THE MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN INTERACTION

Posted on Jan 21, 2014 in Global Law Politics | 0 comments

THERE IS NO SHANGRI-LA

               Human mores differ radically in societies and cultures across the globe and throughout time.  Different societies and different cultures have enforced radically different standards, rules and values. The question, then, is whether mankind’s interactions with itself are simply random variables or whether there may be common values that are universal in the sense that they apply to all humans. The ultimate question is whether we, as a species, can begin to learn to cohabit together peacefully or are we destined to be conflictatory.

               While we are a single species, the dominant and most consistent theme of our humanity is personal self-interests.  This is the pattern of the Ruling classes, in every society throughout history.  It is contrasted with their treatment of the society’s workers, be they designated as slaves, serfs, servants, blue collar, lower class, women, children.  Also included are those who are “different”.  Different can be in religion or skin color.  It can reference place of “origin” as in the Irish, the Polish or Moslems.  It has been interpreted to mean “the wrong side of the tracks’ or the “wrong side of town”.  Regardless the designation or even costs in terms of human sacrifice, the effect is and has been that those in power, at all costs, seek to preserve their power, standing and entitlements.

This has consistently been accomplished through aggression toward others of the species.     The Egyptians, Alexander the Great, the Romans invaded other cultures and lands, stole their wealth and enslaved their populations.  The policy and practice of “conquer and enslavement” was a consistent standard through the European colonial period.  Slavery was an underpinning of the United States society and economy until a war made it illegal.  The change in title did little to change the slaves’ plight, place and status for a hundred years.

Unbridled killing and torture of our selves is a recurrent, common and continuing theme.  Across the globe, a majority of societies still spy on each other and kill and imprison those who in any way attempt to advocate and implement different values or views from the dominate policy.  This policy of repressing dissonance as among the masses is followed everywhere, regardless the “distinctions” between the dynasty, kingdom, political system, government, corporation or even individuals in authority.

Often “religion” has been used to excuse and justify those actions. Presently, many areas of the world still tolerate and literally are governed by tenants and values that became obsolete in the Middle Ages in other parts of the world.  Women are a particularly oppressed and abused group, especially in Moslem societies.  Beyond that, genocide, human trafficking and reigns of terror are still tolerated and common in all societies on the earth.  They are enforced by those in power for their personal power, profit or pleasure.

               This could be obviated but for one prevalent and seemingly never questioned position/assumption.  The rationalization is that all countries have “sovereign” rights. As this concept pertains to homo sapiens, our species, our lives and  individual rights are literally subject to the whims of our “sovereigns”.  That is, local governments choose how they will manage and exploit their societies.  Local governments/nation states are often free to abuse their wards indiscriminately.  The idea of national “sovereignty” is an obsolete concept when considered in conjunction with world “human rights”.  It should be discarded.

Ironically, this presumption is not controlling in economic or commercial arenas.  Cooperation, conformity and unity are universal in the areas of economics, trade, shipping, transportation, financial exchanges and monetary interaction.  Reliance, dependability and continuity are demanded in economic markets and endeavors.

                                                                                      HOPE

                 While aggression and self enhancement may be basic and integral to our nature, we as a species may not need to tolerate it from our governments or the ruling class.  The question comes down to whether, as a species, we have or should have certain  inalienable, aka basic, rights.  The US Declaration of Independence defined it broadly as the rights of  life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.  Barak Obama has observed that a commonality of and among all religions is the Golden Rule. That would seem to be a reasonable starting point. If the fundamental precept of government and corporations was to do unto others as they would want done to themselves, civility would abound. All mankind would benefit.

                    Perhaps, the only way “Utopia” can ever be approached is for there to be an enlightened world government.  Assume an ideal society is established.  This would have to come from a clear set of values, as in the Code of Hammurabi, the Justinian Code or even the Ten Commandments. What is required is a singular set of rules that are enforced and apply to all of mankind. They would have to apply equally to every human being, including even women and children, regardless of their location on the globe, present religious affiliations or inherent wealth.

                 Woodrow Wilson tried this ideal following World War I with the League of Nations and his  Fourteen Points speech.  International rules of law need to be applied to all rulers, purported kings, dictators, prime ministers or presidents.  This would need to come from a purportedly independent tribunal as in the World Court as opposed from an opportunistic singular country.  In the United States, leaders are subject to basic legal standards (see: Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon, Tom DeLay, Rod Blagojevich).

                Unfortunately, mankind’s wealthy and the privileged, from “trust fund” babies to dictators and despots seem to be neither enlightened nor ready to sacrifice anything that might affect them personally. Also, neither are the vast majority of the world’s nations ready to make a change.  That is, of course because they are controlled by the aforementioned dictators, despots, royalty and privileged. Change may come, nevertheless, as humanity is into a new phase of global awareness and interaction. 

                                                                                       NEXT?

                  The end result for Mankind, if we are to survive, requires order. The masses of humanity would not object. The indigent, the poor, the starving masses and the perpetual rape victims in Somalia and Darfur and political victims/opponents subject to early morning raids, prison and torture without trial would object? Wars between countries or even tribes are intolerable, assuming there is a consistently applied rule of law. The only real opponents of such laws will be those in power who are used to and plan to abuse their authority. What is necessary is for the United Nations and the World Court to be strengthened, reformed and given a clear authority and power over the entire globe, risky though this may be.  The risks would include sovereignty but only by that risk may we possible achieve order.  It would be interesting to see the reaction of the rest of the world nations to that suggestion.  Humanity has to start somewhere!

                                                                                             ZENITH

                  Have we as a species reached our intellectual zenith?  Is this chaos and carnage the best we can do.  Is this our destiny?  The next step is difficult to envision. The fatal paths of self-consumption that led to self-destruction in societies generally are investigated by Jared Diamond in Collapse.  There is substantial support for the thesis is that humanity is not capable of overcoming itself.  Greed and selfishness are obvious confounding factors especially by those who are unwilling to compromise even where it would be of substantial benefit to everyone alike.  Obviously, genetically driven selfishness, which, if Easter Island and the Mayan societies are any example, is more dominant.  For example, the arms manufacturers are willing to accept carnage throughout the world, including in the USA, so long as they continue to receive their revenue and dividends.  Selfishness is compounded by racial and religious intolerance in the perpetuation of armed chaos globally. 

                                                                            CONCLUSION

The ultimate question is whether we will destroy each

other and ourselves in the process or whether humanity’s

intellectual and creative limits will be broached.