Мирский Христо. 03.2. Ten Cynical Essays

     In the previous part:

     Foreword
     About the Creation and the created
     About the woman and the man
     About the mankind
     About the intellect
     About the religion

     In this part:

     About the democracy
     About the violence
     About the justice
     About the population
     About the future
     Addendum: Constitution of Cynicland

ABOUT THE DEMOCRACY

I. Great And Unreasonable
     The democracy is the most significant achievement of mankind in the social area, because it contradicts to the common sense! Despite the paradoxicality of this statement it is true, because it, really, is something to what couldn't have come one normal, i.e. average, individual in his judgements. The whole human experience during the centuries and in our days shows that the democratic choice, in fact, is not applied anywhere, where some work has to be done, say in the: army, police, education, healthcare, productive sphere, and so on. It is inconceivable to imagine army, in which the new recruits choose their commander between them; or the physicians to be appointed by the nurses and orderlies (and even the patients); or the teachers to be chosen from the students (and from their midst); or in some company to gather all common labourers, drivers, cleaners, and others, and ask them to choose director, or head of department, no matter what education he or she has. (And let us not confuse this with the democratization of management in many activities nowadays, which is only one auxiliary element, not main principle, and as such probably has existed also in the times of the pharaohs.) There are obvious reasons why this is not done, because each activity requires certain professionalism, which is proved on the basis of educational criteria and/or life experience, and this is decided by people with greater amount of knowledge in the given area, not from below, by the common people, and this is the only way to make the right choice, i.e. from top to bottom, not the reverse, what will say that the democratic choice, from the point of view of the reason, is a pure perversity!
     Said more precisely, the democratic choice assumes that: people who don't understand, choose such who they don't know, and this not requiring whatever document for professional qualification! Let us explain this in more details. The masses don't know anything about the area of governing, which isn't so elementary as they think (if we have in mind the real ruling, not its ostentatious part), but exactly for that reason think that know everything -- because the more limited is the knowledge of somebody, the more self-confident is he in his judgements. This is very old truth dating at least from the time of Pythagoras, who explained to his students why he, who knows so much, thinks that he knows a little, while they, because know nothing, think that know everything, resorting to the help of drawn on the sand circles, where his was the biggest, and theirs were very little, and everything outside the circles was the unknown, which is not limited from the outside; and because the biggest circle has greater contact with the unknown, for that reason he was well aware of his ignorance, but they didn't realize theirs. On this occasion the Russians have their proverb saying (in translation) that: "The narrower the forehead, the wider the self-conceit!". Because of this people usually argue: either about sport, or about politics, or about women (men), because these are the most difficult questions, for which singular solution does not exist, but these discussions are only useless "babble", for neither the masses can solve them, nor someone will listen to them if they occasionally say something reasonable (inasmuch as people are not interesting in the reasonable arguments but in what they like!). But this phenomenon is justified from the point of view of life, because one always wants to be motivated somehow in his actions, and if he does not have much knowledge, then he must have at least higher self-confidence, which must compensate for his lack of knowledge, otherwise about 95% of the people would have suffered from inferiority complex, what surely wouldn't have been right. This is why the children always think that they know everything, while with the age the self-confidence little by little diminishes (because their knowledge grows), until they become so old, that in order to be able to lead peaceful life (because their knowledge and abilities begin to lessen more and more), they become forced again to think that they know everything and the now young ones are simply silly (and for them each, who is younger than 50 or so is still very "green").
     So that the majority of people understand nothing about politics, despite their bold assertions, but they don't know also the politicians who they choose. To know somebody means to can predict his behaviour in each possible situation, to know, so to say, the algorithm by which he functions. People live side by side for ten years and after this again turns out that they don't know each other well and have overestimated or underestimated one another, so that it isn't possible to know well a politician whom have seen a pair of times by TV, have heard or read something about him (or her) by other media, but these were only poses (because the politician is a kind of artist who plays before the entire population), not his essence, on the basis of which they could make objective mental conclusions. The population can know the car of a famous politician (or football star), can discuss the pluses or minuses of his mistress (or boyfriend), the menu on his table, or the suits which he (respectively, she) wears, to know where his children study, and the like, but these are all things that has a weak connection with his political qualities, especially if he is new emerging on the scene. The electors haven't, and will never have, possibility for personal contacts and informal discussions with him (over a drink, as it's said), at least because he represents thousands of people, which he has no physical capacity to know personally; neither they have been his colleagues at the place of work, for to know him from professional point of view.
     It would have been good if the electors required at least some document for completed political (or in political sciences) education, as it is custom for each profession; to were able to know some his objective intelligence quotient, or at least to have put him to some test or exam, by the results of which to take decision; to have had some way for checking of his adherence to principles and incorruptibility, for to be convinced that he is not just power-hungry individual who sets everything else in background and in the interest of his political career; to have had in their disposition some his psychical tests and conclusions of medical commissions that he is psychologically normal. If not anything else, were there at least age restrictions, as some true in the general set way for checking of his life experience. But all this contradicts to the main democratic principle that everybody can participate in the government, without whatever documents -- for they can not correspond to the reality and may be fabricated by some political powers. In this way is come to the absurd called democratic election, in which everything is reduced to the ability of the leader to manipulate the masses, via finances, his appearance, talks, etc., advertising himself before them in the same way as one shaver is advertised, or a car, or prostitute, for example. Who succeeds best of all to deceive the people, that he is the best, he wins the battle, where the deceiving is obvious because neither the population can appraise him from below, not knowing the specificity of his labour, nor can it know well the leader, without personal contacts with him, nor can rely on ready results performed by others for assessment of his qualities. This is pure outsmarting deception and obviously unreasonable way of choice.

II. Zero solution
     Well then, but how is it possible for such unreasonable way of choice, which is not applied anywhere else, where work has to be done, to be able to do work, because the democracy exists now about 25 centuries and especially in the last pair of them is the most widely used in the civilized world form of social government? How is it possible that people, chosen in this way, which should not work, they alone do the work? This is exactly the question which we must answer now, and, as it was marked long ago, the question most often is not "what is the answer", but "what is the question", i.e. by correctly set question, in many cases, is easy to find the answer. In other words, we have one incorrect and ineffective procedure of choice, by which people are chosen not according to their abilities for a given work, and in spite of this the procedure does work, and this is possible only when: either the very people don't do (much) work; or each other of the alternative candidates could have done the same work; or some combination of the two things! This, surely, is so, because the politicians perform mainly strategic and representative functions, they say what must be done (say: cook me, wife, meatball soup, and you know how, or if you don't know then look in some cookbook), give general guidelines (although they fulfill also some tactical tasks, by which most often make errors), sign documents (what everyone, who has started primary school, can also do), but the very work is done by teams of qualified professionals. The politicians, unquestionably, carry the responsibility (only that often transfer it from one to another, and nobody withholds from their salaries when they make errors), and for these risks they receive chiefly fame, which (at least for them) is valued more than money, but almost every politician from the other parties could have done the same work (and he does it, when comes his turn). So that the democratic choice, in fact, gives only one trivial and uninteresting decision!
     In the mathematics exist the term "zero solution" for the solution of a homogeneous linear system of equations. This is a sequence of equations, in the left part of which stay expressions like: "something" multiplied by x, plus "something else" by y, plus etc., until the number of unknowns runs out, and on the right part of the equations stay always zeros; if the number of equations equals the number of letters for the unknowns there always exists the solution: x=y=...=0, because whatever these "things" (the coefficients before the unknowns) in the equations are, when we multiply them by zero and add them, there is no way not to get again zero in the left part, which equals the zero on the right part! The zero solution, of course, is solution, too, but it isn't interesting and does not require whatever efforts in order to be found, though such is also the democratic solution -- there always can be elected in this way someone, if he (or she, surely) will do only this, what any other competitor can also do, and even better if he does nothing important, but this isn't reasonable decision, and there exist many other decisions, which would have been better!
     Exactly the fact, though, that this decision contradicts to the common sense, makes it genius achievement of thought in the social area, because it isn't something about which everybody could have guessed and have used it, due to its triviality. But despite its triviality this decision has one very important psychological characteristic, namely that it turns to be quite convincing for the population, regardless of its illogicality (because the people are not such beings to be bothered by the lack of logic). The democratic decision is convincing because the people are asked about something and the politicians wait to hear their meaning (notwithstanding the fact that it isn't of significant importance!), and later on, if something does not go properly (as it most often happens), it is answered them: "But weren't you who chose your rulers?". In short, think who you will choose, because only you carry the whole responsibility for this.
     Is there any better way to "close someone's mouth" than this to say that he alone has wanted this, what has happened? And any explanations of the kind that nobody wants lawlessness, or high level of crime, or low standard of life (to have even nothing to eat), and so on, are things that always can be interpreted in two ways, and this only pours water in the mill of the politicians. Figuratively said, the remarkability of democracy is that it is the best known till the moment "baby's pacifier" for the mouth of the populace, because it does simultaneously the following: creates illusion about satiety (they have asked us), does not allow the child (here the people) to cry, and preserves the mother's breast (here the political system from unnecessary clashes with the "plebs")! This is exactly by the formula: "The wolf is fed and the lamb is intact"! That is why in Ancient Greece in that time was necessary for a tyrant (title of a ruler in that time) to intervene, Pisistratos, for to force the people to accept this miracle of miracles called democracy, for which they didn't wanted to hear, because however restricted were the people in those times (as much as nowadays, by the way) they didn't have thought seriously that instead of a ruler or king, who has all his life prepared himself to rule, could have stepped out one of the common folks before them all and begin to command them, and were afraid, maybe, that this is one of the successive tricks of the governors (and they were not much away from the truth, of course). But wasn't this trick brilliant?!

III. Conditional Advantages
     Better later than never, and that is why it is time now to give some definition of the notion democracy, as such form of social governing, by which the population (or the subject of governing) has possibility for reasonable influence over the governing body, including the choosing and changing of this body. Naturally, no stable system can exist without a feedback, and this was intuitively clear long before in the automatics and cybernetics have begun to speak about feedback, but here it turns to be the most important part of the system and the very governing body plays up to certain extent subjugated role to the subject of governing. But we are bound to stress that on the question of this, what is reasonable for the people, most often, the very people are not clear (because if they were clear then why is the whole government?). The people in their actions are like unreasonable child, who only wants to play and fill his stomach with something sugary (well, for the grown people some sex from time to time also wouldn't have do any harm), and also like a child would have thought right, for example, to eat up a whole box of candies in one go, because the child (like also the people) can hardly recognize what is good for him for a longer period of time. So that let us accept that the reasonability is defined in view of the near and more distant future of the people, which reasonability may not be clear to the people as a whole, but must be clear to their leaders. Here, by the way, is seen that if the people don't know what is good for them, and they choose their rulers, then also the governing, in its turn, will not be right or reasonable for the same people (not so much because the choice decides something, but because the politicians adjust to the desires of populace already before the elections). But this is unavoidable contradiction in the democratic system of ruling, and it will never be completely decided, we can merely move nearer to some relatively correct understanding of people's interests!
     Despite the fact that the democracy contradicts to the common sense and is one zero solution of the question of governing, it has one unconditional advantage, which we mentioned, namely this, that it is the best silencer for the people (or stopper for their mouths). In addition to this it has also some conditional advantages, which originate from the possibility for debates and listening of the opposing meanings in the process of taking the decisions. These advantages are pretty relative and can easily be turned to disadvantages, if the matters are not approached gently, but they can be advantages in various cases, so that we must mention them.

     1. We will begin with the possibility for taking of relatively reasonable decisions from the point of view of the general set, i.e. the people, not only of some of strata of the population. The disputes can be a big hindrance (and they are very often) when they don't lead to taking of decisions but only to "thrashing over old straw", as you say, but truth is born in a dispute, because our world is inevitably contradictory and the right decision is only a narrow strip of skillful balancing between opposing tendencies! And such balancing is impossible without listening to the views of opponents and without their real presentation before the governing body. Instead of the contradictions to take place concealed, by the democracy they are manifested in the open, what contributes for their resolving. But there, surely, is no guaranty that the disputes will not escalate and create wrong idea about the real situation, what could have been seen by one reasonable ruling body, but who can guaranty us that the ruling body is reasonable and will remain always such? As far as there is no such guaranty the democracy sets or relies on the unreasonableness of the ruling body, fighting with it in one reasonable way, but this means that the democratic ruling body is also unreasonable! Whether such decision will be really reasonable or not depends on the concrete democratic form and on the avoiding of some of the drawbacks of real democracy, on which we shall focus in the next chapter.
     By this governing is relied not only on the unreasonableness and corruptness, to which often comes each ruling body, because it is known long ago that the power spoils the individual (distorting his feedback link with the society), but also on the presumption for lacking of the best politician and the best party, what is a very reasonable setting of the things! This does not mean that you will hear some democratic politician to say that there is not a best party, but this is due to the manipulative character of the words of politicians, but the truth is exactly as we just explained it -- for if there was a best party (or politician), even for the moment, then all other parties /politicians have nothing to do in the government, and, hence, the multiparty system becomes unnecessary and we are going to the situation under the totalitarianism, which is well known to us in Bulgaria. In order not to come to such extremities is useful always to remember that under the democracy: there is no best leader or party, the whole power can be corrupted and unreasonable, each ruling person is easily changeable, nobody can state the whole truth but just a part of it (the very word "party" comes from Latin "part"), and all politicians are biased, where exactly in this is the reasonableness of such a ruling -- that it contains the unreasonableness in itself!

     2. The democracy maintains the evolution of society giving it possibility to renew itself without changing, i.e. to evolve on the spot, because it is flexible or adaptive form of governing! As far as each system of governing has the goal to preserve the status quo in the country, one system can change only if it contains the contradiction (leading to change) in itself, otherwise it can crash but not change. It happened exactly so with the totalitarian systems, which were very good and effective systems, but the ability for change was alien to them; they tried to change, initiated the changing, and after this collapsed. There is no such danger for the democracy, because it is one ineffective system without specific goal in the moment, and there isn't such action which can ruin it, except its ineffectiveness (as it has happened many times in Ancient Greece, where were alternating periods of tyranny with such of democracy, and vice versa)! So that there are two sides on the coin, as they say, and the democracy can be suitable form of social government when there is absent a concrete, mobilizing the whole nation, goal (say, danger of war). By us, in Bulgaria, the transition to democracy began exactly when we have no concrete goal, i.e. the military threat (which was maintained stubbornly by the rulers as real danger, in order to justify with something the necessity of some kind of dictatorship) has long ago withered, and the totalitarian ruling has begun to skid in its unnecessary efficiency; but later on, during the transition, when we have accepted the ineffective and aimless democratic ruling, it turned out that there emerged quite real goal for surviving and preserving of the nation, which required something more effective than the traditional democracy, and for that reason our transition again began to skid!
     The ability for changing by the democratic model of ruling is illustrated best of all via the example with the swing, or rather seesaw -- such kind of swing which is a beam propped in the middle on some elevated place, and two persons (here parties) sat at both ends, where in the middle can sit also someone (called here "center"). When the one part falls down it "slumps in the mud", figuratively said, and sticks there for some time, but then later on it begins to "cleanse itself from the mud" and to throw it to the other part, in result of what the latter in its turn also becomes "mudded", becomes heavier and begins to fall down, heaving above the fallen before part. This process is helped by the center, but also by the public (the population), which, when becomes bored to boo the fallen, begins to "throw with rotten eggs" also that one who is above, because he is more vulnerable there, and the atmospheric conditions (political winds) are stronger high above, so that there is no way for the seesaw to become quiet for a long time. In this way the democracy constitutes in the social sphere one working perpetuum mobile, something what is impossible in the mechanical systems! And mark, please, that the one, who rises above, does not do this because of his own merits, but because the other part is fallen down, i.e. the leading party becomes such not because it is with something better than the others, but because the others are worse than it! The existence of many parties does not change the things because usually the fight takes place between the first two-three of them (and if it isn't so then corresponding coalitions are formed). Generally, till here all pluses of the democracy turn out to be potential minuses, and the next point is only a way of compromising of the democracy with the dictatorship, so that it even less can be taken for its advantage, but there is nothing to be done here -- that is the democracy!

     3. The last good thing of the democracy, on which we shall dwell, is the possibility for adding of foreign elements in it! Such non democratic and unauthorized elements are, for example: the presidential institution, which is a kind of possible dictatorship (on declaring of martial law), or existence of strong hand, that can apply right of veto, even to dissolve the Parliament (in some countries); two-chamber Parliaments, where the different Chambers function on different principles, but the most democratic one, as a rule, plays subordinate role (with various national distinctions); combining of democracy with monarchical ruling, where the monarch symbolizes the undivided authority (although nowadays strongly restricted); admissibility, but also necessity of some moralizing the society body like official Church; impossibility for existing of democracy without some, as well internal, so also external, repressive or militarized apparatus (the police and the army); the possibility for extra-parliamentary control of the supreme body in the country (even may be stated that the biggest success the democracy shows then, when intervene not the official and paid bodies but some extra-parliamentary groups of people), and other variants. These are all possibilities for some improvement, but in the same time also acknowledgement of the imperfection, of the democracy!

IV. The Real Democracies
     It is high time now to begin to make difference between the ideal and the real democracy. The ideal democracy is this, which in some way allows to the population to choose such ruling body, that will "play to his tune", so to say. Even in the ideal case we can't require that this will be the best ruling for the people, but to be the best according to the averaged meaning of the population. In addition to this even in the ideal is not necessary to ask the people about everything (even if this may be possible), because there are questions on which the people can only mess the things, if the averaging is done by the number of people, not according to some other criteria (for example, there will hardly be found a nation, where, if the people are asked how much must cost the bread, or the cheese, or the meat, the drinks, the cigarettes, and so on, will not choose the lowest of the proposed prices, because these are goods for which consumers are the major part of the population, but it is obvious that this will not be the right decision, for by a free manufacturing the lower selling prices will be the surest way for disappearing of these products from the market). In other words, even in the ideal case we should not search entirely idealized solution, because it will not fulfill its functions, and is or not a given solution near to the ideal can be estimated in each concrete case according to some obvious, but also questionable, criteria. The real democracy, for its part, is each of the realized around the world democratic forms, along with their shortcomings, the most important of which follow below.

     1. The first main minus comes from the zero democratic solution, by which on ruling positions are chosen people nonprofessionals, without the necessary educational qualification, without checking of their psychical indicators and their moral qualities. It is very easy to require some document for psychical condition of the candidate, as well also some diploma for completed political college or higher education -- the realization of these criteria is more a matter of desire then of resources. Regrettably, it is still considered (and not only in Bulgaria) that the best education for the politician is the legal one, where it has practically nothing in common with the management, or the work with masses (public relations, as it is called nowadays), and even an education in the sphere of advertisement would have been preferable than the legal one, because this, what the politician must possess, is the ability to persuade (or, rather, to manipulate) the masses that this, what he states, is in their own interest, i.e. to mobilize the masses for some common actions, in the necessity of which they doubt. In addition to this a politician must have sufficient knowledge in history (ancient and modern), in rhetoric, in economics, in military science, or some technical education (because it improves the logical thinking), at cetera.
     If by the examining of professional qualities of the politician can exist some (surmountable) problems, then there are no hindrances for applying of some elementary control for existence of life experience, because this, what the politician must know well (inasmuch as this is possible), is the life, and knowledge about it can be accumulated only with the time and the work, i.e. there is nothing easier than the requirement of age and length of service in the sphere of governing and politics. For example, could be required at least five years of service at ruling positions for applying for political work on local level, at least another five on the previous level -- for municipal candidates, at lest five more years on this level for national candidates, and another five if it goes about the highest positions like President, Chief Prosecutor, Prime Minister (or Chief of Staff of the Army, or President of the Academy of Sciences, or the Holy Synod, and the like, where this, maybe, is checked). Also it is quite elementary to require age of at least 35 years for the lowest political posts, at least 40 -- for municipal level, at least 45 -- for national level (i.e. in the Parliament), and at least 50 years for the highest posts. If there is something, because of what one suffers most in his life, these are the errors of the youth, and the same applies wholly in the area of social governing! The ruling is not like the sports, or the sciences, or the giving birth to children, for example, where the younger one is, the better, but exactly on the contrary, because this, what the politician or manager needs, is the experience and moderation in life, otherwise there happen all sorts of, to put it mildly, "blunders". One basic feature of all dictators is their youth and wild wish for self-expression, and the situation wouldn't have been the same if these positions were occupied by older people -- compare the age on which Napoleon, or Hitler, or Mussolini, or Lenin, or Stalin, and why not also Genghis Khan, or Xerxes, or Alexander Macedonian, and others, come to power, and you will find that hardly any one of them has done this over the age of 40 years. And if these people could not have come to power due to legal restrictions (and let us not forget that at least both, Hitler and Lenin, have come to power through a democratic election, and at the time of Napoleon was a law, according to which the First Consul could not have been under the age of 40 years, but Napoleon succeeded somehow to overcome it with some political maneuvers), couldn't have the spilled in history blood be at least twice less?

     2. The next moment, which we have not touched till now, is the wrong method of choosing of the Parliament, not as representative sample of the people, but as sample of the political parties, what is one pretty indirect way for expressing of the will of the people, and is away from the primary source -- the Areopag in Ancient Athens, where were chosen by 10 persons from the 50 genders, called dems, via lots or some voting in the dems. In this sense, the contemporary democracy (in the whole civilized Western world) is worse than that of 25 centuries before! The Parliament must be representative sample of the whole nation, if we want that it will in some way reflect the will of the very people! The representative sample is statistical term and it means that if between all of the voters those, say, on the age between 50 and 60 years are 15%, then so much (or very near to this) must be these people in the Parliament, too; if the people with tertiary education between the voters in our country are, for example, 12%, then so much must be those persons also in the Parliament; if the voters with Gypsy ethnic origin are 20%, so much must be they also in the highest democratic body; and so on. This is not provided, neither in Bulgaria, no in any democratic country, neither now, nor before centuries, but what is more important -- no Parliament even thinks to make this in the near future, because this will be strong blow directly in the heart of party system! On the question of parties we shall dwell in the next point, but let us note here that if something can be done in order to ensure representativeness of the entire population, then this can be done only at the request of the people, not the politicians!
     Such democratic reform also is not a problem to be carried out -- via random multi-parametric choice, or just random choice, from a computerized data base of all voters. More than this, this idea isn't at all revolutionary or utopian, because in the judicial system, at least in the U.S. (as far as is known to the author), by the choice of the jurors for each law suit (or at least for these of criminal character) the situation is similar, and the role of the jurors and of MPs is, in its essence, one and the same -- they must represent the people on the question of this, what is good and what bad in their view, for already from the times of Plato was clear that this is a very treacherous and inconstant matter, which cannot be put in narrow formal framework. The difference is only that in the judiciary the representatives of the people decide on the guilt of particular person, where in the Parliament they evaluate the suitability of a given law, i.e. one more abstract matter, but the nature of the work is the same! This does not mean that by such system there will not be errors, because the people very often can be mistaken, as we have already mentioned, especially if some unanimity is searched (as it is in murder cases in U.S.), but this is the true democracy, and everything else is only "dust in the eyes" of the populace "thrown" by the politicians, in order to justify their existence and the privileges of the power!
     For understanding of the possibility for such changes we must make some explanations, or rather to divide the legislative activity of the Parliament in: strategic, here related with the requiring and approval of the laws, on one hand, and tactical, or related with the creating of the laws, i.e. with the ruling through them. This isn't a new element in other fields and is applied in all big companies, where the strategic body is somehow hidden or distanced from the very management -- these are those who keep the money in the company (or also the wife in the family -- see "About the woman and the man") --, and the tactical body is the Managing (Executive) Council of the company. By the democratic ruling bodies, of course, the Government and the Municipals are the tactical bodies, but also by the creating of the laws the things must be divided, where the Parliament must be engaged only with the approval of the laws and then it can (but also must) consist of nonprofessionals and not related with whichever part (i.e. party) persons. The tactical activity, or the creating of concrete laws, according to the directives of the Parliament (or the Peoples Council), is work for jurists and other specialist from various sciences, and with this can be occupied some, let us call it, Judicial Council. The whole mess in this case comes from the wrong practice these, who create the laws, they also to assess them, and that this is wrong practice must be obvious, because it is not applied anywhere else except by making of the laws (by all committees for whichever competitions always is controlled that the members of the jury do not take part in the competitions, and even are not related by financial or family relations with the competitors). Be that as it may, the things are pretty clear, if there were not the politicians to complicate them, because of their personal interest.

     3. Regarding the parties, then, if we proceed from Ancient Greece, they have no place in the Parliament, in the sense that they can be formed in the Parliament, but after its election! And even better if they go out in some separate, let us call it, Party Council, because they also have their place in the social life as consolidating units for mass manipulation of the people in their own interest (we discussed already that it is not in the abilities of the common folks to realize correct their own interests and someone cleverer than them has to help them)! In this sense the parties come up to a great extent near to the media, but the latter are directly ruled by the business, where the parties, even if they become some financial injections from the big business, are nonprofit organizations, so that they play the role of national institutions for public relations, what is a necessity in the contemporary society. In this way is resolved the contradiction between the first and the second point of this chapter (to which we deliberately paid no attention), because in the one we require professionalism from the politicians, and in the other -- nonprofessionalism from the Parliament. If there exists one really national National Assembly (that is how the Bulgarian Parliament is called) for strategy and approving, one strictly legal Judicial Council for making of the laws, one really professional Party Council for maintaining of the relations between the governing and the masses, as also the corresponding tactical managing bodies, represented by the Government, different Ministries and the Municipal Councils, we could have spoken about real democracy in action. This is just one additional dividing of the powers, but what is the history of civilization, if not one incessant dividing of the whole power, with a view to specialization of the individuals and establishing of the ways for interaction between the powers (see "About the mankind")?
     But we can't speak about the politicians and not to touch their moral aspect, which suffers strongly by the existing democratic way of choosing via self-advertising, because no politician can be chosen if he alone does not apply for the post, exhibiting only his high self-esteem, but not his modesty or his other moral qualities (because with his competency this, in all events, has nothing in common)! It is true that by each choosing for a given post the candidate must somehow propose himself, but this does not mean that he must trumpet on the left and on the right in the company how good he is and how everything "will blossom and fruit" if people choose him, and that all other candidates are "bare water", as we say. The modesty is non-inherent quality for the politician (because of the system of choosing), and when some boy chooses his future female partner in life he does not go to search for her in the brothel, does he? This is probably rather unpleasant comparison, but it will impose itself always while the pluralism expresses chiefly in chest beating and spitting on the political adversaries, and this is observed in all democratic structures for centuries. The radical decision consists only in debasing the role of politicians and their gradual exclusion from the executive and law-approving authorities! If the "piece of pie", for which they fight, is not so big they will not show such painful ambitions to catch it, but will do their work faithfully. However much we may speak about the moral it will not change until the situation, in which they act, is not changed, because the politicians, whatever one may say, are people, with all their human weaknesses, and the politics is a kind of game (like, say, the poker), and it may be interesting for all only by moderately high "buy-in", otherwise it turns into means for personal benefit, where all methods ale allowed.

V. Utopian Models
     Till here we explained various drawbacks of contemporary democracy, as also some real methods for its improving, in which there was nothing utopian, though the utopias are not at all something bad and have their place in the social sphere, because their main quality is the reasonability. More precisely said, we may characterize one idea as utopian when its reasonability exceeds the level of reasonability of the circle of people who assess it! This will say that after a time there are no obstacles for some regarded as utopian idea to find its place in life, if the reasonability of the society (may God grant it) increases. In the left part of this essay we will propose some utopian democratic models, which improve some of the drawbacks of the real democracy explained above, or elaborate some of its advantages, maintaining the necessary attractiveness for the masses.

     1. On the first place we shall stop on the model of representative Parliament, which was touched in the previous chapter and which is the least utopian of all. It supposes: Parliament (or National Assembly) chosen by a computer between all "voters" (this term looses its meaning in this case, for they don't "give" at all their voices); Party Council, chosen by the very parties within the quotas, received through voting in the already chosen Parliament; Judicial Council, which must be legislative body (rather law-making body, but which does not approve the very laws) and is chosen by the Party Council, proportionally to the parties in it, but this does not mean that the lawmakers must necessary be members of some party; Government, which is proposed by the Party Council as a professional committee, but is approved by the Parliament; and also President of the country with representative functions and as instance for "rapid response" (within the legal framework), who also is proposed by the Party Council but elected and approved by the National Assembly, which can also take him down from his post. In this situation the supreme body is the Parliament, but it performs mainly strategic functions and sets the tasks to the Judicial Council and the Party Council, approves the laws and intervenes with various directives in the work of the Government and the President, being able to cease some of their decisions, if this becomes necessary. The Party Council is go-between between the Parliament, on one hand, and the Government and Judicial Council, on the other hand, and maintains the relations with the masses. The Judicial Council makes the laws, which are reviewed by the Party Council and the President, but are approved by the Parliament. The functions of the Government and the Presidency are the same as by the traditional forms of democracy. On conceptual level everything is clear.

     2. The next model we shall call "democratic dictatorship", which, regardless of the shocking name, is an attempt to combine in the time the advantages of democratic and centralized forms of governing, with the hope to avoid their drawbacks! As we stressed above the democracy is a mobile and adaptive, but very ineffective form of ruling, while the dictatorship was and will remain the most effective, but also rigid form. This means that the democracy has its advantages in the choice of some goal for developing, taking into account various meanings and choosing the best possible from them, but later on the very realization of this goal must be done under the conditions of autocracy and without party quarrels. Exactly for these reasons in Ancient Greece were often alternated periods of democracy with such of tyranny (the dictators in those times were called Tyrants), where neither one of these periods have lasted for long time, because the democracy then was near to the ideal or pure democracy and in their General Assembly have existed a good representativeness (well, without the slaves and the women), though on a gender principle. The today's democracies contain many foreign elements and because of this they stay longer, but in spite of this very often happen governmental crises, caretaker governments are appointed, martial laws are declared, and even totalitarian systems come to power, because, as Bulgarian, so called, shopp (around Sofia) says: "What is necessary, it wants itself!". The meaning of such alternating is that, when something near to the one extremity does not do good work, for the truth is in the middle, change to the other extremity is forced, but it also isn't good, and then a returning to the first end becomes necessary, and so on, ad infinitum, or until better compromise between the two things is found. Yeah, but the people very rarely succeed to find the compromising variant, and then happens so that they find it in the time, and looked at from afar this oscillation averages exactly where needed! Out proposition now is, instead of to wait for these fluttering between the extremities to happen chaotically, simply to plan them, including them in one system capable to work in both modes.
     The period of democracy lasts three years, for example (but they might be also four), and during it exist all traditional democratic institutions, where there are no problems to combine this variant with the above-explained of randomly chosen representative National Assembly, separate Party Council, at cetera. During this period is lively discussed and is fixed some strategic goal for the next period of dictatorship, lasting five years (or again four, for equality), and in the end of this period is chosen the needed Dictator. There are no problems to name this Dictator also President, but he will not be mainly representative figure, like the democratic President, and will have all rights in the framework of law, where each political activity has to be frozen, the demonstrations to be forbidden, the Parliament, especially if it consists of politicians, ceases its work as supreme body and, either the Dictator dismisses it, or rules over it wholly and uses for some subsidiary, rather questionnaire, purposes. The dictator turns into reality the tasks set by the previous democratic government and two months before the end of his period appoints new democratic elections. Neither the democracy, nor the dictatorship can last more than one mandate, but each government can renounce his mandate, where the Dictator, for example can give the whole power to the Parliament (or choose new Parliament), if the goal for which he is elected can be performed also in democratic conditions, where the Parliament can in three days choose new, or appoint the old Dictator, if the country faces serious problems requiring individual management without possibilities for long disputes and disagreements. As long as in the contemporary democracies, anyway, exist rudiments of such forms of governing, there are no problems for this utopian proposition to become sometime reality.

     3. The next variant combines the ideas for representative sample with bigger attractiveness and really public participation in the governing. We shall name it "totalizational variant", and the single change in electoral law is the necessity for lacking of the names of actual physical persons in the electoral lists of the parties. Can exist whatever parties, bunches, groups, clubs etc., which take part in the elections, and if they succeed to collect voices for at least one quota in the Parliament or Municipal Bodies then after the general elections in each of these groups are held random elections (or whatever other form of choice is accepted there) for the concrete persons, who will enter in the corresponding bodies! This can be done easy, when for participation in each of these groups is bought some ticket with unique number in the group, and thereafter are drawn the corresponding number winning tickets (plus some reserves). The groups can be on ethnical, professional, of age, territorial, or property principle, based on interests and devotion to sports teams, or some other division, where the chosen after this persons are, really, common people, not politicians, but they will not enter the Political Council, they are chosen for the Parliament (maybe also the Municipals). There are no problems for a given voter to participate in ten or so such groups (provided he has bought the corresponding tickets), as also to vote for group in which he is not registered (though this is but an exception). While in all traditional democratic forms of ruling the common people have no chance to be chosen in the ruling bodies, here this chance is entirely real, and the elections become something like national lottery. But what is life, if not a lottery, too?

     4. Interesting moment by the democracy is taking part in the ruling bodies, as of representatives of the "goods", i.e. the won party or coalition, as well also of the "bad", i.e. of the defeated, and both groups have even equal rights (and salaries!). The important thing is that, in order to allow for free debates, there must be present all parts or, in fact, the ruling party and the opposition, but also the whole population (or extra-parliamentary powers), which have various possibilities for influence over the government. It doesn't matter which is the ruling party, neither which is in opposition -- the important is both parts to be present! In other words, there is no specialization in the parties, and each one can do the work of the other one, but the necessary element is their changing. In this situation there are no problems to separate these parts in two kinds of Parliaments, which we can name, respectively, Party Parliament and Oppositional Parliament, and assume that each one consists of equal number of people (say, 100), but the leading one is the Party one, where the Oppositional can only criticize and make propositions. As far as each politician, or person from the people, can fulfill equally well both functions, it doesn't matter which one -- which of them!
     It remains to establish how we will fill both Parliaments and how they will change and renew, for the things to remain dynamic. The best possible choice, in the sense of representativeness, is the random one, but in order the preference of each voter to show influence we propose here two stages of the elections. The first one is for forming of the dividing of all voters in at least three part, namely: Party, Opposition, and Folk (People), but in order to provide greater attractiveness is preferable to choose between five variants, for example, where have to be added also: Last (Old) choice (from the previous voting) and Next (or New) tour of elections. These five variants are coded with the numbers from 1 to 5 and each voter has to declare within one month via the established for the purpose bureaus one of these numbers, to which he gives his preference, only without knowing in advance which number what signifies. The deciphering of the numbers is done later on officially (via a lot) and in this way are formed the pools of the Party, the Opposition, and the Folk, where by existing of fifth number is conducted one more tour in the same way (only that by the second tour the fifth choice must be added to the Folk, for to be able to stop till here). The actual choice happens in the second stage, for which each one again has to declare one number, but this time from 1 to 10,000, for example, in order to get substantially smaller sample of people for each group, where thereafter is drawn the winning number (and, maybe, two more reserves). But till here the exact people are still not chosen, only their number is greatly reduced (to about double reserve), where in the end is drawn a lot for ordering between them and are separated the first to the needed number, and the left ones remain as a reserve. By the choice for President the final number must be now to 100,000, otherwise the things are similar, only that the President is chosen amidst the Folk.
     In this way the role of parties in the classical sense is reduced to zero, but the democratic model does not presuppose obligatory existence of political parties -- they are additional and auxiliary element, and if we can do without them we shall lose nothing. The both Parliaments exist as the united traditional Parliament, and each person knows to which part he (or she) belongs and should he agree or criticize. Even the group of Folk (People) also can take part in discussion of the laws (but surely without right to vote), were it via some extra-parliamentary associations (say, by ... zodiacs), were it if there is formed a third, Folk's Parliament. One more thing: here will be no abstained by the elections, because each one, who for one or another reason has not made his choice, will automatically receive the number zero, which later will be interpreted as belonging to the Folk. This model does not mean that parties can not exist at all, but they will not have that meaning as by the traditional democracies, and members of a given party may be present in both Parliaments and amidst the Folk. In other words, this model can be combined also with the first proposed variant, because it constitutes, basically, a procedure for forming of representative sample of the voters, and allows one additional level of dividing of the Parliament, in view of avoiding of direct debates and their substitution with summarized resolutions of both Parliaments and only some common meetings. By each successive choice is performed renewing of the three powers in the governing, but with some degree of continuity (enhanced also by the Last or old choice in the first stage). This variant can be named "forever changing Party" and it is very near to the ideal democracy, although it parodies the party system.

     5. The next variant is "new nomenclature", which does not require changes in the procedure of election, but proposes a way for forming of nomenclature cadres -- something like specially chosen aristocracy, which main purpose in life to be the ruling of the people. Such variant is needed, because the centuries of human existence confirm some definitive pluses of similar social layer freed from worries about food and means for subsistence, but also freed from severe and unrealistic competition (in various cases wide more than ten to one). These people would have had for their life goal, either their own pleasure, or the happiness of the others, or the both things, and even the personal pleasure under a good provision and higher esteemed place in the society, would have reduced itself again to something useful for the others, like: arts, sciences, military distinctions, and the like (and not, say, to watching of actions on the video). After becoming conscious of these pluses many clever people have wondered what sorts of nonsense to invent only to make people listen to some personalities, who from their birth have been prepared to rule (because there was nothing else left to them). There were used the delusions of shamans and church officials, the power of the money, has been invented the tale about the blue blood, the fables about the predestination of each other, the ideological conviction, the belonging to different castes, the genetic heredity, and so on, but all these were only temporary decisions, because there have remained the basic drawback of aristocracy, namely: the wealth and benefits were transferred hereditary, and there is no reliable argumentation about the appropriateness of this! More precisely said: the aristocracy is a good thing, but in the hereditary aristocracy is hidden the dead element; it is good for one from child age to know whether he is destined for higher activities, but there is no logic in this that his children must also be predestined. But when the question is already set, then its decision is obvious -- it suffices to perform random choice of small number of nomenclature cadres in the youngest possible age, where the belonging to the group of chosen ceases with the demise of the person!
     One concrete decision is each year to be conducted random choice between all live children with completed two and uncompleted three years, where this is performed always to one and the same date (say, 1 July). For Bulgaria suffices to choose by 100 children, what after about fifty years will ensure about 5,000 potential "nomenklaturists", who could have covered the needs of all higher officers in the country, including the Parliament, the Supreme Council, the Municipal Councils, and the such, but it is not necessary to employ them obligatory there (it is just supposed that they will be preferred), and can be required only a quota of 1/3 of the democratic ruling bodies to be reserved for such persons. Must be established and funded initially the corresponding institution, which has to care for the feeding and education of these cadres, ensuring for them the best possible on a world level, because they will be one ridiculously small number (about 1 to 1,000 for our country), and later on they, definitely, will find ways to support themselves alone, via deductions from the income of already occupying leading posts nomenclature cadres, as well also from voluntary contributions. In addition to this, because the state of nomenclature will not be transferred by heredity, after some time they will leave also significant property (excluding the personal, which may remain for their heirs) to this institution.
     The very choice can be made pretty attractive and watched by all parents, where the happy child will be directly taken in the corresponding boarding schools, for the parents will be ensured some lifetime support in the amount of one minimal working salary, for example, and till the completing of seven years of the child one of the parents can live with him or her receiving enhanced support. Afterwards the new aristocrats will have also some very decent incomes as a kind of aristocratic pension, plus provided house, transport, vacations, and others, regardless the fact whether they work or no. In other words, these new aristocrats will not at all be obliged to take leading posts in the country, and will be able to do this, what their heart wishes. Greater details are hardly needed, because the very aristocrats after some time (say, 40 years) will be compelled to make some moral codex, legal requirements, et cetera. The idea is to create each year new aristocrats, who till the end of their life will live "as kings", in order to be able to develop most fully their personalities, but without genetically fixing their rights. As is usually said: only pluses without minuses.

     6. The last variant we will name "sexual democracy", because by it is set on some natural differentiation of both sexes (see "About the Woman and the man"). As far as the woman is the born strategist or hidden ruler in the family, and in the same time the most mediocre personality, because stays between the man and the posterity, as well in her destination, so also in her abilities, she is simply bound to occupy the whole National Assembly (no matter in its traditional form, or in some representative variant), and then it can rightly be named Women's Assembly (or Council). This does not conflict with the party system and does not mean that only women can take part in a given party, but that only women can enter the Women's Assembly and the Municipal Councils, while the men will do the other work. This other work is the real or tactical ruling in the Government and Presidency (especially there). In the Courts can be accepted the "Solomon" decision to retain their mixed staff. The woman is the one, who can bring more calm and finesse in the politics, and then why not do it? This, in any case, is worldwide tendency in the politics in recent times -- here we simply validate it and lead it to its completed form.
     More concrete is necessary the introduction of some other requirements for mediocrity in the Women's Assembly, like: average height, weight, chest measurement, income, education (secondary or one tertiary), age from 30 to 40, and others. Exactly opposite are the requirements for the President, who must be a real father of the nation, where is required, for example: height above 180 cm, weight above 80 kg, income more than 4 minimal salaries, education higher than tertiary (at least more than one tertiary), married with at least two daughters, age above 50, at cetera. Only in this way the social governing can become sexually balanced and harmonious, where each one gives what is put in him or her by God.

     In addition to these models can be proposed also various others, on which we shall not dwell here in details, but may hint at some basic points. So for example, by the national voting can be required choosing not only of one person, but up to five, as well also to be voted not only "pro", but "against", too (in white and black boxes)! This is entirely in the spirit of conducted surveys and ranking lists for prominent politicians and parties and will allow for more accurate estimation, as well also for measurement of the difference in the votes "pro" and "against" for each political power, where the choice is done on the basis of this difference. This will drive into "blind alley" those parties, which are as much loved by ones, so much also hated by others, and exactly these are the "sharp stones" which confuse the "grinding of the flour" in the political "flour mill". Then can be formed two lists -- with positive and with negative differences -- which are ranged and fill now two institutions: Parliament and Antiparliament, where the first one is the ruling and the other one is the opposition, without which there is no democracy.
     It can also be thought about performing of the only correct choice from below -- the iterative choice! Meaning that the choice is performed for persons from the immediate surroundings, who everybody knows well; then one part (say, ten times less in the number of the people) of the first chosen vote in the same way (maybe for some of the already chosen); and so on in 3-4 iterations, until is come to one extended National Assembly of, say, 1,000 people, which now chooses with open voting the necessary 100 or 200 people, but it can every time be used also for other survey goals, as well for choosing of the President. There are no insurmountable problems for such voting, which can be done with voting bulletins, in the Municipal offices, with phone-cards from special machines, via Internet, and other variants, where is just needed to give some unique code for the person (personal identification or insurance code), and if by this it is conducted also openly (meaning that is known whose is the vote) then the similar personal code for the voter. When is voted for acquaintances there is no need to hide the votes, where this does not prevent the voting at the tops, too, i.e. for political leaders, but this is not compulsory, at least on the first iterations. By today's computer equipment this will give possibility for exact tracing of the tree of choices (top-down and v.v.), so that will be known exactly who for whom (not necessarily directly) has voted, and who whom represents, in order to be made real contact between voter and representative.
     It can, in the end, also the politics be put on business fundament, where each politician builds his (or her) political company, sells shares and collects money for his activity in one legal way, for it is public secret that the politicians are supported by some or other business circles, or, at least, live from membership fees of their followers. Instead of to turn a blind eye before such facts it is better to allow open establishing of this, who from whom earns. In one company the strategy is determined by the General Assembly of the shareholders and why it should not be so also by the politicians? Or else: how are the politicians worse than the football stars, when the latter can be bought and sold but the politicians can not? Because if we take for granted that the money always spoils the things, then we must reject also the private property of the means for production, as it was decided by the communists.
     Surely there can be devised also other variants, or be combined some of the explained, but this is more than enough, and let us also not forget that the main difficulty in taking of decisions in the social area comes not from the finding of new decision but in the rejecting the old one!

     So that, if we summarize all said here, it will turn out that the democracy is a bad social organization, but because it contains the contradiction in itself and is open for various foreign elements, it turns to be dynamically the best of the known so far forms, where the bad thing in it forces it incessantly to enhance and evolve itself! The democracy is like the life -- bad thing, but without it is worse --, so that there are all reasons to expect that in the future it will still remain the main form in the ruling of society. But it surely will be corrected and changed.

ABOUT THE VIOLENCE

I. Necessity Of Violence
     The violence is necessary element in the "game" called life! This is trivial truth, not only because the millennial existence of mankind proves it, but also because the only way to overcome it is ... another form of violence, were it some police or army, illegal mafia, revolution, religious war, judicial investigation, et cetera. In this process, of course, it can't be said that the character of new violence is of no importance, which can be more humane (in the usual meaning of the word), but it must be stronger, as far as it can be spoken about some objective criterion for its measurement, like human lives, or percents of one life as measure for inflicted serious physical or moral damages; or else it has to be expressed in another aspect. The reducing to the scale of human lives is especially difficult when the influence is moral, or of moral terror, in which case the usual human reactions are changing for fear of further violence, in which situation the given action, although it has preventing effect, is a kind of violence against the person, and in this case the magnitude of global impact is determined by the broader layers to which it is directed, while its strength in each single case may be only about 1-2% of the accepted value of one human life. At any rate, this cyclical character of the fight against the violence via applying of another violence (more so because there is no other way), is a natural phenomenon.
     The violence can change its forms, where each new form usually differs in some parameter, or in the sphere of its action, i.e. in the scope of individuals, to which it is applied. In this process not only an exact quantitative evaluation is not possible, because of the relative character of the measuring unit, but almost always is not present the so called "control group", with which to compare the new form of violence with the old, if it has continued to exist by the control group, and the repeating of the things in the time never happens under exactly the same conditions. So, for example, it can't be stated with certainty that the communist terror in the former Soviet Union (or in any other ex-communist country, with the conditional exclusion of Germany) has been a worse violence than the contemporary democracy, with inevitably accompanying it: national, ethnic, religious, and criminal bloodshed for the same period of time -- because have not existed two equal by all parameters Unions, which were to be compared for a bigger period (say, hundred years) and evaluating the victims to make a conclusion about the more humane character of the one or the other form! All possible comparisons of different territories, with different population, and in different periods of time, are unavoidably nonobjective and can be used only by biased political powers to prove whatever they want (and based on one and the same facts).
     In any case, the violence has existed always in the history of mankind and there are no reasons to suppose that it will disappear sometime, no matter whether we like it or not -- in the same way as, for example, we can't make olives without stones (and if there exist citrus fruits without seeds, then they can not give by themselves new life). This is unavoidable as it is impossible to have life without death, if you want. But before getting the question in proper focus let us give one general and non restrictive definition of the notion "violence" as: very sharp form of compulsion, leading to serious physical and moral consequences, including lethal outcome, and having for goal to make separate individuals or groups of such to act against their wish. The important thing here is the unwillingness of the subjects to have the required behaviour and the serious consequences otherwise, because we can not consider as violence, for example, if somebody will be awakened despite his unwillingness to get up (even if one pours a cup of water over his head). But in the same time we don't set any requirements characterizing the object, that causes the violence over the subject (to what we shall return at the end).
     More interesting, and unexpected for many people, side of the question arises with the statement that the violence is a reasonable reaction, as from the side of the object applying it in a given situation, as well also from the side of the subject of the violence, applying in his turn new violence to the object, or succumbing to the compulsion, despite the seemingly chaoticism and unreasonability of the reaction (as far as it is possible to speak about reasonable behaviour by the humans, what we shall clarify after a while). Here is the place to mention one basic characteristic of the organized animal matter and this is the inadequacy of the reaction, because for it the Newton's law for equal and opposite reaction is not valid (see also "About the creation"). But inadequate is a weak statement, because it can be stronger or weaker, and we will try to concretize this law following one dynamically increasing action over the living matter (were it an amoeba, leg of a frog, particular individual, or social group). By very low-level stimulus there is still no reaction up to reaching of some threshold value, then reaction emerges and it usually is stronger that the action, and with increasing of the action the reaction also increases, but this continues up to reaching of some moment of maximum, after which with further increasing of the action the reaction begins to become weaker, and after some time it unavoidable ceases, because the subject of action has simply used all its energetic etc. abilities for reaction (where the object is supposed with unlimited, or at least very big, power, for to be in position to produce impact over the subject, especially violence, in what we are interested here).
     This experiment is conditional, but it is obvious that it is generally applicable, irrespective of the type of impact and the subject. The animal matter, especially one whole organism, under weak actions has strong reactions (say, if we pull the tail of a cat it will scratch us), by stronger stimuli by the by it becomes adequate to the stimulus (to the stick, according with the proverb), and by very strong -- just refuses the opposition (i.e. the cat will curl itself and at most will begin to meow piteously). But this, what is valid for the cat, can fully be applied to the human, no matter whether one is being beaten or has just cut his finger (the slightest cut hurts most, ant the pain is a kind of response by the higher animals, which determines their next reactions). In the social sphere there is no need to go far for examples and we could have reminded ourselves the wave of strikes of the workers in system of education in Bulgaria (as relatively more intelligent) just after our November coup d'etat in 1989, but also in later democratic times, from what observation is seen that under lesser difficulties, shortly after the overthrowing (of our communist leader Todor Zhivkov), the strikes were most massive, but later on, when really hard times have come, and the average working salaries were significantly less, related to the subsistence minimum, the teachers striked less and less, until at the end they gave up at all to do this actively. The curve of this reaction can be different, but its character is always one and the same and is expressed in this, that by weaker impacts arise stronger reactions and vice versa!
     Some vague analogy can be observed also by the reaction of vegetable matter, for example of bending by a strong wind, but in the moment of the wind the reaction does not differ in anything from the reaction of a slim metallic rod, which is due to the elasticity. The difference between the metal and the tree, though, is shown in the time (where the branch simply becomes tougher), and mostly in the future generations, after some genetic modification becomes necessary, while a metallic rod will never become stronger by itself. This means that some buds of inadequate reaction (and from here also of reasonableness, as we shall see after a while) exist also by the vegetable matter, but this question does not interest us now and we can leave it to the specialists, so that let us return to the reaction of the animals.
     Well, will somebody say, it may be so, but what reasonable exists in such reaction, and from whose point of view? Ah, it is very simple: the viewpoint is the preserving and prolongation of life, and the reasonable is exactly in this preserving, because by weak impact the stronger reaction more effectively helps the living body to free itself from the impact, while when the stimulus become so strong that it is neither possible, nor reasonable, to counteract it, then the reaction weakens, with the hope that the impact will cease, but even if this does not happen, still, the reaction only needlessly exhausts the cell, organism, or the social community. Even from the point of view of the object of action (if it is reasonable) and the effectiveness of the very action is more reasonable for it to be stronger than necessary, in order to have better effect for the suppression of the reaction. So that the paradoxical character of reaction of the living matter to compulsion, or to the extreme form of the compulsion -- the violence -- is one more reasonable form, both, of action, and of reaction, than this of the nonliving matter, where the reaction is exactly equal to the action.
     It is another question, though, whether this is the maximal level of reasonableness, which one organized matter, especially in the social area, can show, and, surely, there exist more reasonable reaction, consisting in earlier positioning of the extremum on the curve, i.e. of predicting of unpleasant consequences for the living organism from the strong irritant without whatever necessity for it to become really strong! But, alas, this "bringing to reason" is very slow process and continues for centuries and millenniums and is practically not limited in the time, because always can be thought about better evaluation of the moment of ceasing or lessening of the reaction, reaching to the point even before the threshold value of the stimulus, what would have led as a result to the complete absence of the necessity for violence. Anyway, the violence is justified, if it can prevent the necessity of greater violence, and this is the only justification of the violence! This thesis might not have been formulated in this way, but it, positively, has been known for millenniums and is fixed in all legal acts nowadays, because the punishment is never equal to the crime. Not only by murder, where it is not in the power of man to return the life of some person, but even for a stolen hen, for example, is paid a fine at least as for ten hens, i.e. it turns out again that for slighter misdeeds the punishment is stronger, and for severe offenses -- it is weaker, and in the toughest cases of taking of someone's life the felon most often remain alive. But what is one judicial decision, if not a reaction to a crime, and what is one criminal act if not a reaction to the set for a given place and time laws?
     But, in any case, the violence exists and it is "doctored" with other form of violence, where to the minor offense is answered with more severe violence of punishment, in order to prevent its spreading, and to the severe violence of crime is answered with lesser violence (if the reaction is relatively reasonable), because the escalation of violence leads to no good, as it was remarked long ago, but just moves the moment of extremum to greater violences. We can name this law for brevity "law of necessary violence" (or more generally, "law of necessary impact"), what answers quite precisely to the core of the said above. But isn't the main message of Christian religion, which says that when you are slapped on one cheek you must turn the other one to be slapped also on it, something else than a call to avoid unnecessary violence because of knowing of the above law? The message of Christ was necessary exactly because it contradicts to the normal human reaction, which is not sufficiently reasonable!

II. Acts of Violence
     Now it is time to observe some concrete manifestations of violence in the society, in order for our review not to sound very abstract, but this is not a classification of the forms of violence, because some of them are contained in the others or cause them, but just an overview of the most significant points, which is intended to show the effect of the law of necessary violence (or of unnecessity of violence, if the social communities were in position to propose some more reasonable alternative).

     1. The first thing with which we shall begin is the war. It is the most massively applied form of violence, but here is interesting the general delusion (accidental or deliberate?) that, at least since Roman times and to the present day, the war has been considered for the final, or most powerful, tool (ultima ratio, in Latin), where it almost always was the first tool, because hardly ever has been sat down at the negotiating table before some military actions have taken place, where the only exceptions were when decisions were taken based on other people's defeats, what has to say that there are, in fact, no exceptions! In the spirit of the said above about the reasonability of violence it comes out that the war, still, is reasonable tool for proving of someone's supremacy, and that in it are done mass violations in order to prevent long-lasting violations in the next periods, but the bad thing is that this is not reasonably enough, for there can be proposed various other means for reaching of the goal.
     As examples we can give the following: sports competitions (football, or other ball-game, fencing, horse races, athletics, etc.); intellectual combats (chess or checkers, for example); games of chance, which in all times have symbolized the intervention of higher powers; magics and auguries, which were often applied in the past (but there neither have been approved generally applicable to both sides "standards", no have they succeeded to prevent the battles, they have just created some psychological disposition for them); representative battles of equal in numbers (say, by hundred persons) fighting squads from both sides and in conditions of real war, i.e. on life and death; such fights but of only one percent of the military units; gladiatorial fights, if you want; and so on. The wars for economical reasons, for their part, could have been carried out with economical means (as we now try, but don't succeed very much), and these for religious reasons -- via religious disputes, ceremonial parades, confessions or discussions with priests, and similar things. Even less sense would have been in the civil wars, if there could have been reached one common for the whole country vision about the problems, not to act like two packs of wolves hunting in a common area. The main drawback of mentioned reasonable methods is that these would have been weak violations, and as such they would have not fulfilled their purpose! Though, of course, they wouldn't have been weak if the masses have shown a bit more intellect and have predicted the unreasonableness of stronger impacts.
     But, still, in the wars of before a pair of centuries there was bigger dose of reason than in those of current days, because then has still existed difference between front and rear, and especially in Ancient Greece the soldiers have fought only on the battlefield (how the sports events are conducted now), and it was known in advance where exactly they will fight, so that in those times the wars have not differed much from current-day motor races, for example. During the 20th century, though, the power of the human has grown so high, that he, naturally, needs much bigger violences, for to be able with their help to reach the so wanted weak reaction -- alas, these are the facts! In addition to everything else now the state's organization is much more stronger, so that the wars nowadays are like the fights between dinosaurs -- it is shed much more blood than when fight two gnats, for example. Else the people have not become more reasonable, neither intend to become such! The presumption about the sufficient armament is a nice thing from the point of view of the stronger states (because they, anyway, are strong and know what happens with the mentioned dinosaurs), but the weaker and left behind in industrial and military sense countries continue to seek some keen (and often dishonest) methods for achieving of dominance, what they can't reach with restriction of the armaments. For example, it is very good for the states not to possess nuclear weapons, but it is good from the point of view of those who already possess it, and who will convince the weaker that for him it is better to remain more weak than the stronger?
     It is very easy to rise allegations that the violence is not necessary and is fruitless and that, say, there was no need for the town Dresden to be burned down, or for one significant part of the population of a multi-million city like St. Petersburg to become dead, or the atomic bomb over Hiroshima to be thrown, et cetera. But who can prove that such monstrous violence was not necessary in order to prevent even bigger violence, until we come to such escalation of the sufferings, that all nation could understand, at least for an instant, the Christ's maxim about the turning of the other cheek? Isn't it true that thanks to the Second World War the world lives now more than half a century (help God to be more) without (at least) world wars, and if the bomb over Hiroshima has not been thrown, would it not have been thrown till now somewhere some other, or more powerful, bomb? Cruel, really, but necessary violation, because the people continue to hit their breasts that they are reasonable beings, while they are only beings capable to think, but do this simply after they have exhausted all other unreasonable methods for reaching of the goal (contribution, maybe, of the author to the definition of homo sapience). It would have been very nice if the Americans, for example (as the most powerful country in the world), would have decided to give ten years or so by 5-6% of their incomes as help for the unemployed millions German workers in the 30s years of 20th century, or for the destitute population of the backward Asian country named Soviet Union in the 20s, and other examples, but they have not done it. It would have been very nice if the capitalism from the beginning of this 20th century was a bit better and has not generated conditions for emerging of the fascist and communist ideologies, but it was not. And because the mankind is not in position to show more reason than a jellyfish (see "About the mankind"), it reacts according to the law of necessary violence. This is the situation, as you see.

     2. Another typical manifestation of violence is the become "modern" during the 20th century term "genocide", but it is not invention of the century and exists for millenniums, only that earlier it was applied mostly on the level of a family or tribe, while nowadays it is applied on a greater scale and on the level of a nation. Otherwise, nothing new under the Sun. The necessity of applying of this kind of violence comes from the possibility to pass genetically the characteristics of the subject in the generations, and from the conditions, which this creates for the remained alive subject to use in his turn violence over the previous object, which violence, naturally, will be stronger than the initial one, if the initial was not strong enough. Clear and simple, isn't it -- each pear has its peduncle (as we say in Bulgaria)! This isn't justification, for nothing can excuse the genocide (even not previous genocide) -- this is just explanation. And if one begins to think how trivial is the solution, which might have been applied by the Hebrews, if they have wished, in order to prevent the genocide over them already as a germ (because they have had thousands of years to come to this decision, for have been persecuted from biblical times), one wants just to weep for this silly being called intelligent.
     And the solution, really, is simple, because the genocide is directed against the gene and, hence, if this gene is difficult to be discovered, than the genocide also would have had no grounds for existence! In other words, the solution is in the gradual assimilation of the Jewish nationality or, at least, in their rejecting the concept of the "chosen by God people", what would have eliminated radically the necessity for applying of violence over them. Nothing difficult or cruel -- just the Hebrews should not have opposed with all their strength to the interbreeding with the other nations where they have lived. So, for example, has happened with the Thracians in our lands in the antiquity, and typical contemporary example for equal racial mixing, I think, is the Brazil. This is not losing of the gene, but its wider distribution on more fertile soil, what is preferable for genetic strengthening of the nationalities, because it is long ago known that by more distant family connections are born healthier children, but in the Talmud (which the author does not know, but have heard) are pictured many marriages between direct relatives. So that, really, the most clever is a bit silly, though this is not directly related with our topic.
     But we can look also from another angle at the things, because the concept of chosen by God race is a kind of violation over the people around, though weak (moral) one, and being such it, naturally, forces the necessity for stronger counteraction, what has been applied to the Hebrews in many countries in different centuries, but the "top" was reached under the fascism, which applied then unmasked genocide. Objectively looked, though, the fascists have not invented something new, they just "turned the rod" backward saying that if so, then they also are chosen, because were Aryans. Anyway, it is clear that the genocide (even the most humane) is damaging to the human society as a whole, for it diminishes the so needed diversity.

     3. Another kind of violence appears in the religious and ideological fanaticism. Inasmuch as the faith or conviction are something that can elementary be changed for less than a generation here the necessary violence is, generally, weaker than in the previous cases, but it unavoidably exists in the history of all religions and state ideologies. It deserves to be mentioned that in this case, too, there is easy solution of the disputes (if there were more collective reason), because each religion in its own way is progressive (well, regressive, too), so that there is not a big difference which exactly one will share (as it is so also by the choice of partner for creating of family) and the difference is only a matter of taste, i.e. it is something secondary and, hence, there is no reasonable necessity of strong compulsory impact! And really, there would have been no necessity of compulsion, if the subjects changed easily their religions, or if the priests have recognized the need for religious tolerance. Little by little, this is realized in current days, and in many countries coexist peacefully quite many religious beliefs, but to this state of things has come always after many needless bloodshed and not at all everywhere. Similar is the question also with the different ideologies because, although the religion has as its goal the happiness, and the ideology -- the peace, in the country, they look alike as different forms of delusion (see "About the religion"), and because of the unwillingness of the masses to accept easily new delusions becomes essential for the law of necessary violence to be activated, in order to be possible later on the things in the country to go smoothly. Put it otherwise: the necessary violence could have been weaker, if the human stubbornness was not stronger!

     4. Another kind of necessary violence is the civilian terror, but it is direct consequence of religious or ideological causes, though sometimes it can be induced by other domestic unrest. The capricious moment here is that this terror often becomes stronger than the necessary level, in which case it, not only has initially the effect of weak reaction, but allows for accumulation of the discontent of the masses, so that later it happens that the strong impact has played the role of a weak one, generating stronger reaction after a time. This is very subtle moment and, as far as discontent of the masses exists always when change of some course of management with another one happens, it can't be unambiguously said where exactly is the middle point of the violence. This is in sense that, as there were in old times in Bulgaria hard laws of Khan Krum, or in the young Soviet Union was CheKa (chrezvichaynaya komissiya, extraordinary commission), so in many other countries there were excessively inadequate to the crimes punishments, and such things happen also today around the world, because one must have "nonhuman" intellect, in order to establish the needed level of violence over the humans, i.e. this is practically impossible. In some extent in this aspect the things are related with the sadism, to which we shall come after a while, because are created conditions for massively applied legalized cruelty, but, we have to stress this, the terror often arises as reaction of the government to the disobedience of the population, so that guilty for the terror are as the rulers, so also the ruled ones.

     5. The next kind of necessary violence is the anarchism^*. Maybe the adherents of this movement think that they act in this way because, in their view, the anarchy is the best regulator (or at least one of the good regulators) of the human society, or that "the anarchy is mother of the order", because the order originates from the chaos, and so on, but they are simply in error. (By the way, this is a very old thesis, because the English, i.e. Latin, word for motive or "cause" is etymologically related with the word "chaos", which in its turn is of Greek origin, and this relation reflects the naive concepts of Ancient Greeks from 25 centuries.) And they have reasons to fall in error because the well-known idea about market economy uses exactly this thought, but our (Bulgarian), mildly put, unsuccessful attempts of the first democratic years, as also the worldwide experience in this regard, show clearly that betting only on one idea, without its counteracting, does not lead to anything good! The chaos isn't a good regulator even in the world of mollusks, to say nothing about the human society; it can work in the world of atoms and subatomic forces, or in the other direction -- on a level of galaxies -- but by the humans not the chaos is what leads to some order (as a rule, of course). The anarchism has its effect not because of the chaos, which it causes, but because of the applying of necessary violence over small number, and often totally innocent, subjects, as also in conditions of peaceful coexistence, when this is as if inadmissible. In this way with little forces is achieved strong impact, or put it otherwise: the anarchism is the most bloodless war! This is the reason for existing and spreading of these methods also in current days on the whole world. The anarchist is not like the sadist, he kills people who does not know, but just as subjects of his action, and the "good" anarchists, usually, have their views about humane killing, however shocking this may sound.
     Said in other way, the anarchism is something similar to the strikes, only that with much more cruel results, but aiming first of all to attract the attention of domestic and international public to unsolved problems, and this violence in the case is the minimally needed, in order to achieve strong impact. The anarchism should not be confused with the organized crime or terrorism, which may use the same methods, but have entirely different goals. The anarchism is the weapon of the weak and it is applied when existing in the country atmosphere of terror against some of its citizens does not allow using of others (peaceful) means. If in this situation, at the cost of five victims, several persons succeed to engage five thousand policemen in their pursuit, and to attract attention of five million people to serious problems in the society, then the goal is achieved! In this sense, the strong impact here aims not directly at solving of the problems, as it is in a war, for example, but only at setting of the questions for solving (except when the attentat is directed to a concrete political personality, when it again does not solve entirely the problems but only assists in changing of the course of ruling). And again: this is not justification of the anarchism, but explanation of its appearance. And once more time: the anarchism is the possibly reasonable reaction of the weak, when the society does not propose them a better decision! The necessity of anarchism will disappear of itself, if the social reasonability reaches some level of organization higher than that of the jellyfish.

     6. Another kind of violence is the organized crime (or the mafia), which is just an addendum to the authorized instances for maintaining of law and order in the country, although it often acts against these instances in the struggle for establishing of dominance! More that this, it acts also through these security bodies, as there is present also the reversed process. It answers to the interests (though unacknowledged) of a considerable part of the population, serving them, because the police can't do this, nor has such goals. When the police forbids the narcotics (or the alcohol, for example, or the prostitution), but the people, no matter that they deny them officially, want them, then who else is to propose them to the people if not some strong organization, or mafia? The forbidden fruit is always sweeter than that, which is generally available, so that, while there are prohibitions, there will be also people who will trespass them. This, surely, does not mean that there should not be any bans -- such things always will exist in a society, because each organized group of people attempts to defend its interests and deny those of the others, and we can hardly imagine such liberal society that will legalize the cannibalism, for example, or will not try to protect the young and children from the mistakes of juvenescence, and so on. Though the society could be moral enough, so that to be no ground in it for organized crime, and this is something to what we can always strive (maybe because we can never reach it?). Except the elimination of the causes for this crime remains only one way -- the necessary violation of the official punitive bodies to be such, that the reaction of the organized crime to be sufficiently weak (say, for it to be not possibly to organize itself). The legality and humanity here can do almost nothing -- the point is: whose violence will be stronger, for to cause weaker reaction!

     7. At the end we will stop for a while at the cruelty and sadism, which are not so much forms of necessary violence, as examples for misunderstood violence, in which is applied not the minimally necessary, but much bigger one, what causes accumulation of the reaction in the subject, or in his close relatives, which leads to consequences that are not weak reactions. In this way we come to the phenomenon that a strong impact has shown itself as weak, what is not typical for the normal human activities, but the sadism, too, is not behaviour of psychically normal human personalities. The cruelty is not just violence, but excess of violence, what is an indication for people with mental deviations (though it is difficult to assert that these deviation are rare, because many children, for instance, like to torture the animals, but this is explicable with their small knowledge of the world and with their not quite formed psyche). This, that the cruelty is inevitably related with the violence in each of its forms and manifestations, determines the possibility for its appearing in each of the above points, but, still, there must be made difference between the two terms in the presence or absence of emotional involvement for the object exercising the violence. In this regard the cruelty, and the sadism as its extreme form, are most often individual acts, where the violence is exercised almost always in groups and motivated. And let us stress that if the violence is unavoidable and necessary in our activity, the cruelty is entirely redundant and can be avoided! The minimal core of the definition of humanity consists exactly in this, that if, by various reasons, some violence must be exercised, it has to be applied without whatever cruelty. Contrary to the assertions of the humanists, though, this is so not because the people must behave like humans (for the humanity is very fuzzy and ungrounded notion and out of these positions we, for example, should have long ago given up eating animal flesh), but because the non humane actions do not agree well with the law of necessary violence.
     Somewhere since Freud got particular propagation the thesis that the failure to satisfy some (most often hidden) impulses and desires only worsens the situation, because it leads to accumulation and to their subsequent manifestation, so that it is better to offer some vent to the passions (were they erotic, were sadistic, or any others). This, naturally, is true in general terms, but to a certain extent, and the exaggeration of this thesis also leads to nothing good, as we gradually begin to grasp. The excessive liberalism does not lead to much freedom for the individuals, because if strengthens the contradictions between them when they are not reasonably constrained, and it becomes clear now that massively applied virtual cruelty is not so innocuous, for it leads to addiction and unavoidable desire to try it in reality. The situation is much alike to that with the alcohol and the narcotics, and it is logical in near future to be taken similar measures, i.e. to apply some necessary violence from the part of society, that must restrict the conditions for forming of cruelty and sadism. So that we again return to the question of violence.

III. Conclusive Remarks
     Before we finish it is proper to turn our attention to this peculiarity in our definition of violence, that it does not require for the object exercising the violence (or, generally, the impact) to be necessary organized matter. So, for example, for the reaction of those buried by an avalanche in the mountain, and for those who have barely managed to escape, is irrelevant whether the avalanche has fallen of itself (i.e. as a result of natural laws), or was caused by some human, an outsider or some of the injured group; this may has its importance by judicial investigation, but not for the behaviour of people in avalanche areas in the winter. Similar is the situation also for other kinds of "violence" on the part of the nature, like: earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions, infectious epidemics, environmental pollution, disappearing of animal species, et cetera. We may put the quotes on the violence when the object is not animated, but this does not change the character of the reaction of the subject, i.e. it is weak by strong impacts (or at least should be such), expressing itself in their avoiding, or in predicting of the strong activities even before they have occurred. For the believers in the hypothesis of God (see "About the Creation") there are no obstacles for endowing of the nature with some divine intellect and for accepting of the above-given examples as God's vengeance, but we don't need this. The important thing is for our reaction to be inadequate to the irritant, and even reasonably inadequate, as much as this is possible.
     And one more thing: each impact, the violence too, is factor for our learning. If there is not necessary a violence for to make us act reasonably, then let us not wait for this violence to be realized at all: were it not to fight with stronger adversary, were it not to create ground for anarchistic manifestations, or for genocide, or for religious intolerance, were it not to build high buildings in earthquake region, or to avoid big gatherings of people on one place as source for various infections, were it to observe some moral and physical hygiene in order to prevent contracting AIDS, and other examples. No matter how many times one has explained to a child that he (or she) has to stay away from the stove or electric plate, he will not assimilate this until it "punishes" him. In the same time, when one becomes tired doing hard physical work, then it is time to invent something that will make it lighter, because the ache in the muscles is a weak "violence" and people answer it with stronger reaction, as they don't agree to do the unpleasant work forever but invent corresponding mechanisms for that goal. So that the violence is not only necessary element in life, but also life relies on it in its evolution, and the human being, left without some form of compulsion, begins to fall in rage and to wonder what to do (something, what is easy to be seen by small children and pet animals), so that in some way to receive the healing dose of penalty, which has to prevent him from extreme cases of violence! The whole subtlety here is to react intelligently to the various forms of compulsion and violence.
     But it turns out that in regard of the reasonable reaction the social community stays lower than the isolated individual, meaning that one will much more easier meet a person, who acts reasonably, than a nation, that does this, and for the mankind as a whole this is practically impossible! This phenomenon of the social community is investigated in the essay "About the mankind", but it reduces chiefly to this, that the society still has very primitive nervous system (especially a free society), similar to that of the mollusks, where the human being has also nervous system and ability for reasonable judgements (though he does not much use these gifts in difficult real situations). For that reason it happens that a bigger group of people is not more intelligent that one arbitrary chosen individual with average intellect, no matter that the latter is part of the group, so that the reaction of social communities, most often, is that of the jellyfish. We may not like this situation, but must take the facts into account. It would be nice to think that after some five-ten centuries the mankind as a whole will at last jump over this debasing for the "crown of the creation" level, but this is not much probable. Nothing hinders us, though, to hope that this will happen.

* Here we have in mind fulfilling of attentats, explosions, sabotages, and so on, aiming at creating of social disorders, bound to solve the problems, because the government can't do this. Together with this view exists also another one, which comes from the times of French Revolution and is simply negation of the "archy" or authority (in whatever form), on account of the idea that the people, you see, were intelligent enough (or were on the way to become such), for to understand what is to be done and to do it, without any force, but (the author thinks) this is obvious utopia because, even if there were no objections from the part of the people, without planning nothing can be done nowadays.

ABOUT THE JUSTICE

     That this world is cruel and unfair one perceives already in the moment when he emerges in it, going out of the warm and cozy mother's womb, and because of this his first business is to let out wild roar of discontent. With his further growth the things become even worse where his single "redemption" comes only then, when he leaves the life and continues to exist just as an idea in the memories of the others. Such is the reality in our world, and as far as nobody has proved that a better one exists we are forced to put up with it and try to like it. Well, this isn't so hard to do, people learn fast to enjoy the life, but this does not mean that in this way it becomes more just for them or that they cease to try to make it better. The wish of the mankind to make their life more just is the unchanging human ideal, which is really an ideal because it can never be realized in practice, but we can always aspire asymptotically to it. Here we will dwell on some questions connected with the justice.

I. Between The Righteousness And The Justice
     1. One short linguistic excursion tells us that the right is, in fact, the right of the strong, or of the right hand, because it is so not only in Russian, but also in German, English, et cetera. As if only in Bulgarian we do not make the association of the rightful with the right, i.e. with the strength, but this is intuitively understood by all nations. So that right is this, what is in the interest of the stronger, were it physically, financially, intellectually, or with some inheritance rights fixed by birth. Strictly looking at the things the strong one is not at all right -- he is just strong, but when there is no other effective way for establishing who is right and who isn't, is accepted that the stronger one is right, and this closes the question. In the world of animals, but also by the humans, this is not meaningless, because the strong, if not anything else, can at least impose his right with the use of power (and it is not excluded that he is really right). More than this, from positions of the nature, i.e. of the selection of the best exemplar and kind, this right is fully justified. Therefore, even if we are not from the strong, we are obliged to accept such conception for rightful.
     The justice, for its part, is complement of the right, or the right of the weak, i.e. of the left individuals after taking out the strong ones (and exactly this says the English word "left", which means both, the opposite of right, and the remainder). From the point of view of the evolution and selection of the best this may not be right thing, but the neglect of justice leads to diminishing of the diversity in nature, what says that the nature also has interest in observing of this right. This is especially actual in the human society, because the diversity of types and characters is the most interesting thing in the life. The strong one looks after his own interests, and they not always coincide with those of the weak, but in many cases it turns out that the wellbeing of the weaker affects in turn that of the stronger, i.e. the ignoring of interests of the weak isn't in the interest also of the strong! In other words, the things are mutually related and the neglecting of one side shows unfavorable effect over the other one. This has been known from great antiquity, so that the question for the rulers (the stronger in the society) has never been raised as: whether to account for the interests of the weak, but up to what extent to account for them -- because the weak, having no other possibility, very often are also evil and unworthy, what is expressed quite clear in the English word "mean" as bad, vicious, but it is old Latin view, for even today in the Italian sinistro means both, left as opposite of right, and harmful, dismal (or take your sinister) --, i.e. all reduces to a compromise of contradictory interests. Because of this the society incessantly has oscillated between the righteousness and the justice.
     In this relation our people have the saying: "You have a cow, you drink milk, but when you haven't -- just stay and stare!". Whether we shall speak about milk, bread, hard salami, decent car, private plantation, or gas station, or space shuttle, for example, this does not change the essence of the matter -- the rightful thing is to use alone this, what you have, but the justice requires that also other people use your property, because in the society all people are done in the same way and are born equal. This, that when some one coming to this world finds for himself some things more than the other one, is not expression of his own personal abilities (strength, in a sense), and if so then there is a reason in the assertion that "he, who hasn't a cow, must also be allowed to drink milk". Even when someone's advantages are result of his own abilities, even then can be pleaded for equality in the distribution of the goods, because his very abilities are not, surely, result of some special "craftsmanship" of his father in the moment of his conception, or of his mother during the pregnancy, and even less of precisely him somewhere on the stage of insemination and the creation of zygote (for the development of his organism begins at that moment). All efforts of the individual for achieving of superiority over the others can quietly be regarded as a result of natural resources, which for its part are game of the chance, so that if the goods are to be distributed according to this allegation, then they have to be distributed entirely arbitrary. Well, to such extremities don't reach neither the right one (the defenders of rightness), nor the left one (the defenders of justice), because this does not agree with anybody's interests (although, objectively looked at, this is true), and everybody prefers to "pull the blanket" to himself.
     So it turns out that neither the right, nor the left, can jump over their own interests and look objectively at the things, but life develops in the result of contradiction between various interests, which exactly define the current state of the society. Usually both parts are not right (what will say that both parts are right, if we look optimistically at the things)! So, for example, it is right that only who has money to pay for (i.e. his parents) his education, only he to be allowed to receive education, but it is not just, when all people are born equal, some of them not to have the possibility to study. But it is also not right for those, who have not abilities to learn, to pay the education of those who have such abilities but have no means (because the money in these cases is taken from everybody, i.e. also from the not able ones); yet it is also not right if someone is sufficiently "dumb-witted" and can't pass the exams not to be allowed to study, if can pay for this, for he exactly for that reason wants to study, because wants to become a bit more clever, isn't it? As you see, the things are quite interwoven and one easily can be lost in them, and for that reason in the contemporary (but also ancient) societies are taken measures in both directions: for one thing is ensured some accessible (not against payment) education for the able and gifted children (because they, after finishing their study, will receive, generally, less than if they do not lose their time in studying, or at least will work more fruitful for the society or the employer, so that they will have the opportunity to return what was given for them initially), but for another thing is allowed (and this is met with pleasure from the educational institutions) to everybody, no matter what are his abilities, to pay for (i.e. to buy) his education. With some nuances (percentages of paid and unpaid education for various levels, types of educational institutes and specialties, different form of returning of the funds, etc.) this is an old strategy, and then, when the society can allow itself bigger investments in this direction, it always tries to do this, for this brings benefits both, to the ruling (the strong one) and to the masses.
     Similarly stays the question also with the healthcare and social security nowadays, because a healthy and quiet population is again socially beneficial (i.e. both, for the strong and for the weak); as well also a nation having some elementary knowledges for the world, formed as a consequence of some average education. If in the epochs gone by this has not been realized, this was question mainly of social welfare, or of capabilities, not of non-understanding on the part of the strong. The ideas for socialism (i.e. for social justice) do not interfere with the right defenders of the righteousness, if the question is approached correctly. The denied today communist socialism is not appropriate for the well developed countries due to its extremeness, but this does not mean that it is inappropriate for the weaker countries, or that it was unjustified and unnecessary stage in the development of these countries! These ideas have emerged already in Ancient Greece, in a developed slave society, and they will unavoidable be present in each country, where from their right (here justified) solution depends the wholeness and security in it. From political point of view this requires convergence in the views of the right and left parties, but exactly such non-antagonistic contradiction is observed in each stable country in these days, and also during the past centuries.

     2. Slightly more complicated are the things in the area of managing and the necessary compulsion for performing of socially useful labour, or, put in other words, in the exploitation of the masses, i.e. in taking away everything that they can give, in the "extracting of their souls", because etymologically the word is derived from: ex--, what means extracting, taking away, and the root plua-- (or ploi--), what means many. The masses may not like this word, but it is clear that in a society each one must give what he can of himself, and who else is to force him to this if not the strong ones? There isn't a society without compulsion, and it can't be (in the ideal case each one must force himself alone), but it can have different character. In the slave society it was physical; in the feudal one -- of the ownership of land and the "fables" about the blue blood of the aristocrats, or of the Church as deputy of God; by the capitalism this is the force of the capital (or rather of its absence by the masses). The righteousness requires that the weak must work, but the justice requires that everybody must work. But you know that one must be forced somehow to disturb his dolce far niente ("sweet idleness"). In any case, all can't be rulers, and this also is a kind of work, so that strong nowadays are not so much these who govern, as those who "pull the strings"! The strong one today, as also in all times, can be recognized by this that he has the possibility to do whatever he likes (well, in some limits), where the weak are forced to do what the strong tell them to. But the strength in the capitalistic society is the power of the capital, and this is what defines the separation between the exploiters and exploited.
     The official propaganda always shifts the accent of social contradictions and in the current time in the developed countries is much spoken about the so called middle class, but it is just necessary to the strong, for the masses to be able to buy the produced in abundance goods and to fill the pockets of the strong. The absolute wealth of the citizens, though, does not solve the question with the unjust distribution of goods, because relatively the exploited remain again in disadvantage, so that the enhancing of standard of life only helps for reaching of some justice, but does not guarantee it. Only the reason, i.e. the proper understanding of the interests, both of the ruling and the masses, can lead to rightful understanding of the question.
     When we mix the intellect here it could have been expected that, when it can help for finding of the rightful balance between the righteousness and the justice, then in also must rule the society, i.e. the power to consist in the presence of intellect. Yes but ... no, at least for the moment, because the intellect is one still not well developed instinct and the people are not quite convinced that it must govern them; the masses can much easier accept the fables about God and the Church as His aide on Earth, for example, than this, that the reason, which is slow and unconvincing in the decisions, and contradicts to the instinct for multiplication, and does not tie well with the disorganization and fragmentation of the mankind (see "About the intellect") can be better than the now existing (no matter what) condition. Besides, the intellect has this advantage, which turns here to be disadvantage, that can't be passed in the generations and one intellectual power will be very unstable substance, for to be able to take once the ruling (or to keep it, if someone succeeds to "put" it in its hands). It is much more real to assume that some artificial (though created by the humans) intellect will be able to rule us sometime, than to believe in the arising of intellectual oligarchy in the future. Not before the society has found some way for its uniting as a whole organism, if this can be at all effectuated once. But let us with this conclude these reflections and advance to the next point.

II. In Searching Of The Escapism
     When everybody knows that this world is unjust, then every one tries to find some suitable for him way to escape from it in some imagined world of delusion. The human being is weak and can't live without delusions -- were it fairy tales for the children, were it expectations of the "great love" for the adults, were it hope that the truth will triumph (in which case, usually, people don't have in mind the righteousness, neither the justice, but some purely egoistic interpretation of the reality), were it political, military, or sporting victory, were it the literature or the other arts, or tranquilizers, or the dreams, or the alcohol and the narcotics, or the sexual consolation, or the interests of the clan or mafia, or the faith in his God and in the afterlife or reincarnation, and so on. The animals (and this only for higher mammals) escape from the reality only via the dreams, where the people are personification of the escapism. In the foreword we say that in regard of the searching of truth the people can be divided in three groups, namely: such who search the truth, such who search the lie, and such who are not at all interested in the truthfulness of the statements. Those who search the lie are obviously escapists; those who search what they find, no matter whether this is truth or lie, are also escapists because they simply apply some other criterion (their personal pleasure); but even those who search the truth are again escapists, because for them the world of truth is better than the real one, where the truth is much mere difficult to be found and in most of the cases is questionable. But such division builds complete set of events, i.e. exhausts all people, so that from here follows that we all are escapists.
     This observation surely was intuitively clear to the thinking people since the dawn of civilization, because all its efforts are reduced to offering to the people of one or another form of delusion. So has arisen the religion as opium for the people (see "About the religion"); so is justified the need of aristocracy; so exists and is advertised the market economy, what is an obvious delusion because the market is advantageous only for those who can show influence over it and form it somehow; this is the goal of the fables about the patriotism and self-sacrifice in the name of community (not that this delusion is not necessary for a given community, but to believe that it is nice to die for the homeland is a pure deception); similar is the case also with the moral generally, which implants in the heads of people apparent delusions, with a view of their reasonable for the society behaviour (only not with the help of the reason, but exactly on the way of delusion); on delusion is based also the democratic choice, that contradicts to the common sense and is the best known baby's pacifier for the people (see "About the democracy"); and other social phenomena. In this regard, it seems, nothing can be done, because the very life, as a result of various arbitrary and non-directed to a goal processes, simply can't have a purpose, but the people categorically refuse to comply with this view. Admitting meaning for the life we automatically escape from our real world, and searching for its meaning we unavoidably come to an abyss of contradictions and no proofs. The Church usually is satisfied with the assertion that "the ways of God are inscrutable", and each ideology and political platform invents some goals for itself, with which to give reasons for its existence, because when one works with human material there is no go without delusions!
     Even the sciences, and precisely the exact ones, as the most rational part of the knowledge, use also widely various simplifications, assumptions, hypotheses, and abstractions, in order to be able to understand the real world, what, in the essence, is an escaping from the direct reality, to such one, where our assumptions are always valid. We at least take for granted that our world is determined and when we repeat an experiment than the result will also be the same, though even the ancient people were aware that "you can't enter twice one and the same river", because it (i.e. the time) incessantly flows. But without determinism can work neither our technical appliances and machinery, nor our scientific theories, and without abstraction (a kind of escapism by itself) can evolve no one exact science, especially the mathematics, whose methods are used in all other sciences.
     Our whole process of knowledge is boycotted incessantly by the problem of decomposition, which is reduced to this, that, in order to study something from the reality, we must take it and detach from it, to cut off some of the ties of the phenomenon with the other matter (for they are infinitely many), but doing this we can never be sure that we have not severed exactly something important. This can be visualized by the ancient fable about the three wise men and the elephant, which men were very wise, but also very old and gone blind long ago, so that they recognized the things by touching. Once, during one of their peregrinations around the world they were led to an elephant (which animal they have not yet met till then) and each of them began to study it using this part of the animal which has grasped. Later they shared their conclusions and the first one said that the elephant is like a big cask, in which must be hidden a kind of spring, and it moves jumping with it (for he fingered its leg); the second protested that this is rubbish, because the elephant is like a big snake as thick as a human thigh, which feeds through sucking and moves blowing the air out of the other end (for he touched its trunk); and the third laughed and said that they know nothing, because this animal is like a big plate of skin and it flies in the air (for he has caught its ear). In many instances our attempts for understanding of a given phenomenon are as comic and contradictory as the given example, because each special science studies only some aspects of the phenomenon. But what are we to do: without decomposition there is no knowledge!
     But the most unjust characteristic of our world for the man of sciences, but in many cases also for each one of us, is the principal impossibility to prove the rightness of a given thesis, with minor exceptions! It is easy to prove that something is not true in the general case, when we find at least one particular case when it is not true, what is used from ancient times, chiefly in the mathematics, and is called method of assumption of the contrary (reductio ad absurdum) -- it is proved that the contrary of a given statement is false, from what follows that the given statement is true. But the reverse, the prove of a right statement (if we can not use the above method, or some form of induction) is practically doomed to failure, because it most often is related with full search of all possible states, which usually are an infinite number, and that in all possible moments of the time. The scientific intuition often "falls in rage" before the impossibility to prove in the general case something, that in each observed individual case is true. In such situation one may be wrong if accepts the statement for true (because there are no proofs), but he may as well make a mistake if he does not accept it for true (because it, still, seems to be true), so that each takes the preferred for him form of escape from the treacherous reality.
     This phenomenon have faced the lawyers, but also the common people, long ago, and that is why our people often use the saying: "Go and prove you are not a camel!", when you must convince the others that you have not done some thing (because you have never done such things). The legal proceedings "wash their hands" with the testimonies of the witnesses, but there is no guaranty that they are true, due to what, for example, hundreds of thousands innocent women (mostly) have been burned on the stakes on suspicion that they were witches. And in this cases the inquisition was even with a clear conscience, because it has applied one "reasonable" way for proving of the suspicion: if the accused one, with the help of various demons and spirits, could have succeeded to escape from the stake, then she was really a witch, i.e. has existed possibility for unilateral proof! This, that no woman has saved herself in this way, was not at all logical refutation, taking into account the remarkable naivety of the people in those times, who have believed in everything (as they have seen her, say, to take off from the chimney riding a broom, so also many have seen her soul to fly out the stake embraced by a demon), and there, too, nobody has known what exactly is this a witch (for, if there was some other way for detecting of the essential "witchy" characteristics, then it, probably, would have been applied). This is one flawless Jesuitical logic, and if the accused one could not have succeeded to save herself, how it always has happened, then she was not a witch (only that they have not put on the stake that one, who has convicted her, because the person might have been mistaken somehow -- it is human, after all), besides, in this way she has secured for herself a "direct ticket" for the paradise (what for those times was not at all to be neglected). Only don't think that in our days similar judicial errors don't happen -- the history of legal proceedings is literally "brimming" with such unjust decisions, based on witness testimony. But there is nothing to be done -- life is unjust!

III. In Affirmation Of The Ego
     In our world one can't avoid looking after his interests, or his ego, but inasmuch as each of us is related with the others he must also show some level of reflection taking into account the interests of the others, too, because otherwise it may turn out that he simply "cuts the branch on which he sits". The communist ideology approached this question much restricted (mainly because of the narrow-mindedness of the masses, it seems) dividing people in two categories -- in egoists and collectivists -- preaching that the egoists were the bad ones. Sometimes is used the term philanthropist (i.e. "loving the people", in Greek) in the sense of collectivist, but we all know to which comical results the thoughtless philanthropy can lead. If you give your seat to a woman in the tram, because she seems to you a bit older, she may decide to take offense on you. If you behave too pleasing to your children and look that they have all the best then this, surely, spoils them (in which case must be cited your proverb that "Sparing the rod spoils the child"); but these "good" parents are also such only to their own children, what is again egoism. The widely spread for centuries charity in many cases does not give good results, because in this way some people come into habit always to beg and to complain; besides, it is pure delusion to think that those who give do this out of love to their neighbours -- they do this wishing to soar high: first in their own eyes, and then in those of the other people (because the anonymous charity is not much popular). And many other examples, that show that when one thinks about the others he: either does not think correctly, or deludes himself (because, really, he thinks about himself), or both -- because in this egoistic world we just can't not to think about ourselves.
     The more correct approach is to speak about individualism, understanding by this the wish for self-expression and dominance above the others, what, however, does not mean that the others cant benefit from this. As strange as this may seem, one very often wants to do good to the others (at least if he can't dominate over them with something bad), because everybody wants to be liked by his neighbours, where in this sense the highest expression of individualism is its reflection in the positive meaning of the people around for the given individual -- only that one does this not because he is good, but because is individualist! The whole subtlety is in this to judge right the wishes of the others and to juxtapose them with ours, i.e. to find the needed intersection of personal and collective interests, without impairing significantly ours. It is well known the sentence: "Don't do to the other what you don't want to be done to you!", but this is an example for misunderstood reflection, because it should have been put like: "Don't do to the other this, what he does not want to be done to him!". A typical example of correct individualism is the sexual contact, where each partner, based on his own interests, tries to satisfy also those of the other. In similar type of "intercourse" one enters also in his everyday and labour activity, where if he looks only about his (or of the others) interests many errors happen. The sexual analogy, it seems, is useful in many life situations, as rightly finds it S.N. Parkinson in the relations between financial companies, because the situation is similar also between boss and subordinated, between children and parents, between colleagues at work, between states in their relations, etc., where each one thinks how to "screw" the other, but if he overdoes the things he may at the most "screw" himself. In other words, in the process of affirming of his ego the point is not in this not to look after his interests, but to recognize rightly his interests.
     Recognizing and respecting of the interests of the others, together with one's own, is the main method to make the society in which we live just and fair. The little children react especially tumultuous when their wish to make good (for it, seems, is inborn in each of us, together with our desire for supremacy) is not met with pleasure from the others, but this happens basically because they don't know yet how to do this, or think that their egoistical desires are good, or face individuals who have already understood that the world is unjust and behave in the same unjust manner. The only way for building of a social organism, though, goes through the correct understanding of personal interests, and the main impediment on this way is the unreasonable human behavior. For this reason the history is full with innumerable bloodshed and disasters, where we are in certain extent even worse than the animals, which, not endowed with intellect, but with good instincts, succeed better than us to maintain the equilibrium between the species and the harmony in nature. Even in the classical example of the ecosystem hares--wolves is seen that the wolves, eating up the weaker hares, help for their selection and proliferation (because: "Healthy sex -- in a healthy body!", so to say), as also the hares, developing their hind-leg muscles, succeed to select and maintain one good population of viable wolves. While the humans (as very clever, maybe?) kill not for to feed themselves, but most often out of malice, hatred, or simply because of not understanding of their interests. Only in 20th century are given more victims in the wars than in all other previous times, chiefly because the stronger countries (with well developed economies) have not succeeded to agree like people how to exploit the left behind countries (like Bulgaria).
     In the end of 20th century has been marked some progress, with the creating of multinational financial institutions, which reduces each kind of slavery to economical one, and the distribution of "booty" -- according to the invested capital. This tactic, as is seen now, gives good results, because both, the developed countries ensure for themselves new markets, cheaper labour force, and fields for investment of capitals, and the left-behind countries receive different subsidies, effective management, and other, new for them, temptations in life. In addition to this, with the equalizing of standards of life (after some time, of course), is postponed the moment of collapse of today's technical civilization (see "About the future"), what is a phenomenon of mutual interest for all. That is how the individualism in relations between states can turn to be better than the old egoism from the times of "hot" or "cold" wars.

IV. About The Happiness And the Moderation
     1. The happiness is question of balance between wishes and abilities, and in our unjust world everyone has his rights to pursue it. This definition is suitable with this, that it shows us two ways for reaching of it: either increasing our abilities, or diminishing our wishes (supposing that the wishes are always larger than our abilities). The moderate way of live requires also moderate wishes, and thus easier achieving of the happiness. The more limited people, say, the children, are very often happy, because their wishes does not reach such peaks, as when they grow up and begin to wonder what new desires to imagine (especially if they have in their disposition enough time and means to satisfy them). The term "happiness" has some intersection with the escapism, for it is also a question of some delusion, but as far as it is primarily result of compromise let us not confuse the things. The happiness is state of comfort with the environment, not just escaping from it and depends on our internal condition: when we are very hungry a piece of bread can make us happy, where if we are twenty or so and our "hormones chase us", as is said, we may as well forget about the usual hunger and seek the sexual contact, and when our daily needs are satisfied and we just wonder what new sensations to experience we may try to seek, either the arts, or the opiates and narcotics, or to look for expression of some of our perverse wishes for violence over the others -- all according to our tastes.
     But we may formulate the ways for reaching of happiness also in this way: the happiness consists either in some filling, i.e. of enhancing of our capacity, were it of knowledge, or of nutrients, or of money and other possessions, or of interesting social contacts, etc.; or then in some ... spending, i.e. disbursement of funds when we buy us something, or performing of some activity by way of spending of physical and/or intellectual energy, or difficult victory over some adversary, in result of what our wishes temporarily decrease. The process of filling is slower and tiresome and the happiness from it not always is so strong, as by the spending, where the effect is almost instantaneous, but also fast passing away. The important thing, however, is that the both contradictory processes can bring us happiness -- as to spare money, so also to spend it; as to learn, so also to use your knowledge; as to fill his stomach, so also to empty it later; as to build something, so also to destroy it (this destructive instinct is especially developed by the children, for the simple reason that the destruction is the easiest creation!); and in the end also in the sex is exactly so (with this nuance that to the man is denied part of the happiness, or the woman is additionally benefited, because by her the processes of filling and spending coincide in the time, or at least this is her constant striving). The said here may sound cynically, but it seems quite convincing. So that, the injustice of our world, still, is partially compensated by the possibility to find happiness in it.

     2. Well, but when the happiness is in the moderation (of the filling and emptying, if you want), then what is the very moderation, and what is so good in it for to force already the Ancient Greek (and even older nations) to raise the slogan: "Nothing in excess!" (with the eventual modification "Hurry slowly!")? OK, it is clear that the moderation, or also the sense of proportion, is the ability to find the middle point between two extremities, in which case is good to imagine that some pellet is tied between two ... elastic strings, i.e. that the dialectics is, in a way, "diaelastics" or "dialactics" (from the lactaids, the milk fibers). This, really, is a great art, i.e. something that is difficult to learn (if it, at all, can be learned), in relation with what is useful to remind you the ancient Eastern pray, made popular on the West (as also by us) mainly via Kurt Vonnegut, namely: "Oh God, give me bravery -- to change what I can change, strength -- to endure what I can't change, and wisdom -- to distinguish the one thing from the other!". So that: the moderation is wisdom, or the wisdom is moderation, in many cases. (See also by the medicine in the essay "About the mankind".)
     But then our question sounds more definite, namely: why, when the moderation is a question of wisdom, and everybody knows this (at least have heard it many times), the people, still, very stubbornly resist the moderation (especially the women -- see the chapter about the man in the essay "About the woman and the man")? It can be a matter of wisdom to find the precise middle point, but the people, as a rule, don't try at all to find it, on the contrary: when they start from one extreme pole and stagger straight to the other, like drunkards, and from there, after some time elapses, they return to the first pole, then again rush to the other one, and so on, ad infinitum! Well, this makes the "game" named life to last forever, but it is silly, and also cruel, in most cases, so that some moderation, in addition to this that we usually show, is always necessary -- yeah, but we do not want to be moderate and that's it! So that, why? Ah, because when we are moderate, then we, most often, are also mediocre, but we don't want to be such, we want to be at the top -- and very rightly, because nothing great on this world is ever reached with moderation, only with perseverance and boldness (to "stick" us where we are not wished). In other words, we want to be extreme in everything, and the bad thing is not that we want to be such, but that even in this our wish we apply no sense of proportion, for there are very rare the people, or the cases (say, 2-3%), who can reach the peaks, respectively, by whom peaks can be reached. From the point of view of "dear God" one such "leaping" is a good thing (He wants exactly this, to stay aside and look at the fun), but we are those who suffer; this, somehow, is not just, but we can do nothing (for we don't want to). With the years one becomes a bit wiser and more moderate, but even this is not true for many of us, because they become such not due to some acquired wisdom but because their abilities are not more such like before.

V. About The Advantages And Disadvantages Of The Freedom
     The freedom is something that we love very much, what can be well seen on the West through the relation between German Liebe as love and French ... libertè as freedom, which words, surely, are from one and the same root. The advantages are clear, they are in the creation of equality between the different individuals, which goal, however, is to prove their inequality (see again "About the woman and the man", the point about the emancipation)! So that from the freedom may gain the nature (or the dear God), or else the stronger individual, because in this situation he can easily prove his superiority, where for the weaker -- there is no use of it! In our world of the stronger there is only one way for the weaker to become stronger -- when they unite, obviously -- but this is what they most often don't want to do. They prefer to turn a blind eye and to think that they are really equal (not only in equal circumstances), and this is a question with which is much speculated for centuries and millenniums, where about equality can be spoken only in sense that the humans (as also the animals, the living matter generally) are results of equal initial activities for their creation and arbitrary factors forming their differences in equally probable way. Otherwise they are different, just because they are such in practice (as results of the probability, the upbringing, the environment, and the time in which they live). The inequality of the people and the animals, in general the non-identity of reproducing of biological matter (even when the "matrix" and the "spritz-form" are one and the same) is the most interesting characteristic of life, which determines its strong adaptability.
     So that the freedom is relative notion and also question of balance or compromise in the pursuit of it (an recognized necessity according to the definition of "Mr." Lenin, with this addition that we become aware of it only when have lost it), but the disadvantages of the overdone striving to reach it should have been obvious, because it only weakens us -- the well known slogan "Divide and conquer!". But the treacherous moment here is not in this that, due to the interconnection of our world, the freedom for one person reduces to the contrary for another one, or that the freedom in one thing is its restriction in something else, neither in this that the freedom today may lead to some slavery tomorrow, or that very often we can't judge correctly whether we win or lose from some freedom, and when a time passes it turns out that it wasn't al all freedom, and similar things. No, the treacherous moment is that most eagerly fight for freedom exactly the weaker, who often lose from it, and the stronger just stay and leave the weaker to "ram their heads"; this is observed in the free market, in the fight for emancipation, in the battles for independence, in the struggle for personal manifestation, and so on. The strong one, to whom the freedom is mostly beneficial, does not pursue it at all costs, because for him this is relatively easy, and even if he is not much free, he is strong, so that he will somehow impose his rights, where the weak one, who almost always only wastes his energy, exactly he wants to waste it, because -- who knows, it may happen that he will turn to be stronger, if free. Well, if this is not recognized necessity, it is at least question of reason and intelligence, for you know that we usually consider the dog the most intelligent animal, and it (or rather "he" if you ask me) does not run away in the forest or desert, but wants to serve and obey us, not to be free. So that it unavoidably imposes the conclusion that the human beings, out of too much intellect, have maybe gone to the other side, to the silliness.

     And so, life is unjust because each individual has interests contradicting to those of the others, and in his activity each one goes out mainly from his own interests. If we begin to search for the roots of the evil we shall come to the conclusion that it is in the differences between individuals. If the humans were like robots from one series they wouldn't have had reasons for complaints, and wouldn't have had contradictory interests (for if they have had, as they have also equal capabilities, they would have just mutually destroyed each other). In their contradictory interests each one tries to express himself and to prove that he is not equal to the others, that he is in his own way unique and unrepeatable, but for this purpose he, usually, wants firstly to be provided equality. Due to the mutual entanglement of the things in infinitely many dialectical ties (as if tightened with many elastic strings) and because of their inborn feeling for justice (though from the point of view of their own interests), the humans think that this world is unjust (and that is why they have invented another one, after the death, which is to be just). But each good thing goes hand in hand with something bad (or, as the English say: "You can't burn the candle at both ends simultaneously!"), so that it becomes necessary for the life, which is, still, at least because of the absence of other choice, something good (or the best of the possible), to be also unjust from the point of view of each subject. As far as, though, it is unjust to each living thing, then this is equal to the statement that it is just, i.e. the notion justice loses its meaning!
     This is a known thesis in the ancient Eastern philosophies (in contrast to the created by the Christian God world), because earlier the people started from the interests of the whole nature, not only of these of the human beings, less from those of some chosen tribe. The Buddhism, for example, says that our world is a triple negation, or more precisely that in it: nothing is perfect, nothing is constant, and nothing is isolated! Well, that is how "our God" has devised it; you, if you can, devise something better.

ABOUT THE POPULATION

     Speaking about the population on our globe there are three moments on which we should dwell, namely: is the population of humans on Earth optimal; what must be the approximate number of people; and how to reach this goal in the easiest way. In addition to this is the related with the thesis question about the average life expectancy. Let us look at them in this order.

I. The Overpopulation
     The people on Earth have become too many and this must be obvious now for everybody, because we have broken the existed for millenniums equilibrium with the other animalistic and vegetative species and have begun to hinder ourselves mutually in the everyday activity. In the antiquity one was not forced to care about the environment, because he has not destroyed it, neither even polluted, and has fed himself mainly through hunting and farming, what means that he has fit well in the nature. In the old times when saying "dirty" has been understood something useful and needed, because in order to give birth to something new was necessary for something old to decay and perish as already played his role in the equilibrium of the matters. I have here in mind Bulgarian word "kal" for mud, dirtiness (or also Russian the same kal as ... feces), but it is of Latin origin and is shortened from faeces in plural (faex in singular), what is also Turkish faşkiye (also in jargon use in Bulgaria), but in old Greek from the same root we have καλο (καλον), what means good, well, so that the word faeces (fekalii in Slavonic) must come from something like: tfu /fu (what is your "fie" or "pooh") + "kalo"! (There are similar and piquant relations to be found in your fertilize, what is Latin futuo meaning your, sorry, to f#ck, what is a dirty thing, but also necessary.) Nowadays we use widely the phrase "ecologically pure" products, which, from another point of view, are downright dirty, because they turn to mud (but for the ancient Greeks this was something good), while exactly the ecologically dirty things (glass bottles, plastic cups, metal pieces, etc., which we unwisely throw around) are, in fact, sterile or clean. What has to say that we do not judge like the "dear God", or that we hinder the nature, and therefore also us!
     The human civilization, aiming at incessantly bettering of living conditions for the people, willy-nilly, leads us to unavoidable increasing of the number of people. We say "unavoidably" because till now this was not avoided, but this tendency must be broken, for (as we mention in the essay "About the Creation") in the nature we can't move always is one and the same direction, and it has to be some cycle or closing! If we don't succeed alone (with the help of the civilization) to return back in the number of human population, then the nature surely will find some way. We have received till now many warnings (and even bloody), beginning with the epidemics in antiquity (which become possible due to the excessive concentration of big human masses in one place), going through the innumerable wars for conquering of new territories (because the old ones become ever smaller), and coming to the 20th century when we were befallen by the: genocide, holocaust, pollution of the environment, cancer, AIDS, et cetera. But the dangers of epidemics and wars have not at all disappeared in our times, they have only changed their character, or have mutated, yet remain valid.
     Two centuries ago in England was published the brochure of Thomas Malthus, known above all with his cardinal conclusions about the difference between the geometric progression, with which people reproduce, and the arithmetic progression, with which the production of food products grows, so that by these circumstances all people on the globe should have been perished to the current date as a swarm of locusts, gnawed to the last millimeter each blade of grass or tiny sprout in their territory. As almost every statement based on extrapolation of some momentary relation, without taking into account the possibility for changing of the tendency (or trend) this also turned out to be erroneous, because thanks to the civilization people learned how to put also in the sphere of production of foodstuffs the geometric progression, as likewise to restrain a little their reproductive abilities using some contraceptives (in the developed countries). But the results, alas, are far from satisfactory, because both, the population continues to grow with furious steps, and we begun to feed mainly on surrogates.
     So that we have not at all resolved the problem with the density of population, we have just moved it in other area! It is naive to look at the malthusianism in the direct sense of feeding (as it is naive to believe that Brahma has six extremities, or that Holy Spirit looks like a pigeon, as they pictured Him on the icons), but has to be searched for the meaning of the statement, which we mentioned already in the first sentence of this chapter. Even if we can somehow feed ourselves (because in the seas there are enough seaweeds, in the petrol there are a lot of calories, proteins can be got out of whatnot, and, in general, the technologies are "great thing"), it turned out that now arose the information boom, in the result of which our brain began harder and harder to cope with the requirements of the new time, and reached the ceiling of its intellectual capabilities. And together with this the sciences, especially in the 20th century, offered us a heap of revolutions: with the electricity, with the atomic energy, with the wireless transmitting of information, with the achievements of medicine in mass prolongation of human lifespan, with the computers and computer nets, and so on, but each revolution is worse than moderately fast evolution, isn't it? The people continue to hinder one-another no matter that their "hunting territories" (in figurative meaning, of course, but about what hunting we may speak nowadays?) does not intersect mutually, because intersect their intellectual territories, and now it becomes more and more difficult for them to make career and they wonder, in general, how to live their life and why to live it (especially in the developed countries)!
     It can definitely be argued about the question, whether the people today are happier than two centuries ago, when their food was real food, their labour -- labour (because of the relation between the effort to produce something and the ready product), their sciences and arts -- creative activities (not technologies), their games and sports -- personal (not only looking at the others), their nature -- nature, and, on the whole, their life was meaningful and interesting, not just to pass the time. So that the question isn't in this, whether we can nourish 100 milliards instead of 10 millions, for example, but in the human happiness and fulfilling life, in the moderate development, allowing to build stereotypes of life in the generations, as also in the equilibrium with the nature, from which we are only a tiny part.

II. The Optimal Population
     The optimal human population on Earth must be about 50 millions of people. The first argument is, that this indicates the human history, because according to approximate, and somewhat controversial, calculations the human population on the whole planet in the 2nd-1st millennium before Christ was 50 mln people, and to the beginning of our era it reaches 100 or so millions. These were times when the civilization was in full swing, and the people have had: healthy food, decent attire and homes, some technique, well developed arts, religion, buildings which up to this day arouse our admiration, sciences, ways for organization and managing which we apply also now, decent laws, spectacles for the masses, notions of honour and valour, cult to the sports, and so on. Many things were not accessible to all but only to some of the rulers, yet they have existed. There were also many wars and epidemics, which accompany the civilization to the present day, so that all important social problems were already set! Then this number till around 1800 still does not exceed one milliard, but in the 20th century we definitely have overdone the things jumping for the moment over the 6 milliards. If 50, 100, or even 200 millions are still comparable numbers, then with over the milliard people the "game", as they say, becomes too rough.
     If the people in present days lived so disunited as in the times of Roman Empire this, still, could have been tolerated, but there is not a single corner on Earth which is isolated and inaccessible for the world media and the business, where the language barriers (this "curse" which God has sent to the humans, according to the fable about the Babylonian tower), which were intended to divide the people in smaller groups, are also not very limiting, because together with the good translators now exists quite decent, but very fast, computerized translation, and the world languages, in the end, are reduced to 5-6 chief ones. The last touch to the instantaneous world communications added the computer nets, so that the earth globe more and more turns to one state, where the competitive struggle of the people for personal manifestation occurs, and such mastodon country becomes increasingly difficult to manage, and the bloodshed in it -- ever greater. One averagely big country (say, like France) has about 50 mln residents, and there, where the countries are bigger, people rarely communicate outside their state or province, and if the countries are smaller (like Bulgaria), then they are usually satellites of one of the bigger, so that the competitive struggle occurs on the (part of the) arena of the "bigger brother". In this way we get the second argument for our optimal number.
     Now we shall give third argumentation for this optimum, going out of the goal for maintaining of such number of people, that the population to be able to lead fulfilling life under normal competitiveness between the individuals! Such setting of the things is entirely logical, for the question is not how much people we can feed, but how much we must feed! We will do the calculations in the widely accepted decimal system of counting, only that will use the logarithmic scale, which is not very accurate (but we don't need special accuracy) yet it is very convenient and comprehensive. We shall center the digits around the powers of ten, and will understand one interval from 0.5 to 5 times, multiplied by this power, what means that when we say 10 we will understand everything between 5 and 50, when we say 100 --from 50 to 500, and so on. We will begin with this that one maintains normally up to three circles or ranks of contacts with the surrounding him persons, namely: a) of first rank are those, which include people of the order of 10 to the first degree or about 10 persons -- nearest relatives and acquaintances, which everyone knows well, can predict their behavior, and is emotionally related with them; b) second rank or 10 to the second, i.e. hundred people or so (in fact from 50 to 500) -- acquaintances, colleagues, and relatives, which one knows by name and physiognomy, works or lives near to them, greets them when he meets them, but can't be said that he knows them well, and does not have special feelings towards them -- simply this is the environment in which he lives and tries to express himself or to make career; c) third rank or 10 to the third power (1,000 people) -- persons for whom one is heard something or has seen them, but this is almost everything that he knows about them -- this includes all known stars in which one is interested (footballers, pop singers, politicians or people from the highlife), as also other casual acquaintances; fourth rank or 10,000 are quite many people to be accessible by a medium-range intellect, so that we should not take them into account. We can name this human phenomenon "rule of the small numbers", where is obvious that the more profound our contacts are the more restricted is the number of people with whom we maintain them.
     The next moment is to determine the approximate number of areas of human knowledge and interests, in which we maintain some contacts, but in such manner that these areas will be relatively well balanced, i.e. to have by approximately equal number of people, who can communicate in the given area. The nomenclatures of human professions, as well as the indexes of most large libraries are in the range of several hundreds, and these are all areas of human knowledge. If in some cases one of these areas is detailed in another tens, then such narrow specialization does not change our divisioning, because these subareas are pretty narrow and not well balanced in the range or number of people, who work in them. Similarly exist also very big areas -- say of the football fans, which on the globe must amount, maybe, to more than a milliard people, but this is not area in which they communicate in order to compete (such area would have been that of the very football players of national or world class, the participants in which, of course, are several hundreds). In other words, we are interested in such areas, in which the people literally, hinder one another, because this is their "hunting field" and in it they compete with the other "hunters", fight with them, express themselves, or make career.
     So that, let us assume for easier calculations (because when the information is fuzzy it is proper at least to simplify our calculations) that the areas of human knowledge are thousand, as also the number of people who compete in them is also thousand. In this way we exceed the ceiling of the second rank contacts, as also take one enhanced nomenclature of basic professions. So we get a number of the order of million people. Taking into account, though, that we have understood (although not stressed on this before) such areas in which people create, not only perform necessary for the society activities (like producing of goods, services, healthcare, education, maintaining of order, etc.), we must supplement the society with the "other" people. Usually with creative activities in one society are occupied about 3 to 5% of the people, but in order to be save let us accept that in the future their number may reach even 10% (or1/10 of the population). This will say that we have to multiply the obtained million by 10 and so this gives that the optimal number of people reached 10 millions. Inasmuch as our calculations are with accuracy of order let us take this number for lower limit, what gives that the optimal population on the globe must be between 10 and 100 mln, or, if we want to take some middle point, then these are again 50 million people.

III. The Way To The Goal
     The easiest way for reaching of this goal is slight decrease in the population growth, until it becomes slightly negative. Let us accept that the population begins to decrease each year only by a single percent (something that is reality in many developed countries, only not steady for a long time), and then for each year we must multiply 0.99 by itself in order to receive the final coefficient (as compound interest) by which to multiply the initial population; or if we have scientific calculator then to calculate 0.99^n, for n years, and then to multiply by the initial number. In this case, if we start on reaching of 10 milliards inhabitants (for it is hardly probable that the humanity will engage itself seriously with this task before it begins literally to suffocate due to overpopulation), then after 28 years (after a while you will grasp why exactly so much) we will descend to 7.55 mlrd, after twice so much or 56 years -- to 5.7 mlrd, after 112 years -- to 3.25 mlrd, after 224 -- to 1 mlrd, and so after about 5 centuries (more precisely 530 years) we shall reach the desired 50 millions!
     On the other hand, one generation in Ancient Rome was about 20 years, but with the aging of population and the prolongation of time for education, this period increases, where now the average length turns to be 28 years (and that is why we have chosen so many years just before). Then in accordance with the above numbers it comes out that for one generation, or 28 years, we will have a coefficient of diminishing of the population equal to 0.755 (i.e. 0.99^28 = 0.75472). This coefficient of changing of the number of population for one generation is called reproduction rate, and if it must be such then let us ask ourselves: how many children we should have in one family, in order to get it? Without the help of statistics it is not easy to answer the question, because there is child mortality, infertility, etc., but according to some statistical data for Russia it turns out that for to have reproduction rate equal to 1.0 (i.e. the population to remain the same) is necessary to have on hundred marriages 265 children. In this way we have a task from the school course, which is solved using the simple rule of three, namely: to 2.65 corresponds 1, to how many will correspond 0.755? The answer is exactly 2 (with precision to the third position after the decimal point), which is interpreted in this way: if in each family will be born on the average exactly two children, then this will give (if the mortality rate and the infertility remain the same) an effective reproduction rate of 0.755, or decreasing with 25% of the population for one generation, which if it were with average duration of 25 years (instead of 28, but let us not formalize so much, because the situation, anyway, is very fuzzy), would have given this one per cent yearly decreasing of the population (or more precisely 0.98999^28 = 0.7545), with which we began our calculations (i.e. we could have started from the two children per family).
     As you see, nothing drastic or revolutionary is required, just a bit common sense and organization in the whole society (including, and especially, in the third world), for to maintain on the average by two live-born children per family (or by one per parent, for the notion family began by the by to lose its meaning in the contemporary society), which will give each year negative growth of one per cent and after about two centuries will put us before the milliard, when the question can again be taken in focus. If the same tendency will continue, then after five centuries we will live in one worldwide state with about hundred million population, as it was in the times of heyday of the Roman Empire. The whole point is this, what so and so happens in the developed countries, to begin to happen everywhere! Could the civilization not succeed to reach this optimum, then it will ... again reach it, only by some cruel and uncivilized way, because, seriously looking, one decrease of the population to five pеr mil (or 200 times) is not at all a joke and the genocide compared with this goal stays far behind. As far as in these calculations the terms are not small, it is possible that more decisive measures may become necessary, which are to give an yearly decrease of 2-3%, in order to come down the milliard even in the 21st century.

IV. Life Expectancy
     The optimal lifespan for the people must be two and a half generations, or in wider limits -- from two to three generations! The proper approach requires to measure the expectancy of life exactly in generations, not in years, because the years are something floating and unstable (as Bulgarian currency in the first years of transition to democracy, for example). In ancient Rome, when the people have lived on the average by 40-45 years, the women have begun to give birth already in age of 13-14, and that is why one generation was there about 20 years, and was ensured the minimum of two generations; today one generation continues for 25 years (rather 28, as we have said it), but by an average continuation of life between 70 and 80 years in different countries it already comes very near to the figure of three generations, though in all cases does not exceed it. One generation means that one can have children, but will not live until they in turn begin to have children, for two generations he/she will see also grandchildren, and for three -- grand-grandchildren. As in the antiquity, so also in current days, many people live to see their grandchildren, but there are wide away from many those, who can take pleasure with their great grandchildren.
     Being now familiar with the notion of ranks of acquaintances we can have one more confirmation for the truthfulness of the ten or so closest relatives under such continuation of life. If each family has by two children (and now they are nearer to three), then after two generations there will be four grandchildren, and after three -- eight. If we sum all descendant direct heirs and add also brother or sister and husband /wife, then their number will be defined by the formula 2ⁿ⁺¹, where n is the number of generation, what for two generations gives eight, and for three -- 16. For the moment we speak only about downward heirs, but by two children the calculations are the same also for the upward relatives (because the parents, obviously, are two), so that in the beginning and in the end of his life one has the above-given number of direct relatives, and somewhere in the middle it comes out nearly the same (by three generations, one 50 years old man or woman, for example, will have two downward and one upward generations, or: one husband /wife, one brother /sister, two children, four grandchildren, also father and mother, or a total of 10 persons). But these are lower limits, for there are two corrections, namely: firstly, these are only the direct relatives, and there remain also various cousins, aunts, nephews, relatives of the husband /wife, etc., what increases this number nearly twice; and secondly, at the moment the number of children is more than two, so that we have one more increasing. Put in two word: by average life expectancy of two generations the number of direct relatives and acquaintances is 10-15 persons, by three generations -- becomes 20-30, and by four -- 50-70 people, what already exceeds the limit of the first rank acquaintances.
     If we decide to express this in years it is quite real to imagine one average duration of life of one century (and in Russian the word "chelovek", what is a human, according to one vernacular etymology, meant for each chelo-forehead one vek-century), but this under the length of a generation of 35-40 years and on the average two children per family (or one per parent). If we wish to live, say, by 300 years, then we should be satisfied to see our first child only when we exceed the hundred years, for there is no other way! But we can't imagine a society in which the people will live, say, 120-140 years, having by three children, and the average continuation of one generation to be 25 years (what otherwise is entirely justified from physiological point of view), because then the formula for direct relatives will be 3ⁿ⁺¹, for n=5, and this gives 729, or much more than a thousand relatives together with the cousins and those of the marriage partner.
     This is the proper way to look at the things, not out of positions of the medicine, which, judging by the rates of the 20th century, leave nothing impossible even before the end of the 21st to reach an average lifespan of 120-150 years at least in the developed countries. Then will happen that, together with the efforts for prolongation of human life, we will be forced to search suitable ways for its termination, when it, by one reason or other, is not more so great pleasure and/or hinders the social development. When some home appliance wears enough, were it physically, were it morally (becomes obsolescent), we throw it away and change with another one, but the situation with the human beings is similar, if we do not judge partially, so that our society will be forced to free itself from various social prejudices (imposed chiefly by the Christian morality). Here it goes about the so called euthanasia, or painless death. In this regard the contemporary society has returned much back from the customs existed in Ancient Greece, because there everyone has had the moral right alone to decide at what time to leave this world, and when he has found some sufficiently important for him reason (most often severe and incurable disease), he has simply written his testament or has passed it orally, has collected around him his relatives to take leave with them, has drunk up the cup with cicuta or some other poison, and quietly has moved to the "otherworld". The ancient Romans for their part have preferred to cut their veins in a tub with warm water (maybe because of their cult to the water?). But so or otherwise this has been accepted with understanding by everybody and was entirely in the order of things, where nowadays, regardless of the thousands painless ways for taking of the life, similar behaviour is condemned by the people.
     The humanity is ready to accept as proper needful to nobody existence, sometimes for many years, of incurably ill, mostly old people, but can't take the responsibility to offer them final deliverance from their sufferings, neither they alone have enough powers to oppose the social norms. The suicide is one of the undeniable rights of the individual, and, besides, the meaning of opposition to it is to prohibit similar acts between the young, who will from that point onward live their lives, not between such, who feel themselves as burden for the others. The necessity for reaching of correct understanding on this question is felt already in the present days, and in the near future may be expected elaboration of special procedures for untimely painless termination of the human life: were it obligatory (by reaching of the "approved" age); were it with some element of hazard (as it happens in reality), when after a given age each one is subjected to some periodic "tests" with possible lethal outcome; were it forbidding the application of powerful medical (rejuvenating) tools after reaching of hundred years, say; or in some other way. The current situation, though, can't be named civilized, and the society will have to find some new (i.e. old) socially beneficial understanding of the question.
     The important thing is to understand that the emphasis here is set above all on the psychological relation between people, not on their physical or health condition. The contemporary society suffocates chiefly because of reaching of the ceiling of permissible lifespan of three generations, not because of the very number of people, for when in Japan there are nearly 300 persons on square kilometer, in Bulgaria they are 78, and in USA -- about 25, but the problems everywhere are almost the same. The average duration of active career for most of the people is about one generation, because when the new generation comes to the working places it begins then to hinder the old one. But by length of life of three generations is early to send on pension people, who have to live nearly one whole generation, and they alone don't want to leave the work, because all pensioners only wonder what to do for to fill their time and search for some work just not to "die of boredom". The conflict between the generations occurred in 20th century not because 80 years of life are who knows how much for the human organism, but because more than two and a half generations life on the average becomes a bit too much, and three is already the ceiling.

     Well, such is the situation: the population on the globe must be so big, how big is one average state, and the lifespan must be two and a half generations. This is the reasonable decision and we have to try to reach it, because if we do not behave reasonable then the nature (or God, if that is how you like it better) will find some way for maintaining of the equilibrium on Earth, like for example: mass infertility, by which will be born very nice and intelligent children, who having grown enough will do their sex much more scientifically than their predecessors from the beginning of our era, but will have no need of contraceptives, for will be able to conceive only in one case to hundred pairs, maybe; or will be changed the ratio of newborn boys to girls from 18 to 17, how it is now, to, say, 21 to 4, what will mean that the boys will be five times more than the girls; or the birth rate will be entirely normal, only that in each next generation the children will have ... by a finger more than their parents, and when the fingers become more than a dozen this will cause serious problems with the pressing of buttons and in this way will hinder the general abundance; or the drug addicts will become about 70% of the population and will declare all the left for abnormal and subjects to compulsory narcotizing; or the percent of suiciders will soon exceed 1/3 of population, and this in the so called productive age; or the marriages between homosexuals will exceed the half of the marriages; and other similar variants.
     In any case, will be found some way that will bring the possibility for restricting of competitive individuals to the accessible for the human beings level of contacts of second rank, or to several hundred persons, as also the direct relatives to the level of contacts of first rank, or some tens of people. This is so, because nobody wants to have so much relatives that to be unable to recognize them when meets them, neither to live under such circumstances, where in order to express himself somehow one has to study nearly half a century, for to narrow the field for competition as much as can, and even in this case to have just one chance between tens of thousands, not to draw the top winning ticket, but to find at all some decent place under the Sun.

ABOUT THE FUTURE

I. Past And Present
     We can't speak about the future not going out of the past and of its constant trends and unchangeable principles of functioning of the society and the nature, because we must have a good basis in order to extrapolate our judgements. Only this, of course, is not enough, and for that reason as farther we go in the future the more imprecise will become our forecasts, but inasmuch as here we don't go out of some private and biased interests, or, to put it more precisely, the only interest that we have is to continue the life on our old planet, it is worth to make an attempt. So that, let us first take in focus

     1. The constant trends in the development of society, starting somewhere in the times of Babylon and up to current days. We will mark four things, namely:

     a) Moving above in the scale of human desires and wishes and massification of this movement for wider groups of population. We have in mind the scale of desires with five levels, where on first place stays the providing of daily food, then comes the necessity of shelter, then the continuation of gender (so how God has decreed and people, too, like it -- if not the result then at least the very process), then the wish for self-expression and establishing of superiority over the others, and at the end comes the developing and improvement of the individual. This movement, naturally, is ensured firstly for the ruling and later, and partially, for the ruled, where the integral evaluation consists in summing of the levels for each individual (with some weight for every level, maybe), so that higher value can be received, either via enhancing of the levels for some single individuals, or via massification of some not very high level. This total value for a given country, or for the whole planet, incessantly increases, and there are all reasons to believe that it will continue to increase also in the future. The purpose of life for everybody is to climb higher up on this scale, and the same applies also to the society as a whole through the summary evaluation.
     The first three levels are these of vital necessity for everybody and they have been satisfied up to certain extent already when the monkey has got down from the tree, as is said, but self-expression, or possibility for making of career, even today, is not guarantied massively around the world, to say nothing about some specific, individual, developing of the person. Here, however, we face one phenomenon, one normally set by the nature restriction (for, what should have we all done having reached the maximum, if could have reached it?), and it turns out that these aspirations apply far not at all to the major part of people (meaning that the aspirations remain, but they can't be realized through the fault of the very individuals) and in such case they, most often, just replace the new quality with greater quantity of the old one (i.e.: food, homes, cars, lovers, etc.)! In such cases these individuals simply don't know what else to want, this makes them unhappy, and, if they are from the ruling class (as they most often are), the society begins to degenerate and disintegrate from the top, and the masses from below enthusiastically help, because their interests are always satisfied worse than of those above them. In this way the civilizations grow and die, because the purpose in life for the rulers becomes lost, when their basic needs are satisfied and is come to the level of personal improvement and development. There is nothing shocking in this, because the civilizations are living systems, and in such case they must die!
     Inasmuch as, however, the contemporary civilization is strongly democratized, then we have to observe the interests of the whole nations, as well as to take into account the entire world (because of the mass communications), where the mentioned tendencies of greater and greater satisfying of the daily needs of all become gradually a reality. It may sound paradoxically, but the meaninglessness of life (for the individual) does not contradict to his wish to search for this meaning, and when its finding becomes more and more difficult (due to the general prosperity) the people get confused and the civilization passes away. Our country, Bulgaria, is more "fortunate" in this regard than the highly developed ones, because we still have problems with the feeding, and with the finding of decent home, and with various small things, so that is this way we even help to the world civilization detaining it and moving away the moment of its demise!

     b) The gradual liberation of the exploited masses, or the distancing of their "chains", is the next constant tendency in the human society since millenniums. It can safely be stated that the emergence of society begins with the division of labour and creation of conditions for using of one group of people by other such groups, or in the mutual exploitation, taking out of the "ploit"-everything or our souls (see "About the mankind" and "About the justice"), because this is the most effective form of using of human labour. Each society can exist only on the basis of mutual exploitation and is naive to think something else, but those of you who are shocked by this word can change it to "using". In this sense, for example, the marriage is an institution for mutual exploitation of the reproductive organs, and for this reason nowadays, having so many freedoms (caused by the prevision of the end of civilization and the losing of meaning in life), the necessity of continuous and unchanging exploitation of one and the same persons is eliminated and the marriage institution loses its importance.
     But the mutual exploitation in the society has been incessantly bettered, and the chains of slaves were gradually changed with invisible binding to the earth as source of benefits, and later, when it turned that they can be pulled out not only from the soil, the tying became economical. In the contemporary capitalistic society the economical chains can't be seen, but they exist, and if they have not existed then the society would have collapsed (as it, up to some extend, also happened under the communist socialism, where the role of capital was very ineffective, and only with speeches and slogans a society can't be welded). The exploitation, out of itself, is neither something good, nor it is bad, and in order to be good it has to correspond to the interests of the society, which for their part must take into account the interests of each individual, so that the whole point is in finding of the most suitable for all form of exploitation! The slavery system was entirely justified in its time (even for the slaves), but it is not good today, when, on the basis of better satisfying of daily needs of the population, is achieved better effectiveness of work under conditions of wider freedoms for the workers, and because of this the "leash", on which they are tied, can be loosened a bit. Generally looking, the denying of something, were it a form of exploitation, habits, or something else, should not mean denying of its expedience in past time (i.e. denying of the past), but only under the new conditions. So that some form of mutual exploitation must exist also in the future, when the capital will cease to play special role, due to the enhancing of living conditions of the masses and the unavoidable socialization of the society (to what we shall come after a while).

     c) The next tendency is the constant strengthening of human capabilities and increasing of the domination of the human over the nature. This is obvious tendency, which nobody denies, but let us stress that this domination must always be restricted in better, or more advantageous for the human, fitting in the nature, not necessarily in its changing, which in most cases, judging by the human practice, is performed not so much out of necessity, as just to show our strength (i.e. out of unreasonable human pride), but also because the change of the environment is easier than our adjusting to the environment or changing of ourselves! So to say: when we can't do what we have to do, we at least do what we can.
     The increasing of our capabilities is result of our striving to easier way of live (and the natural makings, of course), so that it is often spoken about the bettering of living conditions during the centuries human history, but this improving is consequence of our enhanced abilities. Already when the primitive man has seized the stone in his hand he has begun to increase his abilities, because this was a new weapon for him (and to remind you that in English an arm means both, weapon and forearm) and this tendency continues also today via the machines and appliances, various technological processes, computers, scientific achievements, et cetera. It is clear that our abilities will continue to increase, like for example, to learn to fly, or to transmit thoughts, or to teleport matter in some new way, not via the classical transportation means, or to engender such individuals as we wish, and other similar things. But let it be clear that this increasing of our abilities, at least till now, has changed nothing in our genetic apparatus, where the things remain on the same place for tens of thousands of years, what is necessary, because the evolution of the humans has to be commensurate with the geological evolution of our planet. Possible changes in the hereditary code have all chances to turn more dangerous than the nuclear weapons and cause new mass horrors.

     d) The socialization of society, or the movement to wider social justice, is the last tendency on which we shall dwell. Since the dawn of civilization the human being has understood that our world is unjust (at least for each individual) and because of this he has never ceased to try to make it more just (see also "About the justice"). Only in the last pair of centuries, though, we have succeeded to achieve some relatively significant success in this regard, based chiefly on the higher possibilities of the society, but this is wide away from the limit of our desires (and there isn't, in fact, such limit), so that this tendency will continue always. The social justice means, most widely said, some way for reaching of uniting with the interests of the others, understanding that our well-being depends on that of the others, some form not of collectivism, but of properly understood, i.e. reasonable, individualism.
     Not only on the stage of crash of present-day capitalism from the last pair of centuries, which we may call also industrial society, if like it more in this way, but at least since Ancient Greece onwards, exists the struggle of the people for building of more just and impartial society, and this struggle becomes especially actual nowadays, due to the enhanced possibilities for its achieving. The good companies on the West long ago take care in different ways for their workers, simply because in this way they can attract the better ones, what is beneficial for them. Similarly, the society as a whole benefits from better social security for this makes the life quieter, and the main thing that one capitalist needs is quietness in the country and possibility for the people to spend their money to buy produced by his company goods, out of what he only wins. So that the shift to the left in the society is unavoidable in the near future, but will we call the next stage in its developing socialism, or postindustrial society, or in some other way -- this is not important.

     2. The unchangeable principles in functioning of the society are reduced mainly to the following:

     a) Fight with the difficulties in life. This principle is put deeply in the very "biological matrix" and the human being, regardless of his permanent striving for easy life, at the same time strives for interesting, what will say difficult, life. If we want to master somehow this verbal contradiction we should have said that one strives for easy life, which will allow him alone to create difficulties, that will make it interesting for him! It is widely known, for example, that the young generation in the recent time has been "spoiled", as the older people use to say, what is unavoidable consequence of the better and easier conditions of life for the young ones, because they, ensured with the daily food and place to live, now just wonder what premature feelings to search, for the wish for self-expression from the early age does not attract everybody, and also their understanding of this expression consists mainly in the wish to possess something given to them ready or easily acquired, but not their personal quality (since this is harder). This explains the drug addiction, the higher criminality (to a great extent), and the high percentage of suicides between the young people (exactly when they have no objective reasons to be dissatisfied with life, because the best part of each life is the youth). These, let us call them temporary, problems, because they have arisen mainly during the 20th century, show that one of the main concerns in the future will be exactly in the creating of difficulties, primarily for the young.
     When one takes everything easy and ready he can't be happy, and maybe for that reason in the sexual relations (which are the core of life) feminine individuals incessantly strive (most often unconsciously) to create problems for the men, in order to make their life more interesting and the sexual pleasure -- more full (after some efforts for its reaching have been applied), what has found its reflection in the classical phrase cherchez la femme, or "search for the woman", as the root of all miseries. In any case the easy life doesn't lure the people and the hardships toughened the individual, providing possibility for exercising of this undeveloped instinct named "intellect", so that the problem is in the right choice of such hardships which can be overcome.

     b) The animal nature of the human is the next unchangeable moment by each civilizations and it shouldn't be thought that we will succeed sometime to get free of it. Twenty centuries after Christ we still find pleasure to kill our brethren (if not in reality, then virtually, looking at it on the video), or at least to do them evils, where the basic element of our happiness is in the unhappiness of the others. More than this, at least during the last two centuries, chiefly due to the unrealized overpopulation of the globe (see "About the population"), the human victims are immeasurably more that those from the previous epochs, when in many cases the people could have easily divide themselves in such who wanted more strong sensations (take this as: blood and lechery), and such who preferred quieter life; earlier there was made difference between front and rear, now it does not exist, neither in war, nor in peace, thanks to the higher criminality and terrorism. We shudder before the death penalty, because everybody's life was (supposedly) very important and inimitable, but we kill ourselves with millions. Whether in the future have to be legalized again the gladiatorial fights (especially having in mind the possibility for transplantation of organs), or has to be fixed some planet for wars (why not Mars?), or to be strengthen even more the escapism (about which we shall speak after a while) with the usage of more total medicaments and virtual audio-visual horrors, or will be found some other method, but the people, it seems, for many centuries ahead will have the need of bloodshed, in order to feel themselves humans?!

     c) The next important moment this is the disunity of human society. The people as individuals are much more reliable and functional, than the society on the whole, which still can not come to agreement who by whom has to be commanded and up to what extent have to be subjected one to the other. Even if is some countries exists some primitive level of organization, on the whole planet it is absent, and a pack of wolves, for instance, are more united than all contemporary countries taken together. Our ultimate dreams till the moment are reduced not to harmony and cooperation between the individuals and countries, but to chivalrous conditions for duels, most often on life and death (and with the chivalry only in words). It seems in all probability that at least in the next several centuries (or millenniums?) the situation will remain the same, because the human being also for the very nature is an experiment and nobody knows what is better, so that let us accept for better this, what can take overhand. But then not to fool ourselves thinking that in the society rules some organization, or at least not bigger than among the other herd animals.

     d) The last unchangeable thing on which we shell focus is the incessant search by the human of some delusion, the constant escaping of the reality to some imaginary situation, something what has made already the ancient Romans to pronounce the sentence: "Mundus vult decipi!" ("The world wants to be deceived!"). Each good thing has its bad sides (and vice versa), so that our ability for higher nervous activity unavoidably is accompanied by our wish to invent own world in which to live. The delusion can be unconscious, as in most of the cases it is, but with the increasing of our knowledge about the surrounding world the necessity of delusion does not disappear, it only changes its forms. The right of delusion is basic human right and it must not be violated in the future, no matter whether we speak about religion, arts, love, some inebriation, ideology, sports, at cetera.

II. Near Future
     After the said in the previous section it is relatively easy to predict (with some degree of reliability) the development of the society in the near pair of centuries, extrapolating the constant trends and retaining the unchangeable principles. It must have been obvious that the world moves to socialism (although in many countries people are afraid of this word), if not for other reasons, then at least because now we can afford it. Whether in the future socialism every in need will receive free the basic food products, medicaments and other services (for example, in special shops, or in special departments for free goods, or via collecting and further distribution of durable products for use as second hand goods, etc.), or he will receive only the needed means to obtain this, what he thinks is most important for him, or via some combination of these methods, is not important. The important thing is that the basic needs (the first three levels of the scale of wishes) will be satisfied for everybody who is not in position, or has no desire, to make career in the moment. Pension, health, legal, etc. insurance will be available for everybody, as well also education according to his personal abilities and/or financial capabilities. Freedom of movement around the entire world and quite accessible communications with every other one will also be ensured, where the linguistic barriers will be overcome using five or six major languages, one of which will be official in the country.
     The main form of exploitation and compulsion in the near future will be the capitalistic, or the power of capital. No matter how well one is provided there will always be things that he personally will not be able to own, so that there will be at what to aim and for what to earn money. More than this, after the basic needs will be decently satisfied then one will have nothing else to do except to try to do something for the others, too, where he can agree, say, to work also without payment or for symbolic one, what is now reality for many people from the affluent strata of population in the developed countries. Even amongst the scientific workers, who are not of the most affluent, but also not of the poorest, already today exists wishing to do their work not because of the money but because of the interest in it; this is applied also to many other professions like: medics, teachers, and so on, and up to a certain extent also for other routine activities, due to the fact that one always feels some pleasure of the work done, and when he learns to work he just can't loiter inactive. It is quite real to expect that the working week (if it will remain of seven days and will not turn to, say, sextet of days) to the middle of 21st century will reach four days by six hours, where that one, who could succeed to secure a job at least for three days weekly, will be counted as happy. Pressured by the growing unemployment, for which there are no reasons to expect to sink, on the background of ever increasing capabilities of the technologies, one will begin to crave for to have the possibility to do some useful work, just for the pleasure of it (or for the fun of it, as you say), so that the exploitation will continue also because of the wish of people for self-expression, not only for the payment.
     The money, or some form of cashless payment, will continue to rule the economics, because of the easy way for accounting of the demand (if there is a gain, there is a demand), as also to be purpose in life for many people, due to the hidden power and possibility for dominance, which it allows. The money offers an one-dimensional scale for measuring of human values and, no matter that it isn't pretty accurate in many cases, the very idea about this is brilliant. The hindrances for everyone to work -- natural or artificial, when needed (because it might happen that one will be forced to pay in order to be allowed to work a pair of days in some robotized factory, or to go to the army, where he will be given real weapons, etc.) -- will be some of the hardships in the future. Besides, the people will always want to live for half a century more with new artificial organs, and this, after some age (say, hundred years), will have to be paid for; or will like to have their own rocket, or some asteroid, at cetera, so that they will have where to spend their money.
     But whose ownership will be the capitals is of no big importance, because the large-scale owners, so or otherwise, will be only 2-3% of the population and their goal in life will be dictated by their property, i.e. they will live: either to multiply their money, or to spend them interestingly (and reasonably, if they could succeed to do this), or the both things. It is normal to expect that this will be the states (i.e. their administrations) and primarily the multinational companies (i.e. the persons who own the capital, not those who manage the companies), but in any case the big money will not go to the more able ones, because the wealthy ones will be ever in position to force the capable persons to work for them! In other words, the power of capital will continue to be determined by arbitrary, not by reasonable, factors, but, so long as for the society the important thing is the existence of exploitation, this will not be significant. And in addition to this the economics will begin everywhere to rule over the politics, not vice versa, how it is in the moment in many countries, what will be a step forward.
     Still, there is a hope that the mankind will succeed somehow to separate the bad from the good about the question of ownership over the means for production and will come to the conclusion that the worst and unjust moment in this case is that the wealth does not correspond to the personal abilities of the elite, but is mainly inherited! When this will be realized there will be elementary to avoid the evils, modifying so the inheritance law, that the large-scale (i.e. exploitative) ownership could practically not be inherited, but to come in the hands of large communities of people (the state, the municipals, or some other professional associations), from where it could be given later for temporary or lifetime managing to some proved their personal abilities individuals, or to be distributed equally and/or arbitrary between the members of the society (say, upon reaching of complete anniversaries, or via lotteries).
     And really, if one comes to think of it, then the inheritance of property is a human invention (i.e. it does not exist in the world of animals) and it brings more harm than good, because strengthens even further the injustice in life. Anyway, the inheritance tax (which for large sums may come, in heap with the due to the lawyers, up to 1/3 of the total amount) is entirely unjustified, from the point of view of the individual (because -- has the state with something helped that the deceased has died?), and it can be explained only with the natural desire of the state also to lay hands on an easy prey. But there are some social elements in it, and there is nothing difficult to set some, let us call it, exploitative minimum of capitals (EM), by exceeding of which the inheritance tax jumps up by exponent, so that for 10 EM inheritance the person becomes only 2 EM, and for 100 EM -- only 3 EM, for example, where the other part goes to the state (and/or the community). The very EM may quietly be of the order of 1000 MMS (minimal monthly salaries), but it can be corrected in accordance with the living standard in the moment.
     This will lead to some state monopolism by the very big companies, but they, anyway, are always under the prism (and scepter) of the state, for they affect the interests of the main part of working hand. This will not be socialism in the classical view, but some people's capitalism, i.e. such, from which the people gain, where the competition, at least between the smaller companies will exist, but between the big it will also not perish, if will be watched for the state's ownership not to exceed, say, 1/3 of the assets of the companies, and the other part, when such remains, to be given to the municipals and other associations, or distributed via some kind of lot. And the point is that the very large-scale owners will lose nothing personally, only their posterity will lose, but it will not fall beneath the limit of one EM, which allows one really decent existence. As it is said, the wolf is sated and the lamb is intact, and, besides, the world, in any case, has started on that road.
     It can safely be stated, though, that for many more centuries the society will not be in position to establish one decent form of organization, which has to define the future place of every one already from his birth, but which place could not be passed by heredity! And this will be not because it is so difficult (if not anything else then at least a lot can be thrown for to fix who by whom has to be ordered and who what can own for a given period of time), but because the people will not accept such restriction of their capabilities, which, anyway, are limited by their genetic makings. It may become even possible to change these very genetic makings, but then will arise the question who will have such rights, because surely all people can't be Caesars or Napoleons, for to give an example. There are hopes that the computers will already in 21st century enter widely in the social government and justice, at least as primary instances, and then maybe will be made a good step forward, but the people will long resist before convince themselves that this will be in their own interest, because an artificial intelligence, obviously, will be in position to take, if not the most just (according to the human, and therefore controversial) decisions, then at least the most impartial ones.
     Otherwise, we can be sure that the future will be time of substitutes, as in relation to the eating and the goods which we use, as well of the emotions. The mass media will ever more replace (and stupefy) the independent thinking, and the virtual reality will play the role of the actual world, but this is not so bad, because there are not much people with original thinking, which is worth to be preserved. It is quite normal to expect also some cheap and relatively harmless, i.e. not leading to dangerous addiction, narcotic and psychotropic products. Even in the sphere of reproduction the artificial birth is a question of near future, so that after, say, a century it may be possible for each family to be equipped with an "artificial mother", that will be with the dimensions and the price of present-day dishwashing machine, and to perform there the necessary "planting" when decides that this is necessary, or rather when receives the needed permission (because until the human population on Earth is not reduced below one milliard people this will be simply necessary), where in this case the sex will remain, so to say, for "sports and relaxation". We can hope that the wars will disappear at least from our planet, but in the presence even of two states, or of differently favorable living conditions in different areas, this is much dubious, because the human being is first of all an animal and only then endowed with reason. All in all, though, probably the life in 22nd century will be more interesting than in this one, but if we do not blow up our planet till that time.

III. Distant Future
     The distant future is this, where we can't extrapolate the existing tendencies, but have to see in which way they will change so that to close the cycle, and here we can mainly guess. So, for example, it is clear that eventually will come time when the power of capital has to be changed, and then the role of compulsion will play, maybe, the heredity, or the connections in the gender, but this isn't sure, because the families and clans even today are disintegrating, and the genetic engineering also offers many possibilities for interference in this direction. It can be allowed the existence of some specialized human individuals for specific kind of activity, what will make them different also in appearance, the people may become product of some symbiosis of the natural and the artificial, i.e. cyborgs, and then each one will have his, let's call them, guildy interests, which he is to defend and for which to work. It is possible that some control over the production of foods and propagation of the gender will be exercised, which must constrain the people to do this, what is necessary for the society (even today there are not many those who can alone kill some hen, not to speak about planting a field with wheat, harvesting it, and baking bread by themselves, and in the future all will be dependent on the technologically produced foods). Or will be moved to total surveillance of all people using some implanted transceivers, with the possibility for local impact on the psyche of each one when needed, what will be offered under the form of care for the security and health of the people (in the way as today all people are catalogued, the transporting vehicles and the firearms too, and the next step is direct monitoring in order to prevent the offences already in the bud). Or compulsion will be exercised by the supplying of people with new organs and their periodical rejuvenation. In any case, some compulsion surely will exist, otherwise the society will "fly apart" in result of the centrifugal force of the egoism of its members.
     But it may, at the end, also happen that the humans will become really reasonable and will begin to work not because somebody forces them to, but because they alone force themselves, for the life in this way is more interesting and beneficial for all, what presupposes that the society then has reached the last level of wishes -- the personal improvement and development, coupled with the understanding that the best self-manifestation is the positive meaning of the others. Though it may happen that the necessary compulsion will be exercised by the artificial intellect where the people will be subjugated to the robots, that will care for them (just to have what to do), where the people will simply live (only to pass interesting the time). Such degree of freedom will not be very mobilizing, but it is hardly possible that will be come to this, for the nature, surely, will propose us new hardships, so that the people will not be left to do just what comes into their heads.
     Sooner or later is normal to expect also some dispersing of the mankind in the space, colonizing of other planets, contacts with another intelligent beings (if we succeed to find such), and, in general, strengthening of the power of humans to improbable (and improbably dangerous) limits. When we will learn how to move really fast in the space we will be near to solving of the question how to cope with the time (because it is this, that determines what is fast and what not). Sometime, maybe, we will begin to make excursions also in the time, though by moving in the past we can be only observers, and the future, anyway, is not something more than a virtual reality, so that we can never be sure that it will be exactly our future, not some of the possible ones, but this, definitely, will be interesting.
     But our strength, after all, can't be limited only with this, what is outside us, so that we will strive to better our own organisms and the society, too. The genetic engineering already has remarkable achievement, so that soon will be created various new vegetable plants and animals. But our role of creators of the world around us will not be on a sufficient height until we begin to change also ourselves -- were it our bodies, were it to create posterity on demand. Each exiting out of our natural makings, surely, is very dangerous, but this will hardly restrain us from trying to continue the divine experiment and to increase the diversity in nature (more so because till now he have chiefly diminished it). Diversifying our life, though, is proper to take care also for the ... death, because it, still, is our most serious trial in life.
     Interfering in the natural mechanisms for propagation of life we, sooner or later, will reach to the cardinal problems about the organization and the chaos in the Universe, because they are bound in some cycle and the local organization supposes the existence of global chaos (and vice versa)! Since the moment of its appearance the living matter has tried to impose some order in the accidental and chaotic world, but if we ever succeed to reach very strong order in a given time-space coordinate then we must find also some way for moving to disorder, which is more humane than the used by the nature, because otherwise it will force its own, based on unlimited biological and other resources, method of trial and errors, taking the organic life for error and leading only to preservation of the matter but not of its form. But what will be this method, so that both, the life to exist and the chaos not to disappear, we, alas, can not tell you, but if someone tells you this you just don't believe him! Because the organized matter decreases the entropy, but it can neither only grow, nor only decrease, but can incessantly (in sense of millions of years time and light years space) change itself.
     Well, we may be failure of the nature, but let us not do such errors that can erase it, for we have our interests where the nature has not! It is of no importance for the nature what will happen with the life, because it is meaningless for it, but for us it isn't (i.e., we think that such meaning exists). The limit of our future is the reaching of possibility for substantial intervention in the chaos or in the meaninglessness of nature, because then we will be left with no other alternative except, either to include ourselves in it creating new meaningless worlds, or to decline taking part in this meaninglessness, confirming it. In this case it turns out that this, that the people are not really reasonable, is very nice thing, so that for us this moment is infinitely remote.

ADDENDUM:

CONSTITUTION OF CYNICLAND

     Taking into account the positive elements of existing till now civilizations and having in mind the legalization of used among us moral norms, structure of our state, and happy life of out citizens, as well also in view of further developing and improving of human individual and social community, we made this Constitution of Cynicland.

I. Rights And Obligations Of The Individual
     Article 1. (1) Every human has the right of life or death, which is unconditional and independent of other individuals.
     (2) Every human has also the obligation not to apply this right to the detriment of the same right of other individuals, if this can be avoided.
     Article 2. (1) Every human has the right of happiness according to his views. The Public Reason (or other instances) can preach certain kind of happiness, but it is not obligatory for the individual.
     (2) The happiness of the individual, though, should not be built on the unhappiness of the others, nor to the others be imposed the personal understandings about it.
     Article 3. (1) All people are born unequal and have the legitimate right to prove their inequality and uniqueness amidst the others.
     (2) By proving of this uniqueness all people use equal rights and have equal obligations for compliance with lawfully established norms, regardless of the: sex, racial and ethnical origins, appearance, age, education, material welfare, health condition, intellectual and other faculties, preferred kind of delusions and beliefs, membership of social and professional or some other groups, ways for reaching of sexual pleasure, tastes, and habits.
     (3) The ways for expressing of individual inequality should not impede the other individuals from expressing of their inequality, as well not contradict to the Public Reason. In the cases when the inequality is restricted by the law, all subjected to such restriction are considered equal in this respect, regardless of the differences listed in the previous paragraph.
     Article 4. (1) All people have the right to show their animal nature, when this does not contradict to the Public Reason.
     (2) All people have the right and obligation to behave reasonable, when they can manage to do this.
     Article 5. (1) In the society all people are dependent one from the other, where in this respect free people do not exist. Each one, though, has the right to strive to reach the border line where the freedom begins, yet not to trespass this line.
     (2) Can be spoken about freedom in sense of conscious dependence, but all efforts for expressing of private freedom that violates other people's dependence, and which can be avoided, are persecuted by the law.
     (3) Property, parental, social, and other dependencies, and the borders where they turn to freedoms, are defined in the corresponding laws.
     Article 6. (1) Every human has the right to deceive the others and/or himself, except the cases where the legal proceedings require something different according to Art.19.(3). The lie can take forms of: self-deception, fraud, deliberate deceit, suggestion, advertising, propaganda, solace, compliment, etc., and can be both, in interest of the individual, and in his detriment. In this respect everybody has the right also to say this what he thinks is truth, or to lie in interest of the truth, as well as to express assertions, which are, or can later be proved, truths.
     (2) The possibility for existence of the truth is not excluded, nor is limited with the said in the next paragraph, but as far as it most often is questionable and unprovable, as also unconvincing or unpleasant for the people, it is right in the general case to be called lie.
     (3) The laws of the country, as also the lie in interest of Public Reason, is taken to be called truth, regardless whether its truthfulness can be proved in some other way.
     Article 7. (1) Every human has the right to exploit the others, when they agree with this exploitation, as also to agree to be exploited alone by the others, but this consent must be voluntary and provable. The form of exploitation can be different, including mutual, and can change with the time.
     (2) The consent for exploitation of the individual is valid only for him and can not be passed to the offspring. In many cases is rightful to establish also periods when it expires and can be renewed by mutual desire, where if such terms are not made, then it can be ceased at any time by either of the parties.
     (3) Every human can exploit also various animals or artificial systems, as well also himself personally, where in these cases consent for exploitation is not required, due to the difficulty for its receiving, but some laws may stipulate exceptions.
     Article 8. (1) Every human has the right and obligation to strive to make life more just for all, using for this purpose the public instances and complying with the Public Reason.
     (2) In its turn the Public Reason is also bound to strive to make life more just for all citizens of the country, using given to it prerogatives, both, in the way of compulsion, as well as that of delusion.
     Article 9. (1) Every human has obligations to the society, which can be financial, related with the fulfilling of some public activity, with the propagation of gender, or of other kind, and they are defined in the corresponding laws.
     (2) There can't be imposed obligations to the individuals that lead to permanent physical or psychical mutations, except with their written consent, in the established by the law order.
     Article 10. (1) These rights and obligations are applied to all adult citizens of the country, where for such are considered all over 18 years.
     (2) The rights under Art. 1, 2, 3 and 4 (of life, happiness, inequality, and animal nature) are valid for the people from the moment of their birth, where till reaching of the said in the previous paragraph age they are not related with the corresponding obligations, except if in the laws is not fixed something else.

II. Public Reason
     Article 11. (1) The Public Reason is the set of laws in the country, created by the official authorities obliged to ensure their observance and punishments in case of non-compliance with them, as well as the very authoritative bodies (according to Art.12). The decisions of these bodies are taken for truth, regardless the possibilities for proving of the contrary, until changes in them are forced, characterizing the old arrangements as lie and the new as truth. By virtue of Art.6, though, everybody can express his opinion about these settlements and criticize them in any ways, because these voices are taken for lies, if they contradict to the official truth.
     Article 12. All official power in the country is divided into:
     1. Supreme and affirmative -- of the Parliament;
     2. Lawmaking -- of the Lawmaking Office;
     3. Executive -- of the Government;
     4. Representative and uniting -- of the President;
     5. Regional -- of the Municipals;
     6. Judicial -- of the Courts and Prosecution;
     7. Punishing and forces for quick reaction -- the Police and the Army;
     8. For propaganda -- of the official Media.
     Article 13. None
     Article 14. Structure and functioning of the Parliament.
     (1) The Parliament is chosen as arbitrary and politically uninvolved sample of the people for period of 5 years by the procedure described in Art.22 and consists of 100 Representatives of People (RP) aged over 30 and below 60 years to the date of inauguration. It is permanently working body and for the term of office all RP receive official leave from their old place of work. This body is bound to maintain always an established number of RP, having as reserve ten persons Candidate RP, and if necessary to perform also additional partial elections. The mandate of Parliament begins on the first of January of each year multiple of five and can not be prolonged, but can be shortened, if till its end remain not less than six months, by voting with qualified majority, and then by the same procedure are performed early elections for service Parliament with the term of office only up to the end of mandate of the current. All RP after inauguration have diplomatic immunity and can be prosecuted only by the Parliament, or by the judicial authorities after explicitly given by it permission.
     (2) The Parliament chooses every six months Presidium, which consists of seven persons, including: Chairman of the Presidium, three Vice Chairmen of the Presidium and three more members of the Presidium. In addition to this the Parliament is divided in working groups according to the performed tasks, but this dividing does not change the necessity of common voting in the whole Parliament.
     (3) All RP are on full board (food, housing, and other necessary expenses) till five days per week, and in addition to this they receive income in amount of three minimal monthly salaries (MMS) for the country for the period, but are not allowed to receive any other supplementary earnings and presents. All received by them sums and donations remain in favour of the Parliament. After ending of their service here they are placed under special financial supervision for a period of five years in order to reveal cases of bestowing of illicit benefits during the time of their mandate.
     (4) Each RP has the right to refuse performing of his (or her) duties at any time during the term, in which case he will receive each month by one MMS free of obligations till the end of mandate. Once refused to serve, though, he has no rights to become functioning RP.
     (5) The decisions of Parliament are taken with ordinary majority, which consists of more than 1/2 of the whole number of RP (according to par. 1), with the exception of cases when qualified majority is needed, which in turn consists of more than 3/4 of RP and is applied by changes in the Constitution, earlier change of the President, and others, as well also for whatever voting, if before this with ordinary majority such voting is approved.
     (6) After the choice of Parliament each RP defines his (or her) political sympathies to one of the proposed to him political parties, coalitions, or groups of independent candidates (from here on we will say only parties), which are subject to revisions once in six months. By this voting the goal is to establish the ordering of political powers, so that the result must not contain two parties with equal number of votes, and if this happens then the voting is repeated until arises difference of at least one vote between two adjacent parties. In this way is established the political structure of Parliament, which is used by forming of the Lawmaking Office, according to Art. 15.(1), the Government, according to Art. 16.(1), and the Municipals, according to Art. 18.(1), and in other cases when this proves necessary. In accordance with its procedure of choosing, though, the Parliament is apolitical body and its duty is to remain such. At the discretion of Parliament it may use in help of this voting, or instead of it, also some form of referendum or asking of the masses, according to Art. 24.(1), the decision for what must be taken via voting.
     (7) The Parliament approves all laws, made by the Lawmaking Office, performs election of President and Vice President, according to Art. 23, and has rights for initiative instructions for making of the laws and other normative documents of all other organs of the official power. The Parliament can appoint the senior civil servants, like: ambassadors, judges and prosecutors, heads of the official Media, and others, or to entrust the respective instances to nominate such persons which are to be approved by it. The Parliament issues Decisions, which are obligatory for the Lawmaking Office and recommendatory for the other instances, but can require preparation of laws, which are to make them obligatory also for these instances.
     (8) The Parliament can change the structure of the ruling bodies of the country, as well also to cease or invalidate some decisions of the Government or of the President, using voting with qualified majority. It can change the President or the Vice President after double voting with qualified majority in favour of this change, done in interval of not less than one, and no more than two weeks. The Parliament can execute also supreme appellative functions in especially important state matters after going through the other instances. It can withdraw or restrict the rights of each other body, but has no rights to restrict its own rights, even after voting with qualified majority.
     (9) The Parliament maintains the public relations through the official Media, which are under its authority, but by virtue of Art.6 can exist also other bodies for information to the political powers or to other organizations and persons. In addition to this it is obliged to maintain also direct contacts with the masses, where each RP must meet at least once in a month with different parts of population, districts, and working collectives, as also to have official reception hours at least four hours weekly. RP are people from the population and they must in all possible ways confirm this.
     (10) The Parliament has at its direct subordination various departments and groups, chosen by it during its mandate, and in particular: Constitutional Court, which functions include examining of the consistency of the laws with the Constitution; Appellative Court, which deals with appeals of serious criminal acts as highest instance; Security Department, and others, which consist of professionals and are chosen at the proposal of the corresponding instances, but are approved by it.
     Article 15. Structure and functioning of the Lawmaking Office.
     (1) The Lawmaking Office consists of one to three Lawmaking Chambers, in which enter by 11 persons of given political power. These are the first three political parties (if there are so many) according to the ordering of party sympathies in the Parliament. Their staff is chosen by the ruling bodies of the corresponding political powers by proposed by them procedure, but between qualified jurists with at least 10 years experience in the field of justice. Each Chamber chooses a Chairman, who governs and organizes its work. By necessity of additional manpower to each of them can be appointed the required number of external collaborators, or to be used the help of particular departments and agencies. The Chambers are arranged by seniority, which is actualized each 6 months according to the voting for political sympathies in the Parliament, as a result of what their order can be changed, as well also the staff of some of them, and if the latter happens then is allowed temporary existence up to three months of fourth Chamber, too, built out of the old and left parties, which purpose is to forward the draft laws, on which they have worked, in completed form, but which has no rights at all. By elaborating of the laws the Chambers either work together, or each draft law prepared by one of them has to be approved also by the left ones. When persistent disagreements happen is proposed alternative variant also by the Chamber, which does not agree with the initial law variant.
     (2) The Lawmaking Office is politicized body, but it consists of competent professionals. In its work there are no public debates and unnecessary populism, and must reign spirit of creative and conscientious activity. Criterion for its proper functioning must be not the big number of draft laws, but the negligible number of those returned by the Parliament, as also the small number of amendments and supplements to the existing laws.
     (3) Each draft law after discussions in all of the Chambers is given to the President for opinion, who has twice right of veto on it. He (she) must give an answer in two weeks time, where: either approves it explicitly and eventually makes the needed recommendations and directives, or rejects it explicitly, or gives no answer till the end of the term, what is taken as sign of acceptance. Thereafter the draft law is given to the Parliament for discussions and final approval, where it can be returned unlimited number of times.
     Article 16. Structure and functioning of the Government.
     (1) The Government consists of the respective number of Ministries, in accordance with the decision of the Parliament, but not less than 6 and not more than 12 in number. Its structure is proposed by the first three political powers according to the quotas of the Parliament in establishing of its political sympathies, is accepted together by these parties, and is approved finally by the Parliament. Head of the Government is the Prime Minister, who is chosen as a rule from the leading party, though this is not obligatory requirement. The decisions of the Government take effect after their approval and remain so unless subsequently become ceased with decision of the Parliament. The Parliament has the right to require and impose changes in the administration of each Ministry, also of the Prime Minister, at any time, even to the detriment of political quotas.
     (2) If under special circumstances, according to Art. 17.(3), the President declares state of emergency the whole Government goes to direct subordination of the President, who can lose this his power by lifting of the martial law, or if he will be changed by the Parliament, according to the procedure in Art. 14.(8).
     Article 17. Structure and functioning of the Presidency.
     (1) The Presidency consists of the Presidential Office and that of the Vice President, as also of auxiliary departments. These persons are chosen by the Parliament, according to Art. 23, where the Vice President is deputy of the President in his absence, or how the President ordered, if he (or she) defines for him some specific functions. In addition to this exists also reserved Candidate President, who does not enter in office if this does not become necessary. In case of occurring of permanent incapacity only for the President to perform further his duties, or his term expires and is not renewed, or he is changed by the Parliament, according to Art. 14.(8), the Vice President becomes President, and the Candidate President enters in the post of the Vice President. If such situation happens only with the Vice President, then the Candidate President also takes his place, and if this happens with the both, then the Candidate President becomes President for up to six months, during which time the Parliament must held new elections for President. Their mandates begin normally to run 6 months after the beginning of the mandate of Parliament and continue for three years, after which time the Parliament has to take decision about their prolongation for period of 6 months after the running out of Parliamentary mandate (or two years more). The President and Vice President have diplomatic immunity.
     (2) The Presidency represents individual central power, but in peacetime it is not absolute, it is mainly consolidating and representative for the country. The rights of the President are established with the necessary law, but the Parliament has the right to cease each of his decisions after voting with qualified majority according to Art. 14.(8). The President performs also the functions of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and takes the sole responsibility for fast and pressing questions related with the security and integrity of the country.
     (3) The President has the right at his discretion and in case of necessity to declare state of emergency, in which situation he becomes head of the executive power. If till two weeks after the declaring of emergency state the President does not revoke it, or the Parliament does not cease his decision, he turns into sole Dictator for a period of six months, where if his mandate flows out before this time, it is prolonged till the end of the emergency state. The Dictator exercises the supreme power in the country issuing Decrees, which have temporary superiority over the existing legislation if they contradict with it, with the single exception of the Constitution. The only superiority of the Parliament in long lasting state of emergency is its right to change the President after double voting with qualified majority, according to Art. 14.(8). The changing of the Dictator, if this becomes necessary, does not reject the emergency state and can't be executed until the Parliament proposes this time three other persons chosen according to Art. 23.(2), who are to govern the country till the running out of the 6 months term, taking joint decisions with majority. During this time they can use the Vice President (if he is not one of them) at their discretion. After the running out of emergency state the President, whoever he is, resumes his usual rights, and can prolong this state unlimited number of times (until the end of his mandate) under the same conditions.
     Article 18. Structure and functioning of the Municipals.
     (1) The Municipal Councils are built by settlements and are regional and district. The principle of their functioning is similar to that of the Lawmaking Office, where they consist of one to three party Sections, according to the voting for political sympathies in the Parliament, having by 5 persons on a level of region, and by 7 persons -- for a districts (this being wider than the former), where the ruling bodies of each political power chooses its members in them. Each Section chooses its Chairman and Vice Chairman. The work of the Sections is guided by the Ruling Section, enlarged by the Chairmen of the other Sections, what is called Ruling Body. This Body usually (but not necessarily) chooses shortened Coordination Council, consisting of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Ruling Section plus the Chairmen of the other (up to two) Sections, which Council distributes the work between the Sections, where they can work also together on some, or on all, questions; by serious disagreements in the Coordination Council is called the Ruling Body. If the Sections work separately is required common decision of all Sections, otherwise it has no legal force.
     (2) By six months, in accordance with the changing of political orientation of the Parliament, can be changed the staff and the order of these Sections, if this becomes necessary. In such case is allowed temporary existence till three months of a fourth Section from the old and left the ruling Sections, which has no rights and is necessary in order to hand the themes, on which they have worked, in finished state.
     Article 19. Structure and functioning of the judicial power.
     (1) The Courts and Prosecution consist of professionals, proposed according to settled by them normative acts, where their ruling bodies are approved by the Parliament. The Courts defend the laws, and the Prosecution Offices -- the interests of the people. We distinguish the following judicial levels in ascending hierarchy.
     1. Zero, or pre-trial, level -- the corresponding offices to the Municipal Councils, where also work jurists, who must filter the lighter offences and conduct the necessary official acts, such as: marriages and divorces (without guilt), paying of fines, small financial violations, hooligan acts, and others. Each lawsuit can go first through this level, though this is not obligatory. The decisions here are taken individually by the corresponding officers and enter into force, if there are no objections by the parties, or are passed to the next instance by judgement of the officer, or decision is not achieved and each of the parties can alone appeal to the judicial instances.
     2. Primary or local judicial instance, what is a lawsuit. It, as also the other levels, must be held before a panel of judges, usually of one Judge, but there can be up to three in more serious cases, and jury of Court Assessors, which consists of three persons in this case. The judge asks questions, makes summaries and conclusions, and formulates the points of accusation; the jury has also rights to question each of the parties and to require proofs and expertises, and at the end decides, after meeting behind closed doors, about the guilt on every point with usual majority; after this the judge pronounces the sentence in accordance with the laws. Lawyers and other supporters of any of the parties are not allowed in the courtroom, except by physical defects impeding the normal conversation with the persons. When a given party is legal person in the court appears its employee who works for it and has the right to represent it; in this sense, when a party in the suit is the Prosecution, appears some of its officer, who usually has legal education. Each party can use legal and other consultants, as also have previously prepared speeches and other materials, but before the court presents its positions alone and in its own words. Every verdict can be appealed in higher court.
     3. Secondary, or district, law level, what is also a lawsuit, to which can be reached after appealing of decision of the lower court. The procedure is similar to this described in the previous point, where this time the jury consists of five Court Assessors. These decisions, too, can be appealed in the next higher court.
     4. Tertiary, or national, judicial instance, where everything is similar to the previous point, and the jury now consists of 7 persons. This is the last instance, as a rule, except by especially serious crimes and such affecting the interests of the state, which can be considered also in the Parliament, if it finds this necessary.
     5. The supreme instance also for lawsuits is the Parliament, where the decisions are taken by a jury of 11 RP, or even of the whole Parliament, if the question requires this.
     (2) The Court Assessors for all instances are chosen amidst the masses of population by procedure similar to the described in Art. 22 for choice of RP. They also must be aged at least 30 finished and less than 60 finished years to the date of assumption of office. These are persons, who must apply their human criteria for good or bad, and it is not necessary at all for them to be professionals. For each judicial level (points 2, 3, and 4 of the previous paragraph) are chosen the necessary number of Court Assessors according to the laws, and there can always be chosen more when needed. They are chosen for a term of 6 months, use official leave from the post where they work, and must be in disposition each court day not knowing to the last moment which one of them to which suit will be appointed (if one is not overloaded with postpones suits). For this activity they receive the corresponding payment, but have no rights to receive whatever other sums or donations, and for a period of three to five years after this must be under financial surveillance in order to detect possible illicit ways for taking of personal benefits. They can at any time refuse with a notice from this choice, paying to the state fine in amount of 1/2 to one MMS.
     (3) The traditional for some countries lawyers have no place in the courtrooms in our society, because against payment may be proved whatever lie, and the goal of the suit is to be discovered the such one, which is maximally close to the truth. During the lawsuit the right of everybody by Art.6 is limited only to the right to self-deceive oneself, but not to deliberately lie in the courtroom. As long as the expenses for the suit are not related with the guilt of whatever party and lead to interest for the judicial authorities to have more unnecessary litigations, they must be covered by the state, and to be allowed paying only of small fines, if the suit will be recognized as unduly initiated.
     (4) The tendency in legal proceedings is to gradual shifting of the human, especially of the joined in some professional groups persons, out of the taking of decision, and their step by step substitution with computerized systems, where this is possible. The decision is partially taken already in the moment of making and adopting of the laws, and the functions of judicial authorities are essentially of interpreters and dispatchers. The Judges for centuries do not judge according to their views, but according to the Public Reason, fixed via the laws, and using the opinion of the common person in classification of the situation. The role of Court Assessors is honorable and everybody should be glad if will have the possibility to exercise it, because this makes him part of the Public Reason.
     Article 20. Organization and functions of the Police and the Army.
     (1) The Police is instance for maintaining of the internal order and for exercising of the necessary compulsion over the personality in the interest of the Public Reason. It is built out of professionals and without politicization in it, what is settled with the corresponding law.
     (2) The Army is structure for rapid response in the country by various natural disasters, as also for defending of its foreign interests. Its building is regulated with the corresponding law on professional basis.
     Article 21. Organization and functions of the official Media.
     (1) The official Media serve for propaganda of the public truths and are governed by the Parliament. Other media can also exist and defend their interests. In state of emergency and in presence of Dictator, though, the other media are placed under his control and censorship.

III. Elections Of The Parliament And The President
     Article 22. Election of the Parliament.
     (1) The Parliament is elected openly and democratically, what says that everybody can watch this procedure, as well also that everyone can be elected in it. The restrictions for age are entirely natural, in order to find the middle of the grown individual, when he has already relatively well settled live views on many questions of public interest, and has still not lost his adaptive abilities for wholesome life. The choice is arbitrary and with equal probability, what means that in the Parliament will be represented proportionally to the whole population all social groups, regardless whether by material, or sexual, or educational, or professional, and other criteria, although this can not be established with ideal precision. This Parliament is one representative sample of the population, and the wider the group is the more exactly it will be represented, where only for very narrow groups can occur some errors, but as far as every RP belongs to several groups this is not important. It is not politicized and this is essential, because each party is unavoidably partial. The participating in the Parliament is a great happiness for every chosen person.
     (2) In order to maintain some continuity in the Parliament, needed in every activity, by the below explained procedure are chosen only 3/4 of the RP, where 1/4 remain in the new Parliament, for to pass their experience to the new RP. The persons are chosen according to some unique code, where we use the so called unique citizens number (UCN), and are drawn in succession the separate parts of the whole number, namely: the year of birth; the month of birth; the day of birth; and the number establishing the uniqueness of the person born on this day, which by UCN consists of four digits. As long as for each drawing is convenient in the sphere to have from 20 to about 40 numbers, then for the years (which according to the Art. 14.(1) are 30) and the days of the month is used by one ball for each number, by the drawing of the months are stored by three balls for each of the numbers from 1 to 12, where by the drawing of the last group of numbers is drawn each their digit using tripled number of balls from 0 to 9; in addition to this is preferable these numbers to be loaded in different spheres and to be performed simultaneous drawing, with a view to exclude the possibility for whatever faking of the elections. When is drawn such combination to which does not correspond real person (for example, born on 30th February) it is annulled and the choice is repeated (possibly only for the ineligible part of the UCN). In this way are chosen also 10 additional persons, where by lessening later of their number below three, because of refusing of some RP to execute their duties or for other natural reasons, is performed additional partial election when needed. With this procedure each possibility for faking of the elections is excluded and is guaranteed one really representative sample from the population. The exact procedure is established by a law.
     (3) These elections take place in the very Parliament on the penultimate month of its mandate, where first is drawn a lot for this who of the RPs will remain in the new Parliament. This is performed via initial ordering of all RPs, say, by the UCN, for binding of the person to some number, and simultaneous drawing without returning in two spheres of two groups of numbers from one to their total number, where the first number is that of the person, and the second is taken for sequential number in the new ordering of the persons, the first 25 of whom remain in the new Parliament. Similar procedure can be applied in all cases when the Parliament wants to choose some subgroup of itself for forming of working groups or commissions.
     Article 23. Election of the President.
     (1) The election of the President, Vice President, and Candidate President is performed in the Parliament during the first six months of its mandate, in which time the old President continues to exercise his duties because of shifting in their mandates, but this is necessary in order to maintain the integrity of power. The Parliament collects all propositions of the political powers for President and becomes acquainted with their platforms. Then it conducts a series of votes with ordinary majority only "for", where each RP can vote for how many candidates he wants. This is done in order to sieve out those persons for whom there are fewest votes, where in each next voting their number is diminished with about 1/5 but at least with one person, until the number of five persons is reached. After this is performed second stage of voting, also only "for", but this time each RP must vote only for one of them, where is written their ordering and the number of votes for each one. This is done continuously until is reached such ordering where: either the first has more than 1/2 of the votes, or the next after him has at least with 10% less votes than the votes of the first. Then from the left four candidates is chosen Vice President by the same procedure; after what from the left three is chosen Candidate President by the same procedure. The choice on the first stage may be done before the eyes of public, but this in the second stage is preferably to be performed by closed doors.
     (2) In case of declared long lasting state of emergency (of 6 months) and intervention on the part of the Parliament for changing of the President the Parliament must perform fast election of three persons (called Triumvirs), ruling together via common decisions taken with voting with ordinary majority. The procedure of election in this case is similar to the described in the previous paragraph with this difference that after reaching of the number five is voted until the fourth candidate collects at least with 10% less votes than the third and then the first three persons at once become Triumvirs and their votes are equal, unless they decide to give some rights only to the first of them according to this choice. The triumvirate exists only to the end of the emergency state after what the Presidential power continues as by normal situation, which allows continuation of the state of emergency (and, possibly, new intervention of the Parliament and new triumvirate).
     Article 24. Referendums and consultations with the masses.
     (1) The Parliament, as also the President, has the right to conduct different consultation with the masses, or with some excerpt of them, where for this purpose they organize and conduct elections with voting with bulletins, though easier, more effectively, and faster such elections can be performed also via some phone cards or via appearance in person on the appropriate places in interval of two to four weeks, and not necessarily in one day. The results of these referendums are not obligatory in taking of the decisions, but is supposed that if the corresponding instances will not apply them in practice they will not conduct them, so that is right if they are confirmed with corresponding decisions. For example, The Parliament, instead of carrying of its voting for political sympathies in the beginning of its mandate, could have performed also elections for ruling party, the results of which to be taken for its political attachment, what will have its impact over the choice of the Lawmaking Office, the Government, as also of the Municipals. This is a good way of action in the beginning, but to be applied each six months is inappropriate, and the current actualization of political affinity of the Parliament is necessary, in view of the peacefulness in the country and the good functioning of the official authorities. In particular, the Parliament has the right to effectuate also referendum about its changing or ceasing of its mandate, according to Art. 14.(1), though this should not be needed due to its apolitical choice.

IV. Conclusive Directions
     Article 25. The Lawmaking Office is obligated to make the necessary laws and pass them to the Parliament for adoption if possible to the running out of the mandate of the first Parliament with this Constitution, such as: Law for the Rights and Obligations of the Person, Law for the Media and the Means for Mass Delusion, Law for the Organizations for Expression of Partial Meanings, Law for the Exploitation of the Human, Law for the Organizations for Gaining of Personal Benefits, Law for the creative and Routine Labour, Law for the Bodies for Compulsion, Law for the Army and the Powers for Rapid Response, Law for the Courts and Prosecution, Law for the Working of the Government, Law for the Prolongation of the Gender, Law for the Elections in the State, Law for the Health and the Moderate Wearing of the Human Body, Law for the Environment, Law for the Personal and the Used for Exploitation Property, Law for the Education and the Localization of the Knowledge, and others. Till elaborating of these laws are to be applied the old regulations, when this does not contradict to the Constitution, or else to be postponed the decision of disputes until the adoption of the new laws.
     Article 26. This Constitution comes into power from the first of January of the year following its publication. Every citizen of the country must strive to be pervaded by its spirit in the interest of public harmony. It must be taught in educational establishments and brought to the attention of each individual. All crises in human society are result of deficiencies in the ruling and under better organization could have been avoided. This Constitution is an example for good organization.

     Approved by the Constitutive Parliament of New Cynicland.

     dd.mm.yyyy, Cynictown

Мирский Христо : другие произведения.

03.2. Ten Cynical Essays - part 2

(POPULAR WORLDVIEW -- part 2)

Chris MYRSKI, 2000

CONTENTS

ABOUT THE DEMOCRACY

ABOUT THE VIOLENCE

ABOUT THE JUSTICE

ABOUT THE POPULATION

ABOUT THE FUTURE

ADDENDUM:

CONSTITUTION OF CYNICLAND

E N D

Оставить комментарий © Copyright Мирский Христо (chris_myrski@yahoo.com) Размещен: 21/03/2018, изменен: 04/03/2020. 263k. Статистика. Монография: Публицистика, Философия, Foreign+Translat English Dominion -- all in English		Ваша оценка:
Аннотация: This is philosophical book, but it is popular and without special terms so that it is accessible to all. To a certain extent the cynicism is worldview that does not preach moral (even on the contrary) and does not idealize the things, but, regardless of this, gives serious look about the world. In my view it must be interesting for all young people (and for the older, too), but nevertheless it is not entertainment reading. The order of all essays, which here are divided in 2 parts, is not obligatory, yet it is preferable. But don"t hurry to read all at once for you may right away lose the zest for life, when you will understand it well; this is in a sense that the less one understands life the more interesting is seems to him (or her) and the happier he lives it; or that the naivety and inexperience have their advantages. Keywords: cynicism, philosophy, popular, about: the democracy, the violence, the justice, the population, and the future, Constitution of Cynicland, in English.

Мирский Христо : другие произведения.

03.2. Ten Cynical Essays - part 2

(POPULAR WORLDVIEW -- part 2)

Chris MYRSKI, 2000

CONTENTS

In the previous part: Foreword About the Creation and the created About the woman and the man About the mankind About the intellect About the religion In this part: About the democracy About the violence About the justice About the population About the future Addendum: Constitution of Cynicland

ABOUT THE DEMOCRACY

ABOUT THE VIOLENCE

ABOUT THE JUSTICE

ABOUT THE POPULATION

ABOUT THE FUTURE

ADDENDUM:

CONSTITUTION OF CYNICLAND

E N D

In the previous part:

Foreword
About the Creation and the created
About the woman and the man
About the mankind
About the intellect
About the religion

In this part:

About the democracy
About the violence
About the justice
About the population
About the future
Addendum: Constitution of Cynicland