The Analysis of Logic

THE ANALYSIS OF LOGIC

Introduction

            

After an argument over the internet, and also looking at the situation of the world, I was dumbfounded when I realized how the ability of critical thinking and critical thought has been lost. How so? Well extremism and ideological fundamentalism is quite the proof of it. And what does critical thinking means? Well, it is the application of logic. And what is logic? Well, that is what I will discuss here.

The Definition of Logic

            

So, as I always do, I would define a topic first before I explain more. So, by essence, logic is a way of creating new information out of existing information. Logic, is technically, how the entire universe works. All scientific laws, are based on the principles of logic. Some say that logic is subjective, but what they mean is probably the lines of reasoning, being different from one person to another. And that is affected by the point of view, or the perspective. There is the capitalist perspective, the socialist perspective, the theist perspective, the atheist perspective, and so on. But how it can be different will be for another section.

           

Logic, as repeated, is a way to make new information out of previous information. Of course, for the new information to be valid and true, then the previous information must also be true. We call this previous information, premises. The new information, conclusion. We use logic everyday, especially in making decisions or when we are studying at school. We may not realize it, but we do use logic on a day to day basis. Now that we have defined logic, we’ll define the structure.

The Structure of Logic

            

There are several terms that will be used here, and I’ll explain their definitions as we go. First, we know that the basic form of logic, is analyzing a group of premises to reach a conclusion. Now the collection of the premises and conclusion is called an argument. The flow of said argument is a reasoning. A line of reasoning is the logic behind any argument. But, how so? Well, it’s basically how the argument is made, is it valid or not? Is it sound or not? That is it.

            

There are 2 types of reasoning, actually 3, but the important ones are the 2 types. The most basic form of reasoning is deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning produces valid, sound, and true conclusions, that is if the premises are all true. Then how do we determine that the premise is true? Well, a premise is also a conclusion produced from analyzing other previous premises. As a result, you will have a whole network of premises and conclusions. An argument, has to be both true and valid, what does that mean?

           

 The trueness of an argument, or the trueness of a conclusion, is determined by the trueness of the premise. This trueness, as it can only true or false, is called the truth value. Sentences that declare something, or state something, has a truth value. Such as, “I have a cat” or “My mom died”, as they both can be proven true or false. I may or may not have a cat, and my mom may or may not have died. While interrogative and imperative sentences, or in daily language, questions and commands, don’t have a truth value. As they do not declare anything, interrogative sentences will bring out declarative sentences that do have a truth value. Imperative sentences have nothing to do with truth values at all.

The validity of an argument checks whether the conclusion follows the premises. It is possible to have true premises, but a false conclusion. This is a result of a flaw in reasoning, or commonly known as logical fallacies. The validity of an argument can be checked by presenting the argument in the form of a syllogism. A syllogism is an argument presented in 3 statements. The first statement is the major premise, the second a minor premise, and the third a conclusion. The major premise is a general statement such as, “Living things can breathe”. Then the minor premise is a specific statement such as, “Humans are living things”. And the conclusion, well is the conclusion. A conclusion we can make is, “Humans can breathe”.

For an argument to be valid, then it must abide by several logical laws, there are several types of syllogism. And I will explain all of it. There are 3 types of syllogisms, conditional syllogism, categorical syllogism, and disjungtive syllogism. Conditional syllogism basically states, if A is true, then B is true. A good example would be this syllogism, “If my mom was alive, I wouldn’t be depressed all the time. My mom was dead. I am depressed all the time.” Note how the major premise is in the form of “if A is ..., then B is...”. The minor premise then checks whether A is true or not. If A is true, then B is true, if not, then it is false. You then reach a conclusion, where it is in the form of “B is true/false”. The regular form is, “If A is true, B is true. A is true/false. B is true/false.” But it can also work both ways, it’s just the same.

The second type of syllogism is the categorical syllogism. It is good to understand set theory to understand this kind of syllogism. The categorical syllogism states that if A is part of C, then B is part of C. Let me illustrate this, see this syllogism, “All humans are living things. Skarlet is a human. Skarlet is a living thing.” Note how the major premise is in the form of “A is a part of C”. Then the minor premise states that B is part of A. The conclusion states the final membership status of B. I think that should be easy enough.

The third type of syllogism is the disjungtive syllogism. The disjungtive syllogism is almost like a “A or B” situation. So if A is true, then B must be false, or vise versa. Only one of them can be true, or it wouldn’t be a disjungtive syllogism at all. Say this syllogism, “She either hated me or forgave me. She didn’t hate me. She forgave me.” Essentially, the major premise will be in the form of “Either A or B”, the minor premise states which one is false or true, so it is, “A/B is true/false”. And the conclusion states the truth value of the other member, whether it is A or B.

There are also 4 types of propositions, such as the universal positive or negative, and the particular negative or positive. The universal states “All A is B” or “No A is B” whether it is positive or negative. The particular operates similarly, but it only applies to some members, and not all. So it would be in the form of,  “Some A are B” or “Some A are not B”. But this is not that important to know.

The second type of logical reasoning is the inductive reasoning. This is not as accurate as a deductive reasoning, and may produce conclusions that may be false. But it is very useful in prediction and forecasting. The conclusion will usually be a probability. Take this syllogism, “Most of the time, after a hot day, there would be a rainy day. Today it is sunny. It will probably rain tomorrow.” So essentially, inductive reasoning uses a trend in a set of data, and uses that trend to predict the next datas. It is also useful when we are unable to know every single premise, so we look at the trend, and form a prediction. That is inductive reasoning, estimating smartly.

Then there is abductive reasoning. It is mostly used in scientific research, that is when we make hypotheses. When we have information and evidence of facts that can not be explained by the existing theories, we try to make the most logical explanation, the best explanation. But the most important type of reasoning is the deductive reasoning, you can keep your eye out for inductive reasoning, but you can keep abductive reasoning away for now.

Logical Fallacies

            

A logical fallacy is a flaw in one’s line of reasoning. Such as using logical principles that doesn’t exist, or applying it wrongly, and many other forms. I’ll try to list the fallacies that is quite common.

1. Fallacies of Relevance

            

There are many types of fallacies that fall into this category, but they all have the same feature. The arguers assert the truth of an argument from factors that is irrelevant to the argument at hand. Such as claiming that since it is a tradition, it must be true. Or since the People does it, it is true. A common form of this fallacy is the Ad Hominem fallacy, that is when you attack the person making the argument and not the argument itself. Let me make an example. Say this argument, “Heavy drinking has been a culture and it has been passed down through generations for centuries. So it must be good for us!” Of course, we may believe it to be true, but then, the universe does not care at all. The scientific fact that heavy drinking will cause health issues will not change even if it is a tradition to drink heavily.

2. Other Fallacies

            

While there are many other types of fallacies, it’s actually quite easy to identify when someone begins to commit a fallacy. A common fallacy is the circular reasoning, that is for example, “The bible says God exists. The bible is inspired by God. Therefore God exists.” Notice how the first premise, is not based upon actual evidence, the conclusion is required to prove the second premise, and well, it becomes messy. Then there is the Red Herrings, a series of fallacies designed to divert the argument. Such as pointing out the argument’s hypocrisy, and so on and so forth. Or a famous one is the Straw Man, that is when we modify the argument so it still sounds similar but different enough and simpler enough so we can break it. Like if I am arguing about how religion is misused and has been corrupted, and suddenly someone says I am accusing religion to be completely horrible and must be destroyed.

           

 Then there is the hasty generalization, that is when we generalize things without any sufficient evidence. This is the core of discrimination usually. There are so much more fallacies, but it is not that necessary to remember all of it. As we can easily disprove an argument by pointing out the violations of logical laws, or the truth of the premises.

In Relation to All Studies

           

 When one says that science and God is in different domains is a false assumption. Because science came from applying logical laws on information gained through observation. While the idea of God came from applying logical laws to the question of the cause of it all. As a result, every study out there has a basic commonality, that is they are all based on logic. So if we can not scientifically proof God, then we can logically prove God, as I did.

            

And furthermore, whether we realize it or not, we also practice logic in a daily basis. People say that when we study, we don’t just know the knowledge, but we must also understand it. As we may know that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, but if we don’t understand what it actually means, it’s meaningless. As a result, when teachers teach us about reading strategies, that is applying logic so we can understand the meaning of a certain passage. Or when we are writing, we are applying logic on how to make the writing sound good. In conclusion, we use logic everyday.

The Importance of Logic

          

Logic is essential to human survival, or most call it critical thought. We have to use logic to understand why things happen, or just to appreciate art. We need logic to decide on which candidate to use in an election, or just deciding which brand of soap is the best. But our abilities of critical thought can be eroded away, slowly by slowly if we don’t use it. This is evident if we keep playing games that doesn’t induce heavy critical thinking, or if we don’t study seriously, or something else. And when logic is not enforced, we can get very foolish. An effect of people not thinking critically is them falling into horrible ideologies, which explains the reemergence of the alt right in Europe, or the Islamist Extremist threat in Indonesia.

            

But there are also factors that can cloud our mind even if we use logic properly, that is between having an open mind or a closed mind. What is an open mind? When we are open minded, we are open to any ideas, no matter how far fetched it is, and we are also able to accept that we can be wrong and we may be wrong. While when we are closed minded, we tend to feel that what we believe is already the truth, and everything else is false, we stick to the old ways, and use some assumptions, premises that is actually unsupported, to defend ourselves. And this will cause us to use various logical fallacies and so on.

Closing

            

I really feel like that my skills are getting eroded as time flies, I don’t know why, I just feel, like I can’t do this you know. If the closings are sounding more like expressions of the heart, forgive me. Yet again, I feel like this log is so very lacking, like very lacking. It seems I have to do something else to clear my mind. Anyway, that is all I can write about for now, I am sorry if it’s not as good as it used to be. I hoped you enjoyed, though unlikely, and do give me suggestions, compliments, and critiques through the comments. Have a nice day!

The Political Ideology II

Transitory Introduction

So, last time, I formulated the philosophical groundwork of the ideology. And now, this is part 2 of the ideology, that is how to practice it. You will find stuff like the structure of democracy, how to make decisions in a democracy. The transition towards a democracy, basically the application of democracy. Anyway, let's begin shall we?

Decision Making

As implied multiple times in the first part of this dual log, we are going to use discussion, instead of voting. Since I have discussed the advantages of discussion over voting, I won't discuss about it further. We will move on how discussion works. Discussion is the exchange and integration of ideas originated from a group of people, well that's the technical language. But in daily speak, discussion happens when a group of people gathered, and began talking. Not only talking, but a certain topic or issue is brought on the table. The members of said discussion will begin to express their own formulated opinions on the issue. Once all members have expressed their ideas, they will then begin to discuss to find a solution that can satisfy and fulfill the needs of everyone. This is done by collectively using logic to make a conclusion based on all available premises. But I haven't finished the logic writing as I am writing this.

Structure of a Democracy

Now, as the People functions both as the workforce as well as the State, everyone is involved in both labor and decision making. As we know, decision making exists in 3 forms in a nation, legislation, that is decision making in regulating the nation, what is allowed and what is not allowed, executive, in this version being decision making in labor, and judicial, decision making in the overseeing of regulations. 

The legislative body is the body that functions as the law maker, they make laws and they can also decide whether to repeal laws they deem to be unfit in the modern society, or make new laws to fit in the modern society. In a democracy, this is how I view it should be structured. A nation is divided into smaller administrative regions and these regions can be broken down even further. We'll use Indonesia as an example, there are at least 8 divisions, starting from the smallest legislative body that is a family or a household. Unmarried people, if they live alone represent themselves, but if they live with someone else, then they represent the other people they live with as well. 

Say in a democracy, an issue was presented. All households will begin to discuss on how to solve the issue, they then discuss on who should be their representative. Their representative is then sent to a higher administrative region for more discussion. This will be repeated until the national level, where representatives of their respective regions discuss on how to solve the issue and to find a solution that can satisfy and fulfill the needs of the entire nation.

Democracy is to be enforced in all sectors, including the economic sector. The economic sector is composed of syndicates, syndicates are groups of people working together in a democratic manner to create goods and services for the general public. Unlike companies, their purpose is to fulfill the needs of the People and not gain profits. Unlike companies as well, they have no hierarchy, as they all discuss together to decide what to do and so on. The structure is quite similar to the democracy in the nation, but that is for another time. All syndicates work together to fulfill the needs of the People, as a result they do not compete, rather they cooperate with each other to reach the same purpose. I will write a log about this, it's socialism, by the way.

Some people might wonder how education, research, military, and the police force operate. It's quite simple, it is still a democracy with teacher unions, military unions, and so on. Is there a headmaster or something in schools? Usually there is, as a guide and also a leader. And it's quite similar on the other areas. But what about national leadership? Is there a president or something that acts as a leader for international diplomacy or something perhaps? Yes there is, and it is usually someone who stands out from all others and has good leadership skills. They are elected by the legislative body, which actually functions as the main governing body of the nation, composed of the People.

The Judicial division works in a similar fashion. Usually a jury overseen by a judge declares the verdict, while the prosecution and the defense debate each other to convince the jury and the judge on whether the suspect is guilty or innocent. Both the prosecution and the defense is usually a pair or a group of three, never more, rarely less. They both search for evidence cooperating with the police. Since the final verdict is decided by the jury and the judge, it is possible for the prosecution to have cornered the defense, but the suspect to still go free. As they may present, reasonable doubt.

While all citizens will instantly be a part of the legislative body, but to join the security forces, military, education, syndicates, judicial division and so on, they must enroll in education that specializes them. Education is a right in a democracy, and children are taught the values of democracy, and other than teaching them science and other stuff, they are also taught on how to practice democracy and so forth. This is using discussion and stuff. Upon middle school, students are allowed to form the student councils. More on that on another writing.

Closing

This is all for now, but I will write more about democracy in education, in the military, the police force, the medical section, and so forth and so on. I will also write about socialism, and the ideas behind it, as democracy, while being a part of socialism, but socialism has other elements that conjoins the idea of democracy, and caring. But for now, that is all, if you have any critiques, suggestions, and compliments, do write a comment or two. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed, have a nice day!

The Existence of God

Log 7

Introduction

I have been pressured to write down about this. Yes, I have defended that an all loving God is possible with evil through the theory of evolution. Yes I explained what God actually is. Yes I explained how we should view God. But then, none of it matters, if the subject we are talking about is non existent perhaps. We can talk about the nature of Russel’s Teapot all we want, but if it doesn’t exist, why should we even discuss about it in the first place? So, I am going to write down my explanations on how God exists. One reason will be longer than the other, but that’s because some reasons need more explanations than others, anyway, let’s dive in, shall we?

The Existence of God

            

So, does God exists? In my view, yes! God exists! But yet again, we have to set boundaries on what God is. God is a conscious being that also acts as the ultimate causer, the source of infinite energy, the Mother of all, the ruler of the universe, and also the ultimate creator. I discussed what God is in another writing. I will present my arguments in a list form again, just because I think it’s much more neat and organized. So, let’s get right to it!

1. Origins of Our Consciousness

       

This argument is actually a last resort argument, but it is also the argument that I feel won’t fail if all others fail. As this is more of a question, than an argument. But what I mean is, if God didn’t exist, then how did our consciousness came to be? How are we conscious? What makes us conscious? How can sentience emerge from things that are not sentient? Now let me explain.

           

We know that we are conscious, right? Yes, and so, to find the truth of the universe, finding out about the origins of our consciousness is one of them. Many scientists thinks that our consciousness is just a result of a bunch of chemical reactions in the brain. And that our brain is why consciousness exists. And thus, if the brain is dead, there is no consciousness. But I beg to differ that is the only thing that creates our consciousness. Now, what is the primary feature of our consciousness? Is it our intelligence? No, then what about our ability to think logically? No, then what is it? I’ll tell you what it is, it’s right in the name. Conscious. The primary feature of consciousness is that we are conscious. Well, what is it to be conscious?

            

The feeling, or meaning of being conscious is hard to describe. I may describe it as the awareness of our existence, or the feeling that we exist. But it’s not just that, as to “feel” we have to be conscious in the first place. Hmm, we are hitting a brick wall here. So, sometimes it helps to define what something is not. So, what does it feel to be unconscious? Well, some people knows how it feels when they pass out. But actually, everyone knows how it feels! How so? Well, when we sleep. When we sleep and have no dreams, time passes like nothing, didn’t it? And while you sleep, you see nothing, feel nothing, and well, that is unconscious. But even if I can’t describe it, the fact that you are reading this means you are conscious. And we feel it everyday, so I assume everyone knows what it feels.

            

Then, what about the origins of it? Some say it is just chemical reactions or the brain, so, what if we analyze that argument? Well, let’s compare our consciousness to a computer. We are technically super advanced sentient computers. As we can perform calculations and logic as computers do, let’s see what can we analyze here. The main difference between us and computers are we are conscious, and computers are not. Computers perform calculations and logic through electrical movements, or certain movements of the electrons. As a result, chemical reactions may explain how we can count or analyze stuff. But it gives no explanation to the origins of our consciousness. As these chemical reactions is composed of electrical reactions. But computers do the same too and they certainly are not sentient.

            

Consciousness is very unique, as it is different from just computers. Even if we create a computer advanced enough that can look like as if it’s conscious, but how can we tell that it is conscious? For all we know, it can just be a program with extensive lines of code, that can fool us into thinking that it is conscious. A program that is programmed, so it looks natural, and it looks genuine. But that is not what consciousness is. In fact, consciousness and intelligence is not related at all. We can simulate intelligence to human levels, but consciousness, it’s unique. Without God, you can’t explain how we are conscious. Or perhaps you can, then enlighten me.

Without another sentient being that exists that creates other sentience, as we are, it would be impossible to explain our consciousness. As far as we know, if there is no God, sentience should be impossible, some form of intelligence yes, but they are not sentient. They are just extremely well programmed programs within masses of flesh. As rules exist within the universe, the universe is dictated by rules, rules that command how the universe should work. But how about consciousness? If you were to say, “Well, that’s just how it is, it can’t be explained.” That is clearly a violation of logic, even God can be explained, why not consciousness? Furthermore, logic, is the basis of all sciences, and coincidentally, also the rules of the universe. How so? The universe is like a program, with rules, we know these rules are governed by logic, and how is the universe no different? Until then, we should rely on God to explain it.

2. The Scientific Possibility

            

Well, that phrase is very specific, isn’t it? I was just kidding, the reason I say that is because, it’s only a possibility. We don’t have real proof, while it seems this argument is more powerful than the first argument, but logic wise, the first one is the heavy shell. This is akin to a high penetrating shell, but it can still ricochet or miss, and the armor, while strong, can still be penetrated. Anyway, I should stop speaking in metaphors now. So, what do I mean? I meant that if the science we know is correct, that God is scientifically possible, I will use quantum physics here, it is complicated, but I will make it as easy to understand.

           

First of all, I have to explain the physics, as that is the premise of this entire argument. As well as consciousness, but we don’t need to question that. I will talk about physics, and also the nature of consciousness within itself. So, physics, right. We usually think the world as particles don’t we? But really, we should view the world as “fields”. Fields that can have vibrations, a good analogy is the sea. The sea is the field, and the waves are vibration, well waves are enlarged vibrations. These fields are also what people call “fabric” of space. As a matter of fact, we also thought that in empty space, there is nothing. But actually, there is no such thing as empty space, that empty space is actually filled with energy to the brim, well not exactly that much. There is always energy, small amounts, but it is there nonetheless.

How do we know? Well, these fields are also 3-dimensional, and they exist in all sizes, but the most important ones is the quantum fields. These fields are the fundamental building blocks of the universe. “Wait!” I hear you say, “Isn’t it particles that are building blocks?” Well, but it isn’t, let me explain. How do we know that there is energy there? As these fields, are constantly fluctuating with, and for there to be a fluctuation, there must be energy. And what exactly are these fluctuations? Well, that’s what the particles actually are. Particles are a fluctuation of the fields. And this is how photons, or light, can act as both particles and waves, but really, they are the same thing. Particles is how these waves manifest itself, and waves are what the particles really are. So, my main point is, these fluctuations are extremely unpredictable. Well, you can’t exaggerate unpredictability, things can only be unpredictable or predictable. Well, what’s the point then?

You see, if a certain thing has a cause, then we can predict the effects of a certain cause by analyzing it. But it also works both ways. An effect reflects its cause, so if we analyze a certain effect, we can infer the nature of the cause. It can be clearly seen in human beings, we reflect our parents and also our past. If you were to analyze the psychology of someone, you can understand what may happen to them in the past. You can read more on this in my Free Will writings. Anyway, so what does this tell us about God? Well some atheists would say that this means quantum physics, a non sentient thing, is the true cause of the universe. But how would you explain the unpredictability? And you still have our consciousness to explain. And referring to the first argument, I said that everything can be explained. Well, let’s try and analyze these unpredictable fluctuations.

First of all, how does it work again? Well, you see, a fluctuation is created when you put energy on to a certain space in the field. But there is another reason to unpredictability, we just don’t know the cause. That is the case here, or is it? It is only the case, if we have a fixed assumption that God is non existent. Without God, that means the energy is put in randomly, and random means no explanation, it just is, and that, is a violation of logic. So, we have a dilemma, accept God, or violate logic, to atheists, this is not good. But for us theists, this is wonderful. Most other things are easily explained, as the classical mechanics doesn’t need God to explain it. But once you get to the bottom of things, then you will see, there is only 2 ways, accept God, or violate logic, and in turn, violating all known science, well that is certainly a horrible thing for atheists. Because atheists don’t use logic, but they hate God, but again, based on my view, they can not be blamed. But we can help them, now away from morality. That is only the first scientific argument, I still have one last argument.

3. A Floating Consciousness

            

This argument, is also quite powerful. You’ll see, but moving on, so how does this argument work? Well the title says about a floating consciousness. What do I mean? Well, this is still about consciousness, but instead of explaining how consciousness itself proves the existence of God, but it will explain how consciousness can exist outside the brain, as we haven’t disproven that argument, and when it’s out of the brain, it’s kind of, floating around. It’s like how ghosts float around. Well, shall we begin?

            

So, before we know how it floats around, we have to know how it works, or the nature of it. Since we are like computers, that we have intelligence, but also consciousness. So I think we should start off with intelligence, yes? In a computer, we know that there are 2 parts, the hardware, and the software. If consciousness is just a bunch of chemical reactions local to that particular brain, then let’s analyze softwares in computers.

           

The hardware is composed of the CPU, the brain of the computer. The monitor, a screen that shows the “appearance” of the “computer”, the speakers which is the “mouth” of the computer, the keyboard which is a tool that we use to “communicate” human language with the computer, and also the mouse, a tool that also helps communication, but it’s like sign language, like a universal language. So, basically, the hardware is what enables us to interact with the “computer”. But wait! Why do I treat the computer as if it also includes the software? Wait, it doesn’t include the software? Just the hardware? Of course it does! I was just messing with you, sorry. Well actually, I am pointing out how some people will try to break this argument using some irrelevant arguments. Like how when someone can’t point out the logical flaws, they then use the argument of grammar. Which really is, an ad hominem fallacy.

            

So, the software. What is the software composed of? It is the Operating System, and the applications. The operating system is also another medium, a medium for the applications. If it were us, it would be like our neural network and the information we gained as we live. Though it’s quite different. How different it is, is irrelevant. So, if it is true that the consciousness is only local to the brain, then the same should be true for computer software. But, apparently, I don’t even need to disprove that, science has disproved it for me. As if the software of a computer is only local electric reactions within the computer, then by all means, downloading any software from the internet should be impossible.

            

But we know that it is possible for us to download a software from outside the computer hardware. So what does this tell us? That the software is not dependent to the hardware. In fact, the hardware is dependent on the software to be useful. We know that physically, the hardware is basically matter. Then what is the software? The software, is information. But not just any information. We know that software is created by writing code, the code is not just a code, it’s also a language, but not just a language, it is a set of rules and instructions that define how that program will work. The operating system is also the same, but they act as a medium for other applications. In essence, the hardware is made to understand those set of rules, and made to be able to process and run those rules. We usually underestimate the computer, but perhaps, it can give us an idea of how the universe works at it’s core.

            

So, how do we send information around? At first, we use our own bodies to transfer information, usually in the form of language. Then, we write down those information, and makes a record of it. We then carry around the record containing information, say a piece of paper with language written on it. But notice how it is still in the form of language, not pure information yet. Soon, as we found the principles of the telegraph and invented the telegraph, information transport will become even more efficient. As now, language can be converted into electrical signals that travels through to the medium of wires, and suddenly, we can send information through a vacuum. Using radio signals and various waves of the electromagnetic spectrum. These photons can flow through any medium, at lightspeed. This photons, are also the particles that carry the information. We found that particles are vibrations in the fields, as a result, it can be concluded that the information is carried through the waves of the fields, the fabrics of space.

            

But that is only information that is essentially declarative language. As we develop computers, we can send the most complex information anywhere. That information is the set of rules and instructions that are called software, applications. We can transport these information from one medium through the other using vibrations of the fabrics. Now, how are we no different? Our consciousness, though is somewhat different. We have information about the nature of information, but not consciousness. But what is certain is, the consciousness and our intelligence is separate from our bodies. Just as intelligence can exist without any medium. Our bodies are merely a medium so our consciousness and intelligence can interact with the material world. But now, we need to review some things.

            

So, we know that information, including our consciousness and intelligence needs a medium so it can be run properly, or, so it can be processed and so that information can interact with the world. But these mediums, they are all matter, and from the previous argument, what is matter? Matter, is just energy condensed, as energy is given to a certain point in the fabrics in a certain instance of space to create particles, fluctuations of said fabrics. So, by that fact, energy can be used as a medium for information to be run. And notice how as the information becomes more complex, from simple declarative language, to complex rules and codes to create computer software, the medium becomes more complex as well. From simple stone and paper and pencil, to matter arranged just perfectly to use the laws of physics to process that information. Our consciousness, is technically a form of information as well, a very complex form of information, perhaps the most complex form. So what does this tell us?

            

Our consciousness is unexplained by classical mechanics, and what powers it is unknown, but quantum physics explains many things. By quantum physics, it’s theoretically possible for our consciousness and intelligence to be run, by energy alone. And isn’t energy needed to process this information? Computers need electricity, we need food, but both are forms of energy that fuel the intelligence, and us, the consciousness. The brain is also a very complex, yet also a simpler state of matter than hardware which are completely solid. The simpler the state of matter, the more energy it has mixed within. As when the state of matter is simpler, the molecules are broken down until they are free to go around. The brain is primarily composed of water, and this proves my point. After the molecules break up, the atoms break up, and the neutrons, protons, then break up as well. Then quarks, gluons, leptons, and all fundamental particles break up to create energy, pure energy. At this stage, the medium is actually the most complex, and certainly, our consciousness and intelligence can run on that complex medium. In fact, it can run much more smoothly and efficiently than in the brain. What does this tell us though?

            

Just like us, God is similar, a consciousness and intelligence that acts also acts as the source of energy. God, having all the energy She can get, can simply run on this energy. As a result, we can determine how God can exist through the science of information and also quantum physics. More study has to be done to further research this issue, we may not know the results, my analysis can be disproven or strengthened, but there is only way that is forwards.

Closing

            

Well, that was certainly a long essay and also analysis. I pulled an all nighter to even pull this off. From now on, I will try to support my ideas with the laws of this universe, logic and the logical laws, as well as science, which will make my arguments stronger, but also, it makes it much closer to the truth, the universal objective scientific truth of this world. So I am going to revise quite a lot of logs. But for now, it is done, if you have any suggestions, compliments and critiques, do send me a comment. I hope you enjoyed reading, have a nice day!

The Political Ideology

Log 6

Introduction

So, in this log , I will be writing about my ideal political system. And I'll try to provide some arguments as well. This will be a very long and tough work, but I will have to finish it within 4 days. So yeah, this might tire me out, but I have to ignite the flames. I must ignite the flames, for the sake of the world. There will be various things included in this log. Such as the philosophy behind the system, and the system itself.

The State and Democracy

I have heard of people who keep complaining about the State. Like this, "Why does the State oppress us so much? Why does the State give us taxes?" or "The State is just a tool of the bourgeoisie!" or "the State should be limited in size and power!" Well that's just the application of the Freedom of Speech right?? It would be, it would, if the place where I can hear them is not countries that claim to be democratic. But the problem is, most countries now claim to have some sort of democracy one way or another. And the people that complained? Yes, lots of them stayed in countries that claims to be a democracy. What's the problem then? Isn't it even more normal? Democracy encourages Free Speech. Well, let me make my point.

First, what is The State? The State is the Government, the institution that governs, or control the nation. By logic, there are no limits to the power of the State, it's their job to govern the nation. That is to say, the State is in complete control of the nation. But, what is the function of the State? Or, what is the goal of governing? Well naturally, the goal is to ensure the well being of the people, make decisions, and ensure prosperity. Now, those complaining about the State, it would make sense if they are in the Feudalist age, why is this? Because during that time, the distinction between the State and the People is very very clear. Say in an absolute monarchy, the king is the State and, he has absolute control over his nation. While yes he can do anything he wants, he still has to appease the People somehow, or a violent revolution will happen. That's not the point though, here, the King has control of all aspects of the nation, the military, the economy, and even law. And what about the People? The common peasant, has absolutely no control, not the economy, not the military, let alone law. We can differentiate between both of them, but now, there is democracy, and things have changed...

What is democracy? We can know from it's name. Democracy means rule of the People. What does it exactly mean? It means, the People are the ones who govern themselves. Not any separate institution. Or, the State has been dissolved, for the People are now independent and they can manage themselves without having to rely on any separate governing institution. Since democracy is rule of the People, it means every single citizen of a democracy has say over their nation. They all have equal rights to make the most important decision in their nation. And in a democracy, if it’s done correctly, there should be no distinction between the People and the State, that is the People are their own State, and the People are free. But let’s see now, in countries that claims to be democratic, we can still see a clear distinction between the People and the State. And in fact, there is no country where the People governs themselves and not ruled by a specific group from them that is suddenly separate from The People. In conclusion, there is no such thing as a true democracy, yet.

Advocacy of Democracy

This part will be my arguments for democracy, and I will defend it on a later part. As mentioned previously, the goal of governing of a nation is to ensure the prosperity and welfare of the people, and also fulfill their needs. So then, the best political system is the one that can reach the goal in the most efficient and effective way possible. So, I will list out the reasons why democracy is the best political system.

1. Democracy helps people develop and mature

A longer reason is, "The People is the who needs it, let them do it themselves." When the People began to govern themselves and manage themselves, as time progresses, they will be much more responsible, aware, and also independent. How is that? Let me explain. In a democracy, the People are independent and they are not governed by any separate institution. Let's compare a democracy to a non democracy. In a non democracy, the State does a lot of stuff for the People, primarily they are the ones who decide the stuff. While the People does what The State says. In a democracy, the People does everything themselves. Now let's compare the two. In a democracy, the People has more experience, in fact more than either the State or the People in a non democracy. As in a non democracy, the People just do the labor, while the State only plans the labor. But in a democracy, The People does both at the same time.

And furthermore, since the People govern themselves, they are not dependent on any other factions or parties to do the decision making. In a non democracy, The State does the decision making, while the People do the labor as I have said. The People are dependent on the State to decide stuff, and The State is dependent on the People to do labor. In a non democracy, if just one of the 2 powers collapses, the entire country collapses. As if the State collapses, the People have no experience on decision making. If the People collapse, the State has no experience in labor. Meanwhile, in a democracy, since there is no State and the People does everything themselves, the People being a single power, it is much harder to topple a democracy, and the People are much more independent.

Since in a democracy, the People has more experience, they develop more. They can learn more stuff, and they can mature more. Or scientifically, they can evolve more than a non democratic State. Now I will end it with an illustration. There is a class of 30 students. 2 of them actually. One of them does things democratically. The other creates a council to do the deciding. In the democratic class, students are very talented, they can do a wide array of things and just knows more. As they have to discuss first, and then do the results of the discussion. In the non-democratic class, the class is divided, the council can only think, but not do, the rest can do, but not think. They are not as good as the democratic class. Furthermore, the democratic class can still stand even if lots of them get sick. But in the non-democratic class, when crucial members of the council is absent, the class collapses immediately. I hope that illustration shows my point.

2. Democracy can fulfill the needs of more people

So, what does this actually mean? Well, essentially, democracy can fulfill the needs of everyone, or it’s more inclusive. In a democracy, everyone has say on their nation, thus any minority can discuss with the others about how to solve this. While in a non democracy, the State may forget some groups of people. Let me explain, in a democracy, we know that everyone has say in their nation. Everyone has the equal rights to express their opinions on how to solve issues, and also their needs. This includes minorities of course. If there is an issue where the minority has some special needs that differs with the majority, of course they can go on and discuss with the majority on a common agreement. And then everything will be fine. In fact, as time goes on, the majority will be aware of the minorities needs and they will instantly consider their needs and their opinions will be more inclusive to the minority.

Meanwhile in a non democracy, the State does come from the People by natural logic. But still, the State may or may not include representatives of every single group of society. And even then, does the representative actually represent the views of those who they represent? Anyway, the problem goes like this. The State is the one that decides everything, when an issue arises, there is a possibility that the decision they made may harm some people, and they don’t know about that. Say a toll road or an overpass is constructed, what if it actually harms people living near it?? And the State has no idea about it at all. Eventually, what will happen is the People keep protesting various State policies as these policies are not inclusive enough and only benefits some of the society, while harming the rest. And this is actually quite common to see, isn’t it?

Now let’s take those 2 classes again. In the democratic class, the students are trying to decide on the seating of themselves. They gather up and began a discussion, suddenly, a group of students stepped up and asked so they can sit in certain places. They then explain that they have various needs, such as eye problems, concentration problems, and so much more. After discussing, the other students acknowledged their special needs and gave them the right to fulfill it. They then decide on the rest of the seats, everyone leaves happy and satisfied. Eventually they always do that, and as they get to know each other, they began to recognize each other’s needs and they consider it in making opinions, and everything goes out smoothly. While in the undemocratic class, the council just decided everything for the seating. This causes some students with various needs to be harmed as their decided seating are on various places that may harm their concentration or inhibits them from studying properly. They then protest against the council, and it gets repeated on and on again. The class then is full of protests and nothing gets done. I hope my illustration delivers my point.

3. Democracy is much more efficient

The simpler term is 2 heads are better than 1. It is always much better for more to people work on the same jobs, it reduces the workload for everyone, and everything gets so much simpler. And you might be thinking, “Isn’t it less efficient as you have to do both stuff at the same time? Like it isn’t specialized.” Not true. Specialization occurs in the labor, there are people more talented in agriculture, others are experts in the military, and so on. But here, the only choice you have is labor or decision making, and in democracy everything is more efficient.

Let me explain, first, decision making takes less time than labor. And yes labor takes a long time and you have to work daily to sustain the nation, but in a democracy, you don’t have to work as much, how? As there are more workforce! In a democracy, everyone has power in the labor and the decision making. As everyone is doing labor, the workload for everyone is reduced, and it takes less time as more people is doing it. Things become efficient and fast. How about decision making? Actually, with more people, it may take somewhat more time to discuss, but it’s worth it, if done correctly. How so?? Well, the discussion itself becomes more productive, as when there are more people, there are more ideas to be expressed and discussed about. And when there are more ideas on the table, you can combine them to create even more ideas and more plans and thus improving the lot.

In a non democracy, however, everything is less productive. How so? Well first, since the State only does decision making, and the People only do labor, everything is less productive as less people are on the job. In labor, compared to a democracy, fewer people are in the workforce, increasing the workload for everyone and thus making it harder to do, and takes more time. In decision making, since less people are involved, there are less ideas to work with, and thus you can create less new ideas. And the solutions will just be stale as it would just be the ideas of the same people, this will inhibit progress and just make things worse for everyone.

Let’s check out the 2 classes again, shall we. In the democratic class, we see that they are having this class project. Since it’s a democracy, they first discuss what to do. Everyone gave out wonderful ideas, and there are so many ideas. Then, they began to sort it out and they develop a magnificent new idea and they started to plan it. Then they divide the work fairly and equally, and they work on it. Everything went smoothly, and the work is very enjoyable, as everyone is working on the job, work isn’t that heavy, and in the end, they created a magnificent project, it’s beautiful. They were praised for their work, and they got satisfying scores.

What about the non democratic class? They are doing the same class project, but still, everything is less productive. First, the council discusses and gather up some ideas. Only 10 students are part of the council, and with that few students, the ideas weren’t as many as the democratic class. They gathered up what they can and planned the job. Their ideas are decent, but not as good as the democratic class. Then they divided the jobs, and the 20 start working on it. But as less people are involved in the job, compared to the democratic class, the 20 works very hard, as each person gets more workload, and the process goes much slower. In the end they finished, though it was near deadline, and while it was decent, there are a whole lot projects much better than that, such as the project of the democratic class. That is the illustration, I hope you can see my point now.

4. Democracy promotes critical thought

So, why is critical thought important though? Well for one, it helps us analyze stuff and 

ideologies so we don’t get swallowed by propaganda. A lack of critical thought can result in a new fascist regime. And democracy can prevent that, let me explain. In discussion, you have to have a critical thought to even start expressing your opinions, as you have to analyze the current situation so you can formulate an idea on how to improve it. And you would need to analyze other people’s opinions to evaluate it and also see if they can be combined with your ideas to create better ideas. And in democracy, as everyone is involved, automatically, the ability of critical thought is trained in everyone, as everyone will participate in a discussion almost every week at least, perhaps everyday even. As a result, everyone’s critical thought is also trained everyday, and they will develop and evolve very quickly.

In a non democracy however, only folks inside The State is trained to have critical thought. And that is if they are not just voting their way out. If they are voting their way out all the time in any problem. Then they had created a nation of uncritical and ignorant people. Once this happens, at best, if the State collapses, there will be mass anarchy and chaos. At worst, they get swallowed by fascist or authoritarian left propaganda. And then a fascist or socialist regime is erected, and things get bad fast. And what’s worse is these regimes will make the People even more ignorant and uncritical as time goes by. Which is certainly not what we want.

Let’s hope the classes are doing fine. In the democratic class, they had discussed about very important issues everyday. They analyze various opinions and situations day by day, as a result, their minds have become very critical, and they begin to use their critical thought in daily life. Much to their surprise, it has helped them day by day. They are able to take initiative in problematic situations, and they helped provide wondrous solutions to people’s problems. Furthermore, they are beginning to use it in their studies, and they were very successful indeed. Eventually they become famous for being so helpful, and everything turned out quite successful. They would later contribute so many things to their country.

In the non democratic class, critical thought had disappeared and is unknown. As the students never participated in discussion, their critical thought abilities was eroded away. Meanwhile, the council, voted their way out of everything, making them uncritical and ignorant as well. But the council see this as an oppoturnity to exploit the students. The students felt oppressed, and they read a book about this ideology that orders the destruction of the oppressers. They were brainwashed, taken in by propaganda, and revolted against the council. The class broke into a fight and things were nasty. More than half of them went to the ER and the entire class got suspended. Anyway, that is my illustration. I hope you get the point.

5. Democracy embraces individuality

Why is individuality important? Well you see, everyone is different, everyone is unique. And individuality is the uniqueness of someone, the fact that one person is very unique, they have their own past, preferences, opinions, interests, talents, beliefs, and so on. No 2 people can be exactly the same, even twins are different one way or another. This difference is individuality, and why is it good?? Because individuality makes us confident in ourselves, and this is the thing that truly makes us humans. Without it, we are just puppets or robots. Furthermore, the differences in the world makes everything so interesting and varied. You can always learn new stuff as everyone is different, imagine a world where everyone is the same. It’s boring isn’t it? And there will be no progress, as with differences, we compliment each other, we use those differences to unite and to create new ideas, and that is how we can progress. This is how democracy achieves it.

In democracy, the primary method of decision making is discussion. And in discussion, the discussion progresses as people give out their opinions and ideas. For the discussion to be truly productive, you can’t have the same ideas, the ideas must be different, as when they are different, we can make so much more new interesting and innovative ideas from that jumble of ideas. And the discussion becomes very very productive. Other than that, in a democracy, there are so many jobs in existence, and individuality helps distribute everyone equally. As everyone have different interests and expertise, with all of it combined together, the nation can move forward together. That is Unity in Diversity. But democracy also motivates people to be different and creative, how so?

As I have said, the more diverse the ideas, the better the results, right? As of that, people are pressured to be unique and creative as of to create more progress. And the jobs also help. As there are so many ways to contribute to the nation, people are motivated to get creative to find even more and better ways of contributing to the nation. Variation fuels progress. As a result, the overall system motivates people to become creative and follow their own ways and not just following other people.

Now a non democracy system doesn’t necessarily destroy individuality, but it doesn’t motivate us to have individuality. Let me explain as well. As opposed to a democracy, your ideas don’t matter in the State, unless you got in the State. Even in jobs, non democratic countries to have capitalist systems, the capitalist system orders that your goal is to get money, not to contribute to the society. Some may argue otherwise, but I will not talk about that today. As a result, your individuality becomes useless and slowly, you become a puppet or robot, becoming the same with everyone else. Though there is a possibility that your individuality will become useful, if you can successfully reform the country thanks to your individuality and create a democracy.

But then there are other systems which intentionally destroys individuality, such as authoritarian systems that bans political freedom. These systems is not even neutral, they punish you for being unique and forces you to mindlessly follow the State, or you will be tortured for being an enemy of the State and stuff. When this happens, individuality is completely destroyed and all the citizens become puppets of the regime. How they do progress is beyond me, well it’s not, I can sit down and think for a while, but I won’t be talking about it for now, that’s for another day.

Defense of Democracy

There are many people who thinks this kind of democracy is bad. There are many arguments, but I don’t know much of them. So this part will get an addition if I found a new argument. As of now, there is only one argument against democracy that I know.

1. General incompetency of the People

Well this is perhaps a very common argument. I have seen it repeated so many times, just expressed differently. Some say the People are too stupid, the People take too long to make a decision, the People can’t agree on something at all, and so on. Well, I agree that could happen, if we instantly go to democracy without any process at all. But I believe there should be a transition towards democracy.

The first thing we have to plant in the minds of the People is a critical mind, than it will just expand outwards. But what about morality? Well, you see, morality can be reached through logic as well. And I have proven that mercy is also logical. Then what about so many “critical” people that are cold and hateful? Well it’s not the logic itself that blinds them. In fact, they are not that critical, they only use logic for their interests. The thing that blinds them, is something in their past, something that made them to be so cold and hateful. If you want to read more on this, go check out my log on Free Will.

Anyway, what kind of transitory State is good? Well for one, it must be a State that teaches the People how to practice democracy. The State will also act in a democratic fashion, the State will remain in the nation until the People are ready for democracy. When that happens, the State shall dissolve itself and the People will take over. And no, we don’t want an authoritarian State, that will just harm the People even further and damage democracy.

Democracy Today?
There have been arguments made that claims we already have democracy. But let me ask, where can you find a nation with no State, and the People controlling everything making decisions in discussion? No, and before you go say that there is democracy and the proof is voting, I will explain why it is undemocratic. I’ll be fair for now, but there are no democracies in this world, but the countries are semi-democratic. They give us free speech and lots of freedom and stuff. But there is one thing that also prevents more democracy, capitalism. The main feature of capitalism is hierarchy, and hierarchy is everything that democracy is not. Democracy is classless and equal, no one is higher than the other.
So I will tell you the truth of nations that claim to have democracies. They are not democracies at all, they are just benevolent oligarchies. How so? I have said that in a democracy, there is no such thing as the State. But here we hear people complaining about how the State is bad, in “democratic” countries no less. So certainly we have not seen any democracy at all. And I will explain how voting is bad, So here we go!

Why Voting is Bad

So, many people thinks that just because we can vote for what we want, we have a democracy. The thing is, there are so many arguments that can destroy voting instantly. As of that, I will explain the ones that I know, so hang on.

1. Voting creates a tyranny by majority

How so? Well you see. In voting, it’s like an unfinished discussion. In discussion, first you all give out each of your opinions, and then you integrate it to create a solution which can satisfy and help everyone. In the end everyone leaves happy and satisfied. But in voting, you just finish with the idea that gets the most support. Well, it seems another explanation is up.

In a community that votes for everything, the minority will inevitably always be harmed. How so? Well, when there is an issue, the solution favoured would be the solution that gained the most votes. This all entails one thing, in all votings, the majority would always be favoured. And what if the solution of the majority is actually harmful for the minority? The minority has no chance in defeating the majority in any voting. As the system itself favors the majority. As a result, a systemic discrimination will begin, and it becomes a tyranny by majority.

While in a community that discusses, everytime there is an issue, both the majority and minority would gather to discuss. First they give out their opinions. The minority then explain a certain need they have, or a certain requirement or something. They then discuss about a solution that can benefit both the minority and majority. In the end, they found a solution that is benefits everyone and everyone leaves happy and satisfied. As time progresses, the majority will recognize the needs and specialties of the minority, and they would instantly consider it in creating an opinion. As a result, they all work together discussing what’s best for everyone. And they all respect each other more. No discrimination, no tyranny, just democracy.

Now, say there are 2 classes, one of them discusses. While the other just votes their way out. In the discussion class, they have a small problem. Their window apparently broke in an accident, and they decided to pay for it. But they don’t know how to divide the payings for everyone fairly. Many of them suggested that each student pays the total price divided by the amount of students. But then, a small group of people speaks up, and they say that since they are the poorer students, even that division would still burden them. As a result, they discussed and agreed that the much wealthier students will pay more to compensate the poorer students. Then, everything went smoothly.

In another class, they have another problem as well. They are going to have a class party. But they have troubles deciding whether it should be voluntary or compulsory to bring the supplies. So they vote it out. The results are it is compulsory. But it wasn’t unanimous, there is a small group of students who votes for voluntary, they are the poorer ones. But they can’t complain as they claim it, it’s a democracy, and the results are the collective will. In the end, they did bring the food, though their parents has to squeeze money. As time progresses, financial decisions begin to hurt the economics of the family even more, and the parents struggle and get sick and many of the poor students’ parents die from work stress. The students themselves just suffer until they decide to revolt causing division and it all goes downhill from there. That is my illustration, I hope you can understand my point.

2. Voting can be manipulated

No, it’s not voter fraud where the votes are manipulated. It’s the voters themself being manipulated. This is done by tricking the voters, or doing something else for the voters so they vote in the interest of the one that manipulates the voters. Let me explain. This situation is primarily visible in non democratic countries but has a form of voting to show that they have “democracy”. But it is also present in voting countries with no State.

Say in a non democratic country, there is the State, and the People. The People vote for the State. If things go well, then it will only be a tyranny by majority. But for the very least, it’s the will of the People, the majority anyway. But when this happens, that’s when democracy dies. The State has a lot of power, and sometimes, they wish to remain in power. So, they trick the voters or manipulate the voters so they vote in favor of the State. Or another party decides to do that and the voters vote in favor of the that party. That is actually the least worst scenario. The worst case scenario is this. That is when the bourgeoisie starts bribing the State to the point of the State being a puppet of the bourgeoisie. Why would they do that? As they wish to retain their power and wealth of course. Eventually the State does their thing of manipulating the voters and the voters vote in favor of the State which in turn serves the capitalists. Essentially, it becomes a plutocracy, terrifying.

In a no-State voting “democracy”, certain parties can manipulate stuff and create a proxy State, though a regular tyranny by majority is still much more likely. And what about in a discussion based no State democracy? Well you see, as everything is settled in discussion. There will be lots, and I mean lots of analyzing and critical thinking to do. As a result, if anyone dares to give out propaganda or any indoctrinative stuff, the People can identify it easily and destroy that propaganda using logic and critical analysis. As a result, no one can manipulate anyone, as anyone can just point out the indoctrinative features and also destroy it logically, so yeah.

My illustration here will be from the real world, specifically Indonesia. If you are aware of our situation, you’ll understand. There was a hot political mess around several months ago that got our best governor yet, in jail. That governor, was Ahok. Ahok was quite strict, but he was very benevolent. The case started last year. Last year, in the end of the year, Ahok went to the Thousand Islands and made a speech. He remarked about how certain politicians fooled the public to not vote for non Muslim leaders using a certain Quranic Verse. Suddenly, he was charged with blasphemy. After a long case, with many riots and unrest within Jakarta, mostly by ignorant fanatical Muslims. Ahok was jailed for 2 years, convicted for blasphemy.

Apparently, the speech in itself didn’t cause the mayhem. But a guy decided to provoke the People by uploading a video of the speech but edited. But that in itself is still not enough. The main cause is Islamic extremists provoking Muslims to get mad and riot against Ahok. And even children are indoctrinated. Children taught to sing, “KILL AHOK!! KILL AHOK!! KILL AHOK NOW!!” Or a teacher dressing her child as a jihadi with a toy sword and then taking a photo of it and uploading it to the social media with the caption, “Yes my child, now you are ready to slash Ahok’s throat!” So now, it seems the motives are religious, but new studies show something else.


There are rumors here that those extremists, are being paid by some people. Those people are huge media and property magnates in Indonesia, basically, the bourgeoisie. They bribed the extremists that manipulated the People in Indonesia. The results, Ahok was convicted, but it didn’t end there. Several months ago, the Jakarta Gubernatorial Elections are taking place. Studies shown that over 50%, at least 70% of Jakarta is satisfied by Ahok’s performance. Yet, Ahok lost, and the rival Anies, a member of the enemy faction, won. How is this? Simple, the People of Jakarta were fooled that if they vote for Ahok, they’d get thrown to hell and be condemned for eternal damnation. Religion was used to manipulate the People. But not only that, the faction that got Ahok in jail also consist of politicians. You know how rampant corruption is in Indonesia right? So since Ahok was elected, corruption in Jakarta was reduced drastically. As Ahok implemented policies that made corruption impossible. The politicians were hungry for money, so they triggered the cases so they can do corruption again. I think that shows a lot about my points.

Unitary of Federation?

I say a working democracy should be a unitary nation. A unitary nation is a nation that is united by a single system and also a single law and all that. A federation is a nation, that is divided by several smaller governments. There is a central federal State, and there is also a central Federal Law and all, but their power is limited. The smaller governments still have autonomy.

While a federation seems tempting, but it is only preferable in non democratic countries. As in a true democracy, the People have the power of controlling the nation. A federation seems nice as it seems it would add more democracy and autonomy. But in a democracy, the People already have absolute control, so why are further divisions needed? The feature of democracy is the People are united, why would we want to add further borders? It will only hurt the unity of the People and in the end, hurt democracy.

Transitory Notes

This is all I will have now, there will be a patch to this essay sometime. But I have to get this thing out first. After this, I will start writing on the system itself, here I talk about the philosophy of democracy, next time, I will discuss how to practice democracy itself. Anyway, if you have any suggestions, compliments and critiques, do send me a comment. Jesus Christ this was a long essay. I hoped you enjoy, and have a nice day!