(In Volume One Tinny and the Philosopher-Scientist discussed a new, more correct world view which could help bring about a better world and ensure the future survival of the human race. As Volume One ended Tinny was preparing to discuss how the many critical social/environmental problems of our present world can be understood on the basis of that new world view.)
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will you talk about first?
TINNY: I don't really think it matters which problem area I start with. There is a unity of all things so whichever area I begin with will be linked to all others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Might I suggest you begin with politics.
TINNY: That would seem to be a good place to start. Few problem areas would be so pervasive and critical. There is a lot to be covered under the heading of politics. I'll start by pointing out discrepancies with the new world view in various political systems.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you have a preference between political systems?
TINNY: I do, but my preference is not any of the present political systems. I won't tell you what it is now because it will come out as we discuss politics in relation to the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Just give me a very brief definition of politics.
TINNY: Politics includes all the tactics and processes of governing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what is governing?
TINNY: Governing in this sense means regulating and directing human behaviour both individually and in groups.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which is the best political system being practiced in the world today?
TINNY: That is an impossible question to answer. None are very good although all have some good ideals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean none are very good.
TINNY: The best of the present political systems does more harm than good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are they really that bad?
TINNY: Unless stopped, political interests will bring about the extinction of the human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Politicians must be terrible people.
TINNY: Most politicians are well intentioned. They aspire to do good while due to their ignorance they bring evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say politicians are ignorant but most politicians would be better educated than the average person.
TINNY: The ignorance of politicians comes not from a lack of education but from the blindness to the true nature of our existence brought about by the beliefs and circumstances which are inherent in political philosophy and practice.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there one most basic flaw in political thought?
TINNY: Yes, there is one most fundamental flaw, the belief that it is right to govern
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's pretty basic all right. Does that mean it is not right to govern?
TINNY: Absolutely correct. It is not right to govern.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No wonder you don't like any of the world's present political systems.
TINNY: Politicians believe it is right to govern; in fact they like to govern
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do you say it is wrong to govern?
TINNY: Because at the human level of development the exercise of free-will is necessary for the continued existence of the species. It goes against the natural order for human beings to be made to do the right thing. If we cannot act in a right manner without external control we shall not survive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But many people would not act in a right manner without the external controls which governments provide. Isn't it better to be protected from those who would do evil even if this protection must come from government control?
TINNY: It would only be better if government control could really insure the survival of the species, but it can't. The protector is also the destroyer. Governments restrict freedom because of the fear some of society's members will choose wrongly. It has not been realised that the imposition of external controls by governments takes away our freedom to be good by choice.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: People have been governed in various ways for thousand of years and the human race has not come to an end yet.
TINNY: It was not so wrong to govern in the past as it is in the present. It will be even worse in the future. In the early physical universe the natural order was almost totally deterministic, involving external control. This gave way, as material development progressed, to an increasing exercise of free-will. When human consciousness first came to exist the natural order still allowed a great deal of external control to further the development of the species. As the envolution of the human species continues this early external control must be relinquished so that the potential of humanity can be manifested. The continued external control of matter in the early stages of the development of our universe would have resulted in a physical existence that did not progress and fulfill its destiny. The same would be true of the human species if we are not allowed to progress beyond the external control of government.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did governments begin? What were the earliest governments?
TINNY: The beginnings of government are certainly less than auspicious. Governments originated in the exercise of brute force. As the human species made the transition from animal to beings with self-reflective consciousness these early social primates were ruled by the biggest, strongest, most ruthless individual in the group. This was the first form of human government, one individual imposing his will on the members of the social group by force and aggression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the members of early human society never agreed to be governed.
TINNY: The first people never agreed to be governed and no people since have ever agreed to be governed. Government once imposed upon the members of early society by force has maintained its control over the human race through the various progressive stages up to and including the present political systems. The control by government has always been and still is imposed upon the members of human society by force.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What general stages has the progression of government gone through?
TINNY: At first small social groups were ruled by the one strongest, most aggressive individual. As the size of the social groups increased the one most powerful individual ruled with the assistance of others who enforced the will of the ruler. The institution of government developed a hierarchical system of bureaucrats and functionaries to ensure and maintain the power of the ruling class. The ordinary members of these early societies often lived lives of drudgery and poverty as they worked to glorify the ruling class and provide them a life of relative opulence. To increase the material wealth and comfort of those in power the practice of slavery was instituted. These early societies were at various times ruled by royalty or a priesthood. The majority of society's members always lived poorly so that a few could live richly. The power, while shifting from the secular to the religious and back was passed through many centuries in the hands of a privileged few.
The priesthood, royalty, and the military all developed increasingly successful ways of maintaining their control over the masses of humanity. As government progressed through the ages conditions changed so that an increasingly large segment of society wanted a share in the wealth and a say in the decisions of government. These new citizen members of society were incorporated into a system of government that still maintained the power of a ruling class. Even these early attempts at democracy, a system that purports to be government by the people, left the power and wealth in the always ready hands of a privileged few. Slaves became serfs, serfs became workers, and workers became middle class. Modern governments be they royal, democratic, socialist, communist, dictatorial, or religious maintain the same characteristics as the earliest governments. The many are controlled by the few, those few holding the majority of power and/or wealth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I accept your brief overview of the development of government. I have two questions about things you said. If the members of a society are citizens with a democratic vote aren't they giving their consent to be governed?
TINNY: At best in democracies the members of society are allowed to vote for the leader of their choice. It never happens that the members of society are given the opportunity to vote as to whether or not they wish to be governed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You're right, the choice is of who is to govern, not whether or not to be governed.
TINNY: And your other question?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't the communist and socialist systems advocate a more equitable distribution of wealth?
TINNY: They do and they also advocate placing power in the hands of the people.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then how can you say that communism and socialism perpetuate the evils inherited from the long history of government back to the earliest forms?
TINNY: The ideals of communism and socialism are different than the systems in practice. Wealth has never been evenly distributed although admittedly in a few cases there has been a real attempt to do so. The gains in the distribution of wealth have been balanced by the losses of personal freedom. The communist and socialist states are notorious for authoritarian and totalitarian regimes willing to take all personal freedoms for the so-called good of the state. In fact it is interesting to note the language sometimes used to describe the system of government in the developing communist and socialist states. It is called the "dictatorship of the proletariat!" I have wondered if the word 'of' in this description is purposely ambiguous. I have heard it said this really means dictatorship "by" the proletariat, but I have always thought in practice this appears to mean dictatorship "over" the proletariat.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see what you mean. I had never considered it that way before. Does this mean you would favour democracy over communism or socialism?
TINNY: I favour neither over the other. Both have some very attractive points, but as I see our reality the negative aspects of each of those political systems far outweighs the good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The terms rightist and leftist have been used to refer to the capitalist democracies and communist/socialist governments respectively. What do these terms mean?
TINNY: Right wing means to be politically conservative and in opposition to political reform. Left wing means to be politically progressive or radical, favouring extensive political reform.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems from what you have said earlier that you would be in favour of extensive political reform. Why don't you then favour communism and socialism?
TINNY: You're right, of course, I most certainly desire extensive political reform, but I don't think the changes advocated by communism and socialism are a positive step in human development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why not?
TINNY: Because of the authoritarian and totalitarian nature of communism and socialism as it has been practiced by the world's governments.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you tell me what authoritarian and totalitarian mean?
TINNY: A government which is authoritarian believes in subjugation to authority as opposed to the expression of individual freedom. A government which is totalitarian grants neither recognition nor tolerance to those of differing opinion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: With your knowledge of the central importance of free-will in the development of human potential I can easily see why you would object to an authoritarian or totalitarian political system.
TINNY: They may bring about the destruction of the human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are democratic political systems ever authoritarian?
TINNY: Democracies are certainly less likely to be overtly authoritarian or totalitarian than communist/socialist governments, but these evils exist within the democratic system also.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why are democratic governments less likely to be authoritarian or totalitarian than communist/socialist governments?
TINNY: The very nature of the democratic system places great emphasis on individual freedom and initiative. The communist/socialist systems emphasise the rights and needs of the state over rights and needs of the individual.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since democracies place such importance on the rights of the individuals, how could a democratic government ever become authoritarian or totalitarian?
TINNY: The personal freedoms offered in a democratic state are sometimes abused by individuals within that society. In cases where freedom becomes license there is often agreement among those in power, supported by a large portion of the populace, that individual freedom must be given up in order to bring ideas and behaviours which threaten society under control.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What types of threats to society brings about this restriction of personal freedom?
TINNY: They are most often threats to power and wealth. If those who control the power and wealth are threatened with losses almost anything is considered acceptable to maintain their control. Sometimes these supposed threats are called political or even religious but power and wealth are invariably the compelling factors.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Money and material wealth have a very important place in democratic states.
TINNY: That is the major flaw in democratic political systems. The personal freedom and initiative is directed in large measure to the gathering of material wealth; this incredible overemphasis on satisfying the material desires results in a small segment of society amassing immense wealth, which can only be done by binding many to eternal poverty. This quest for material wealth blinds the members of democratic societies to the important truths of our existence which are non-material in their nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How harmful is it for a few people to amass great wealth?
TINNY: Even ignoring the immeasurable wrongs brought about by the incorrect world view which is perpetuated by the emphasis on the acquisition of material wealth, in a very direct sense those few who hold the greatest wealth are responsible for many thousands, perhaps millions of lives lost each year. The connection while extremely complex is very real.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It makes those who amass great wealth sound like criminals.
TINNY: They are criminals. They commit a crime against all society.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What should be done with them? Should they be jailed?
TINNY: They should receive a loving positive influence directed toward showing them a more meaningful way of life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You ask that those responsible for the death of millions to be given love?
TINNY: That is the right way. No other path but love offers the human race a fulfilled destiny. No other path offers any future for the human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you go so far as to say the very worst person in the world is deserving of love?
TINNY: Absolutely; that is the right way.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are very kind.
TINNY: I'm only being realistic.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's interesting that you oppose the two major political systems in the world today.
TINNY: I oppose all systems of government, but I see some value in every one. The capitalist democracies have much to offer as do the communist/socialist systems. But the good points would still exist and be of value if they were not ordained by governments, but were part of a personal social consciousness expressed in every day life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So I suppose you would not support a socialist democracy manifesting the best points of each of the competing political systems.
TINNY: You're right, I wouldn't. Some governing systems are better or worse than others, but none are good. All oppose the natural order at the human level of existence and place insurmountable constraints on the development of human potential.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You accuse the communist/socialist systems of placing the interests of the state over the interests of the individual. I agree that they do; but are you sure this is a bad thing? It sounds quite reasonable.
TINNY: It would be reasonable to place the interests of the species over the interests of the individual if the two were to come into conflict. Ideally there would never be a case of conflict. What is best for the individual must, if existing in harmony with the natural order, be the best for human society. It is not reasonable, neither is it right, for the state to make the decision as to what is best for society. It is extremely important that a government never takes upon itself the power, which it would call the right, to decide how the individual might be used most effectively to further the interests of the state. While governments still exist they must remain a tool of the people, never the people as a tool of the state. If the decision is ever made to sublimate individual needs to the needs of society, this decision must rest solely on the individual and never be in the hands of the state.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those who make the decisions in a communist/socialist government would say they are expressing the will of the people.
TINNY: That's easy enough to say, it's just not the reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well, in a democratic state where there are votes on important issues, what is done reflects the will of the majority. Is that not a right system of government?
TINNY: It's not right at all. I think the democratic vote is quite terrible. In some ways it is better than a dictatorship where one person or a small group of persons make the decisions for everyone else, but it's only better as a matter of degree. Both dictatorships and democratic votes are means of imposing will by force. I would feel no better living under the rule of a dictator who made decisions affecting my life which I knew were wrong than if the majority in a democratic vote made decisions affecting my life which I didn't agree with. A democratic vote is only another way for some people to impose their will on others. It's only relatively better to have the majority involved in making the decisions for all members of society than to have the decisions for all members of society made by one person.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But almost everyone would say that a majority vote was the most fair way for decisions to be made for a group.
TINNY: Decisions should not be made for groups. Decisions should only be made by individuals for themselves. There was a time when virtually no one questioned the absolute right of kings to rule. Now virtually no one questions the right of the majority to rule. All things envolve; we are moving toward the point where no one would question the right of each individual to rule themselves.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If each individual governed themselves without external control that would be anarchy.
TINNY: Yes, it would be anarchy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But if we had anarchy in the world anyone could do anything they desired. There would be no protection from those who would do wrong. Anarchists have often used violence and murder to further their aims.
TINNY: What you are opposing are obviously wrong actions. I don't support any of those terrible things. Anarchy is a very complex concept. It has been used by those who resist all limits upon their behaviour and desires. Those who support such beliefs are often aggressive, violent people who will stop at nothing to have their personal desires fulfilled. It is unfortunate they have called their beliefs anarchy. It is unfortunate they are called anarchists.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What then should those who believe they have a right to act without restriction be called?
TINNY: I'm not sure, criminals I suppose. Anarchy does not mean the freedom from all restriction. Such a condition cannot exist. Anarchy is the freedom from external control. Each individual is still susceptible to natural law. Natural law cannot be ignored or transcended. Those who call their beliefs anarchy are misled. They are seeking license which can bring nothing but harm and destruction. All existence is susceptible to natural law. Anarchy is the condition where individuals live in harmony with the natural order by personal choice rather than because of external control.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if people decide to act in opposition to natural law?
TINNY: Then we cannot have anarchy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In the world as it is at present many would not choose to act in accord with natural law if there were not external controls making them do so.
TINNY: Even with all of society's laws, police, jails and threats people do not act in accord with natural law. Anarchy at present would be a complete disaster for the human race. We have not yet reached the point in our progression where we can accept the huge personal responsibility that comes with anarchy. Anarchy is the freedom to do anything you choose but, carries with it the responsibility to never choose to act in opposition to the natural order. For example an anarchist could never use their personal freedom to hurt another person, since to harm any living being is opposed to the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well human society seems to be far from that point.
TINNY: Not so far as it night seem. If we survive through the present period of crises we will make the leap to a higher level of consciousness which will allow us to successfully accept the responsibility of anarchy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why will people then be able to handle anarchy when it is so impossible now?
TINNY: The new consciousness will be one of enlightenment. The human race will come to learn the true nature of existence, will know natural law, and will possess an inner desire to exist in fullest harmony with the natural order. This new consciousness will bring forth a system of self governing that goes beyond any traditional concept of anarchy. This new system will be an enlightened anarchy, a world of beings so free they may do as they choose and so good they will never choose to do wrong. The condition of enlightened anarchy is utopia.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That will be a giant step for the human race. It's hard to believe it could happen in the relatively near future.
TINNY: It will happen in my lifetime unless those presently ruling the world destroy us all first.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How could they?
TINNY: Obviously they have the power to; unfortunately the minds of some leaders are sick, so sick they could issue the orders to destroy all living beings on this planet.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say the minds of the leaders are sick?
TINNY: They are insane. Their perception of the reality of existence is so distorted as to constitute a danger to themselves and others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it just the leaders who are insane?
TINNY: No, it is a plague upon humanity. This is a social insanity which affects every member of the human race. It is this insanity that has brought the human species to the brink of extinction. It is this insanity that has allowed the development of weapons capable of destroying all life on this planet. It is this insanity which allows the contemplation of using these horrible weapons of destruction. And it is this insanity which could allow orders to be given to use these weapons.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are many who believe such weapons are necessary.
TINNY: As long as even one person holds that belief the human race remains under threat of extinction.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Tell me again, what is the solution?
TINNY: There is only one solution, a new world consciousness. A state of enlightenment which will allow all members of the human species to know the true nature of existence. This will result in a new world view which will alter the thoughts, words, and deeds of every individual in a positive direction. As united individuals we shall take charge of our own destiny and fulfill our potential, continuing our progression to perfection in every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Such are the words of perfected being.
TINNY: It is a great honour to know and speak these truths. I sometimes feel unworthy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: To be human is to be worthy.
TINNY: It is such a shame that blindness to our reality and purpose has kept us from the realisation of the precious position we hold.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is our task, according to the natural order of things, to overcome this blindness.
TINNY: It makes the word enlightenment very appropriate, doesn't it?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Yes. It is the light we must see, in more ways than one.
TINNY: In the fullest sense, to see the light is to see everything.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is interesting how our discussions can drift from the very concrete, everyday conditions, such as politics, to the most esoteric of the metaphysical considerations.
TINNY: That is the unified theory of existence where all things, no matter how apparently separate and distinct, become clearly connected to and part of each other. All is one and all distinctions are characteristics of the state of mind, not the state of reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is hard to see how this enlightened anarchy will ever come to be. In such a world there will be no leaders. There are presently so many leaders and they exercise great control. They seem very unlikely to be influenced by the new world view.
TINNY: The leaders of the world may not relinquish their power and control by choice.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should their control be taken from them by force?
TINNY: If the leaders of the world are removed by force we will be no better off than we are now. The outcome of such an action would bring no better future. Progress cannot be made by the continued use of force. If the leaders cannot be removed without force there is no purpose in removing them.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you think the power and control of the world's leaders will be taken from them?
TINNY: When the new consciousness sweeps through human society the people of every nation will no longer allow themselves to be governed. With no one to be governed the leaders will be stripped of their power and control.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some of the world's leaders will stop at nothing to maintain their power and control. They would use any amount of force to ensure the continuance of the present situation. They may not allow the world's people to refuse to be governed.
TINNY: It will be a time of great risk. Some world leaders in the death throes of a dying system could be as dangerous as mad dogs. It will be the responsibility of an enlightened society to make this transition as smooth as possible. The leaders of the world will need sympathy and consideration.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will none of the world leaders be among those who understand and accept the new world view? Will none be among the new beings of higher consciousness?
TINNY: Some will, and these enlightened leaders will be very important as the human race struggles to survive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will be their main contribution to a successful future?
TINNY: A public acceptance of their new role as members of society equal to but no better than others. They will make decisions for themselves without the desire to continue imposing their will on others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't it be good if they used their position to convince those they govern of the rightness of this new world view?
TINNY: It is important that people come to know these truths by their own efforts and desires. These truths cannot be fully known if they are imposed. This new world view must spread by natural means. It must succeed on its own merits, but the enlightened leaders could help by making access to the true knowledge of reality easily available to all.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What means do you think some world leaders and their governments will use to fight against this new world view which threatens to end their power and control?
TINNY: Some will use violence to maintain their position. The structures of society such as the military, the police, and the courts will be used as tools to maintain the present wrong system. The communications media will be used shamelessly to spread propaganda in hopes of maintaining the brainwashed state of the citizens under their control.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean propaganda will be used to convince people this new world view is not true?
TINNY: All governments use propaganda to ensure those under their control see the world in the way that best supports the continuation of the beliefs of the leaders. This brainwashing reaches every aspect of human life. It is virtually impossible to be free from it. Governments that fear the effects of this new consciousness will not only label it as untrue, but may condemn it as wrong and harmful. There might even be attempts by some to make the teaching and dissemination of the truths of this new world view illegal.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that brainwashing by government authorities intrudes upon every aspect of human life. What about all the so-called free nations, those that pride themselves on the freedom of their citizens?
TINNY: No one is free from propaganda and brainwashing. The leaders of the world can be cunning and subtle. We live in a carefully conditioned society. Our purported freedoms are a myth. We are rigidly controlled in thought and deed. It is this which results in so many of the social problems facing the human race. Propaganda and brainwashing are most effective if done in a way that those subject to these manipulations believe themselves free of such influences. One of the reasons I feel so sure that this new world view will soon sweep through human society is that it has been suppressed for so long by the promulgation of a wrong world view which supports the continuation of control by those who hold wealth and power.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is all this propaganda and brainwashing done as part of a deliberate plan to mislead and deceive?
TINNY: This is the oddest thing; many of those responsible for the perpetuation of the wrong world view by propaganda and brainwashing are as unaware of what they are doing as are those who are being brainwashed. Many others who use these unfair methods of social influence do so knowingly, but have no idea the world view they are perpetuating is wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems the influences of propaganda and brainwashing affect the controllers as well as the controlled.
TINNY: The effects of the incorrect world view are most insidious.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you think will happen to governments in the future?
TINNY: One of two things. Either the new consciousness will not arrive in time thereby allowing the present governing systems to put an end to life on our planet, or a worldwide society of new beings will remove the present systems of government to allow each individual to act responsibly through free-will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Given that the human species does survive, will the shift from the present varied systems of government to a world of enlightened anarchy be a sudden one?
TINNY: There will be a transitional period, but it won't be a long one.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How long do you think it will actually take?
TINNY: A generation or so would not be an unrealistic estimate.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will political philosophies, political parties, and national boundaries disappear early in this period of transition?
TINNY: All of those will linger before they fade away. I expect competing political philosophies will merge and attempt to incorporate the knowledge of the new world view. Political parties and governing bodies will attempt to remain relevant and necessary. National boundaries may well be the first to fall. I wouldn't be surprised if world government comes before no government.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would that be a good step?
TINNY: I think it would be an unnecessary step and it could be a dangerous one.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How so?
TINNY: Imagine the potential for totalitarian control a world government would have. There would be no competing systems to provide an alternative.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You're right. Some of the present nationalistic governments are bad enough.
TINNY: Nationalism is one of those false notions that comes from the wrong world view. As we erroneously learn to consider all things as separate entities, we divide ourselves by arbitrary geographic boundaries and believe our nation and its people to be somehow better and more important than others. It is critical that we learn to see ourselves as a unified human family with an undivided planet as our home. We must learn to accept and appreciate our responsibility for the success and happiness of all other beings on our planet.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we are truly our brother's keeper.
TINNY: And our sister's keeper.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I meant that too.
TINNY: I know. Besides there is no real difference between brothers and sisters.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will human society be like with no government and no leaders?
TINNY: I don't think I can answer that question. Even if I could I think it would be better if I didn't.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why shouldn't you say how the world will be after enlightened anarchy replaces governments and leaders?
TINNY: What comes to be in a society of enlightened anarchists must arise naturally from the citizens of that future. I wouldn't want anyone to think my expectations were the way things must be.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give me a very general idea of how things will be?
TINNY: That should be okay, as long as you realise I make no claim to perfect knowledge of the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Of course you don't. It's your ideas I'm interested in. They will all be based on the unified theory of existence won't they?
TINNY: Oh, yes. My ideas don't just come from nowhere. I try to use the unified theory of existence as a standard by which to better understand all things.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Tell me what will replace government?
TINNY: Nothing will really replace government. Many of the functions of government are unnecessary and serve no purpose other than to maintain their continued existence. In a world where all members of society are truly free to do as they please, governed only by their own high consciousness, some agencies or functions of government will no longer be necessary.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this mean there will be no military forces, no elections, no police, no jails, no taxes, no regulations, and nothing will be compulsory?
TINNY: All that and much more might be our future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is hard to see how society could function without all the things that are done by governments.
TINNY: The world will be a very different place.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some things just can't be done by one person acting alone.
TINNY: What made you think people must act alone in the future?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since you have stressed the individualistic quality of an enlightened anarchy it seemed that everyone must act alone.
TINNY: An enlightened anarchy allows everyone total freedom of choice. It is certainly possible for a number of individuals to sometimes choose to act as a group.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't this necessitate leaders once again?
TINNY: Leaders will never be necessary. If a number of individuals decided to work together to achieve some commonly desired goal there would be certain tasks and functions which must be carried out to achieve that goal. It is the natural requirements of the goal that shall fulfill the position of leadership. After the goal has been achieved the individual members of the group would disband.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It still remains difficult to understand what life will be like when there are no leaders.
TINNY: I think it will be quite sometime until anyone really knows how it will be. If we go on and talk about the many other areas of human social behaviour it may become more clear.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That will be a good way to show the extent of these changes which will become the new world. Go ahead, discuss whatever you choose.
TINNY: Closely related to all forms of government is the military. It is incredible to think how much money, time, energy, and resources go into the military. The expenditure for the various aspects of the military is greater than for any other area of human endeavour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then it must be considered very necessary.
TINNY: Military spending takes precedence over all other things. Governments would rather have their citizens starve than be weak militarily.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you think starving people would rather have food than a strong army?
TINNY: I'm positive they would; but I doubt they are ever asked to decide. People who are hungry and homeless are not very powerful so their voice receives little government consideration. It is those with wealth and power who have the most influential voice in the decisions of government. Those with material wealth and power feel they have the most to lose. It is often their fear that results in strong armies being formed to protect that wealth and privilege.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's not really true that those with material wealth and power have the most to lose.
TINNY: I know, they actually have the most to gain. The loss of their wealth and power would be the best thing that could happen to them.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Few would believe you.
TINNY: Anyway it won't be the armies that take away their wealth and power, so it is not the armies they should fear.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Who should they fear?
TINNY: In reality they should fear no one taking their wealth and power, but as perceived from the present incorrect world view I guess I would have to say they should fear me.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you going to take their material wealth and power?
TINNY: In an indirect way, yes I am.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Getting back to the military, how would you feel living in a country that has an army supposedly protecting you?
TINNY: I would feel very threatened.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You fear those who are to protect you?
TINNY: As long as there are armies there will be wars.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean if there were no armies there would be no wars?
TINNY: It seems silly that such a simple statement can be true, but obviously there can be no wars without military forces.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you believe military forces can also protect you?
TINNY: All nations have armies they claim are needed for protection. In fact these armies are often called defense forces and the government agencies controlling the military are called departments of defense. The use of opposite words to describe harmful aspects of our society is one of the many ways in which governments mislead their citizens, blinding them from seeing obvious truths.
