posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:43 AM
Unification is usually obtained via a political figure with ambitions to obtain power and control over a large region.
In opposition to this idea is the philosophy that the individual has rights to determine their own destiny.
It cannot be ignored that we live in a social world. We owe certain things to each other, but the question exists: "How much do we retain for
ourselves, and how much do we owe to the collective?"
I believe that the answer isn't an "either/or" situation.
We can work for our own welfare while working for the welfare of others at the same time.
There is a precise, careful distinction to be made:
Do we work for "the state" or do we work for "the general welfare"?
I believe there can be a situation where we simultaneously work for our own interests and the interests of us all.
The difference lies in recognizing whether or not the directive comes from the people as a whole... including all the voices, all the opinions, or
whether the voice comes from a leadership, a government, a dictator...
We all want a father figure to help guide us to prosperity and safety. We must be careful that this childlike attitude does not carry with us to our
We are all capable of deciding... collectively, responsibly, for the benefit of ourselves and for the benefit of each other. Just be careful of who
you're working for. Is it for a leader with far-reaching and selfish ambition? Or is it for the people, of which you are a member of.