Q: Dear Alex,
I was reading your LEBFRU Article, and believe I’ve found several
deficiency you might be able to help me with.
First, I agree that the majority decision often chooses the foolish
road, but shouldn’t people have the right to have a say in decisions that
affect them? Is it really ethical to have the minority making the
decisions that affect the majority, especially when the former is not
affected?
Secondly, I think we can agree on the fact that the saying “Absolute
power corrupts absolutely” is correct. Based on this, how can you place
an individual in power that has such power over his fellow man and
expect him to always make decisions that better his people? How will such a
man be elected? How will we guaranty that his virtue will overcome
this temptation and not vice versa?
Thirdly, aren’t these immortal beings we call humans be more important
than the systems, Ideologies, and societies they create?
Finally, isn’t the freedom to choose between selfishness and virtuous
action our God given right through Christ? If so, shouldn’t freedom and
virtue be on the same level?
A: Well Alex,
I am very sorry to hear about your
discrepancies with the LEBFRU
ideals. I will do my best to alleviate any misconceptions you might have with
them. We believe that people should be able to make decisions that influence
themselves only, however, if people without sufficient intelligence or wisdom
were allowed to make decisions influencing others or society as a whole, it
would not be fair to those who would be adversely effected. Essentially, your
neighbors shouldn't be able to tell you what to do with your car, only you can
decide that, and an objective third party with wisdom and discretion should
decide on things influencing both of you. I would also like to make it cleat
that WE DO NOT CONDONE MINORITY DECISIONS!
Decisions made by vocal
minorities are often worse than those made by the majority. It has
often happened, in our society, that vocal minorities have successfully
lobbied their views, which have not been in the interest of society.
The best way is to
have decisions derived upon by an independent third party.
You also say that it is in-ethical
to have decisions made by those who are not affected by them. We at LEBFRU
see it quite the opposite way. Decisions should NOT be made by those
whom they
affect. The people affected by a decision will have a biased opinion;
they will want the outcome to benefit themselves, rather than society
as a
whole (kind of like when people vote for more taxes on the rich).
Essentially
what I am saying is that the majority should not be free to make
decisions that
adversely affect the minority. If we were to assume that the majority
in this country were male. They would be able to pass laws that
adversely affect the women. They could make it illegal for women to
drive, vote, or own land. This would obviously not be fair or right.
LEBFRU tries to avoid such travesties.
"Absolute power corrupts
absolutely" is not necessarily a correct statement. All those who have
obtained absolute power throughout history have been incredibly ruthless and
malevolent people before their reign of tyranny. The fact of the matter
is that an incredibly ruthless nature is required to gain such absolute power.
That is why LEBFRU has a system (that I will explain later) in place to make sure that the person holding absolute power is not he who has the force of aggression and ambition to exert his will above all others. However, assuming that the statement "Absolute power corrupts
absolutely" is true, LEBFRU's
policy contains a number of safe guards which are intended to prevent a
malevolent
exercise of power, and which we hope will not sacrifice efficiency. All
decisions
made by the leader must comply with a strict code which cannot be
violated. If
the leader is found in violation of the code by a tribunal of
competency
evaluators, the tribunal is given immediate authority to channel all
executive
power temporarily to The Central Legislation Committee until the
leader’s
competency and objectivity can be assessed thoroughly. The question of
how this
man will be elected is also a relevant one. Any individual can be
nominated by
the regional governors or the competency evaluators, regardless of the candidate's willingness to
govern. A governor may nominate anyone from his region, and a competency evaluator may nominate anyone (besides another competency evaluator). The nominees are then subject to a pre-determined
test that will judge past achievements, individual temperament,
individual
intelligence, and a number of other factors. Each of the remaining
candidates
must be represented by one of the members of The Central
Legislation
Committee; any candidate without a representative will be disqualified.
The
representatives must then state why their candidate is best, followed
by the
candidate’s explanation of why he will be a successful leader. The
arguments are then judged by The Tribunal of Competency Evaluation, and also fed into a computer where they are compared to the LEBFRU
ideals, and cross examined for validity, based on the candidate's background.
This narrows the running down to two candidates, who are then voted for by The
Tribunal of Competency Evaluation using a civil majority vote and approved by the Central Legislation Committee where the winner must have at least a 75% approval. This is the most logical and objective way
of electing a candidate.
I'm not sure I understand your third
question, but I will endeavor to answer it anyway. Yes, we believe humans are
important, and in order to insure the prosperity, advancement, and betterment
of the human race, it is necessary to create a system that can efficiently
accommodate those things.
In civilized society, people have no right to choose for
themselves between virtue and chaos. The virtue of individuals is
directly
related to the virtue of the society, and for the sake of logic and
efficiency, lack of virtues cannot be permitted. All laws are made to
assist in
the betterment of society, under that rational, it is logical that
anything that does not benefit society should be illegal. Jesus gives
us the
option to choose between selfishness and virtuous action, or in other
words, to
follow Him or to follow Satan. He gives us the choice to help your
neighbor, or
to kill him, however, in civilized society you give up some of your
rights
(i.e. the right to kill people). The intent of any government or society is to
maintain a better society, so you are, in the most basic terms, giving up your
right to harm society. The only difference is that LEBFRU
views harm to society in broader and much more logical terms than the US
government.
I hope this clears up any discrepancies you might have with LEBFRU,
we hope you and others have a positive attitude towards our ideals.
"Each according to his ability for the betterment of the whole"
-Alexander Haberbush
This is an official document of The
Logic and Efficiency Based Fundamental Realist Utopian Party