately
representing everyone within the social contract as a whole. The directly
elected among them also would serve all the enfranchised who did or didn't
exercise their primary right socially to participate with custodial
responsibility themselves. Further, it's the officials from within the
election's section of the executive branch's legal services
division who'd count the votes of those who did while the candidates would
fill the available positions or provide a line of succession to a given
office in descending order of the vote count.
enfranchised citizens similarly could determine how long their
elected individuals bear custodial authority geopolitically within the
borders of their nation-state either through initiatives for recall
or as logical plaintiffs within their judicial system.
Equally with that primary participation right, custodians also may quit
at any time. Because all rights equally apply within those borders, other
even disinterestedly-arbitrary geopolitical divisions also couldn't exist.
All elections would be "at large" to lack both "term limits" and the compartmented
jurisdictions which standardize an immoral "federalism." There'd also be
no such indirect electoral means as served by the U.S. "electoral
college" or the legislative-branch dictation of
leaders through so-called "parliamentary democracies."
such past geopolitical divisions even arbitrarily have been disinterested
at their humanly conceived inception. For added instance, we've also formed
legislative districts and bicameral legislatures. These immorally also
form from the enacted rule of the political men who unethically institute
such concepts from top down rather than the moral law which all enfranchised
citizens commonly first could implement. This results in a redundant
system of governance which some humans unethically impose also rationally
to waste our resources, one at best which lets us escape unjust individual
judgments through bureaucratic inefficiencies, "buck-passing" and selective
law enforcement even while we slip through the "cracks" in our "social
safety nets" for better and, ultimately, worse.
must enact morally-disinterested standards if rationally we're all
to have equal access to those expertized custodial positions which
also are among our positive life options. This requires our
elected or expertised personnel managers to publicize all public
and private-sector job openings or APS positions through
the media because all enfranchised citizens equally have a
first right to access them. It also requires these secondary custodians,
also as appropriate to the moral interest group concerned, to hire on a
first-come, first-served or lottery basis and employ the first qualified
applicant. It similarly requires them to open an existing position only
if the current holder either fails to perform his or her contracted duties,
loses enfranchised status, or quits.
public-sector standards require the unelected to certify
as experts and directly to participate within moral interest groups, those
for the private sector leave both optional. Yet corporate
combinations within the latter themselves must form to be moral democracies
inclusively within the moral democracy. Their political individuals
would be its equal co-owners- jointly casting equal votes to determine
their own employment standards and economic purposes such that they first
yield to the primary rights of all individuals within what we call "management
decisions." All this and more morally applies because they equally have
a political-economic purpose secondarily to serve the primary interest
of citizens-consumers whose rights the public sector more
inclusively would represent.
||The private sector's
standardized "sole proprietorship" at the individual's option also is political
and secondarily custodial because she or he also so serves. This also applies
if and while she or he secondarily contracts with other sole-proprietors
or corporations in order to gain new wealth. It's finally then that these
as well as other ethical individuals within both political sectors morally
could co-exist and coordinate in the ultimate interest of all individuals
inclusively within what could be our kind's first morally-exemplary nation-state.
||The autonomous public sector
(APS) also morally then could form to include those enfranchised
citizens who'd opt by primary right secondarily not to institute with political
authority. Certified expertise morally not a precondition, she or he optionally
also could combine with APS others if none would transact with citizens-consumers
for economic gain. That they could create new wealth for all because we'd
liberate them from having to pursue a "profit motive" as a precondition
to their pursuing possible
life options would be a
bonus- not a contradiction. Given their productive discoveries, inventions
and art works, their contributions could parallel the instituted
public sector's in its social reach but without the
latter's necessary limitations.
they could behave as all other privately-primary individuals
could with their fully-optionable rights secondarily assured politically.
Like political parties or churches, say, they morally even
could institute the top-down rule of men if they'd choose also to combine
within their own interest groups. That is, they and all of us could if
we all first would implement a moral democracy- first would serve the hierarchically-applied
rule of moral law within our own moral interest groups rather than the
rule of those men who secondarily wouldn't be our custodians because we
as primary would let them. Until we do, only such exhortations as this
and/or our moral civil disobedience provide
our only moral alternatives.