Often we talk about the greatness and misery of Sparta. And certainly as every nation in the process of evolution had good and bad. During that time about 600 B.C., all Greece was a melting pot of ideas, and Athens was in a great process of development in the field of philosophy but was also taking its first steps in a model of emerging democracy, under pressure from the increasingly important community of artisans and sea traders, were fighting for their political rights recognized to the classical landed aristocracy. Instead Sparta was geared more towards the development of a more internal cohesion oriented social system and its military strength. The greatness of Sparta was that could appreciate their society as a united whole understanding that for a society to be strong there must be a certain homogeneity either in the racial or appearance in the existence of laws that provide social guarantees but also require its citizens to comply with them. But the misery of Sparta consisted of his obsession reduced to a very small minority citizens with equal rights and were sentenced to self-destruction, then did not understand that integrate the conquered territories to their state was more socially beneficial and militarily that use a slave model for society. It should be borne in mind that the inhabitants of these territories were in every way equal to them, so they were perfectly integratable without there being any difference in their racial appearance. Why Sparta had many difficulties for military expansion
because
unlike
Rome
only
understood
by
implementing a Spartan minority in the territories they conquered, which resulted in a weak political system with a very small ruling minority that easily could be overthrown. Rome also used a slaver social model, but the conquered territories considered as equal to the rest, which favored their integration into the empire. But slavery in Sparta did not include only the most disadvantaged citizens because in a sense they were slaves, according to the standards set by the legislator Lycurgus and managed by Éforos
every citizen of Sparta had the sole destination being part of a professional army throughout his life, and for that they were forced to join with just seven years, even the King had to undergo strict laws forcing them to live in poverty and almost always make their meals in public. This was intended to ensure the existence of a military state obsessed to paranoia about the possible dissent of a population overwhelmingly excluded from political and social rights. But Sparta was an example of that when there is a project promoted by all, it is possible that few much get and his army became the most feared of his time and not be the largest but by being based on the idea that the most important thing is the union of all its members on an idea and common race. The conclusion is that unity is strength, but arbitrary and unsubstantiated some citizens in equal essence destroy exclusion. In any case I want to emphasize that from my point of view any form of direct or indirect slavery is entirely reprehensible whether people of the same culture or race or not done.
ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
Few political models have been cited in the past and the present as the Athenian democratic model emerged in the classical period from 508 BC, but rarely has said that this model of democracy did not emerge as a moral initiative to promote the sharing of power and politics closer to citizens. The truth is that Athenian democracy was the result of displacement of the sources of wealth of classical landed aristocracy to new forms of industry represented mainly by the powerful naval fleet of Athens. In ancient times the power was always associated indissolubly to land ownership, but the gradual emergence and development of various crafts such as pottery, metallurgy or naval sector were causing gradually social unrest that demanded more power quota in decision-making bodies that were previously reserved for the landed aristocracy, it is in this context of things like the Athenian democracy emerged. From that Athens did not hesitate to make propaganda of its political system placing itself as an example of struggle for fair distribution of power, however this was only
mere propaganda to promote their own campaign of imperial expansion throughout the region, truth is that Athenian democracy was more the product of struggles for power sharing among which a true democracy productive sectors, as only representing these sectors and only had political rights a tiny part of the population, so for correctly describe this political system would have to say that was rather a totalitarian system but open to more sectors of the population classical feudal system. It is at this time that began to define the division of political models between left and right, while Athens represented the democratic progressivism, Sparta represented the landowner and monarchist conservatism, but this is just a simplistic way to define it, because in reality both systems politicians were actually totalitarian models that reserved the power to only a few of its citizens and Sparta, power was very divided between a militarist legal system inspired by Lycurgus and left little room for maneuver to the king, and on the other Éforos aside, they were those who really controlled the power, the king only fulfilled the duties of head of the army but with limited political capacity. This shows that the political systems of Athens and Sparta were not as different as a surface observation might indicate. Centuries later, the English Civil War of 1642 marked the revival in modern times of the class struggle between the landed aristocracy and the business bourgeoisie, but again the goal of these supposedly democratic struggles was not the honest desire to share power with the people, but rather use him to overthrow the aristocracy. This is actually the political model that contemporary society has inherited, there is no denying that the process of evolution of nations toward democracy is a factor of progress, but it is also true that while democracy stop not only serve economic powers and pass to include all citizens in decision-making bodies is not can no longer be considered incomplete because a full democracy made would be one in which citizens could choose each and every one of the laws individually and not as happening now in its unique ability to participate in power is simply the ability to choose their leaders once every several years while this situation does not change democracy can not be considered fully realized.
lamentable is the degree of degeneration that may eventually fall democracies misnamed, as they have become mere nest of thieves, but more unfortunate is that those politicians who claim to protect is more dedicated to steal than to make political profit social, truly unfortunate is that from coalescing with offenders to be all protected by law. Throughout history rulers they have always had profit as one of its main objectives but never weakness against criminals and helplessness victims have been so evident as now. The explanation is simple and is that the former rulers usually kings did not have to explain to citizens about their behavior but in democracies misnamed if, therefore, these anti-social politicians have striven to create laws that go unpunished but to apply to them the same law as the rest of them end up criminals also benefit from impunity. An example is in some countries whose penal code states that even being sentenced to several centuries criminals can get away with absolute ease as there is a clause limiting the continued detention to a maximum of fifteen regardless of the magnitude of the crimes committed. Do not contend that criminals sentenced to very long sentences should not be entitled to benefit from sentence reductions for good behavior, what I mean is that these possible reductions in any case have to be a pretext to release the essential part of the punishment and therefore life imprisonment for, because when someone takes a life and does malice aforethought must give yours as payment. This means that once proven guilty no longer be a priority interest that the offender may have, but to satisfy just society and the victims of damage that might have caused, it is logical that the price for taking a life is losing free will on their own. I do not intend to defend here the death penalty because I believe that a developed society does not need it, but if the only possible choice would release criminals after serving a ridiculous part of their sentences or the death penalty undoubtedly be preferable worth death, because only the weak governments of false democracies arise solely in the interest of criminals and not the victims. Those governments say they have imprisoned criminals long is a huge cost to the state. But then, why not put
them to workshops with which to work in prisons and thus pay their debts to the state and their victims? Could it be that the state has some unmentionable debt to them? The right thing would be that the government had prohibited by law to spend more on a prisoner of what it can produce through their own work, because it is not fair that victims have to set aside a portion of their taxes to keep them when they can work in prison. But the most embarrassing thing is that in some countries have created laws so that an offender can obtain compensation for their victims for damages suffered during the commission of their crimes, based on the assumption that they would be treated with excessive hardness. But is not it the duty of the state to prevent any inducement to commit a crime? So it just would have been to allow the offender to report if he wanted his victim for alleged abuse which he had received during the commission of the offense, but in no case could benefit from any compensation because that would contradict the duty of the state to combat crime and ensure social good. But these Democrats false politicians reduce the sentences of offenders in a thousand different ways and all to benefit them to be detained, and if that were not enough invented the law of amnesty so that in the event that there was no legal way to get rid of then shame themselves, i.e. their political partners, who call themselves decent, would free them.
FRAUD OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS
It is true that the economic crisis of 2008 has been a real test for both citizens and politicians since been forced to implement new methods for recovery, but has also launched a real deception social masses because what they are not told is that most of the reasons why they are asked austerity is because the current globalization of the economy means using the same rules of the game both in advanced countries and underdeveloped, i.e.
attempting to convince workers to reduce their wages and become something like servants as in the middle Ages, and all this because it is allowing trade without barriers with countries that do not apply any rules to ensure the human rights workers, which
leads to an increasingly evident disadvantage in economic returns process in companies that s countries that do recognize labor rights over those without. Politicians and businessmen try to convince us that the only solution to solve the problem is to turn workers into slaves and emerging economies but could it be that the developed countries have an obligation to trade with these countries with those rules? Certainly not, then it is logical that if a globalization of economy and trade without barriers arises right would require emerging countries compliance with common rules of humane treatment of their workers. It is also true that in some developed
countries
have
implemented
policies
often
uncompetitive as a result of the great technological advantage they had in the past with respect to other countries, but in the current situation of economic globalization these misguided policies have been evidenced, for example early retirement too early, unemployment too high and without requiring any conditions job search in return, subsidizing university courses that are not required to be greatest number of applicants for those jobs available positions, favoring workers who feign illness to seek lower against those who are honest enough to not create monitoring mechanisms or reward just those who serve less than this resource. All citizens should be guaranteed a basic unemployment allowance indefinitely, but both subsidies low for reasons not working as unemployment should be modest enough to not be a factor that discouraged in your job search. Another example of picaresque is the case subsidies to single mothers and unemployed, some countries argued that it was better to provide the money necessary before having children in orphanages, but what did not consider is that if a woman says he has no resources, you get paid you need to keep a child, this can consider this as a form of employment, requiring the state raising their future children and sometimes faking his bachelorhood and turning this situation in an authentic way social parasitism, because women can always refuse to work stating that having young children continuously it prevents thus children become hostages and source of wealth for their parents, but also a clear case of discrimination about those couples who are honest. Therefore, any social assistance should always be linked to the standing
commitment by accepting the job that the state could provide and require the biological parents to assume responsibilities for their children. Economic policies should always seek equity and therefore refuse to reward vagrancy, so governments should offer only social work and no social support except in those cases where it was not possible to work. Nor is it logical for movies or sports that do not interest anyone promote, because this is just a disguised form of corruption. Another regrettable practice that is increasingly observed in Europe is to try to dismantle the so-called welfare state that is trying to destroy all the social rights achieved since the end of the Second World War and all as a result of the apparent passivity governments in regard to stopping illegal immigration, because on one side is tolerated as if it were inevitable, but at the same time try to limit the social rights of all citizens. Politicians and businessmen try to convince us that their inability to stop the immigration invasion forces them to shield social rights and reserve them only for whom they are able to pay, but the truth is that they allow that immigration in order to cause unfair competition with local workers causing the lowering of wages and thereby reduce them to slavery. But the most unfortunate thing is that those same workers observe impassively as illegal immigrants steal their jobs and do not have the courage to oppose it, and meanwhile the rich remain in a privileged ghetto. Therefore legalize these immigrants is a serious mistake, because although their situation may be considered unfortunate not stop being unfair against those who try to immigrate legally and therefore represents support for immigration mafias. On the other hand it makes no sense to consent immigration in a country where there is already a bag of large unemployed, as this results in an unnecessary confrontation between workers having more people willing to work than jobs available and so both cause an obvious impoverishment of the population. It is that migration should always be subject to there being a job so they can be absorbed without harming the rest of the citizens in recipient countries. Ideally, all countries implement policies of birth control by their number of inhabitants always coincide with the jobs available. Therefore, what is clear is that in a world that trade relations barrier arises, the priority should not be that developed
countries implement the business policies of partial slavery used in underdeveloped countries, but require these countries if you want to trade them should apply common global policies that guarantee fair labor and human rights to all citizens of the planet.
FAKE INTEGRATION
After World War II, the United States attempted to take political advantage of his victory against the Germans, but had never been willingly for Americans interracial mixtures however because they had defeated the Nazis who opposed them now only there was the option of taking political advantage of the situation. This means that even within its borders laws were created to leave the helpless minority, however for the outside were undertaken imperialist policies throughout the world under the consideration that by not appreciate racial differences in their own territory, either they had no reason to consider racial differences an obstacle to the invasion of another country. This is certainly a frivolous way to understand the idea of racial equality also within the United States government showed no interest in recognizing the rights of other different races of white, which led to the public denunciation of Martin Luther King, prompting laws that formally the rights of such minorities but only apparent way were recognized is called into question, because actually the US
government considers the relationship between races as something that only serves from a view of submission toward each other and to make sure it denies citizens public services such as free or guaranteed that all causes are social ghettos health. At the same time the arrival of immigrants periodically allowed to stimulate growth in order to create hopes for improvement for the battered and disadvantaged population. The truth is that a developed country need not grow continuously, you need is a fair distribution of wealth to avoid situations of social exclusion, but with the illusion of growth seeks to encourage the population in partial slavery believe that even though they are being exploited, with economic growth will soon be able to go from being exploited to be exploiters therefore growth is a concern not of workers but of those who exploit them, for fear they have of those
disadvantaged people protest to be treated as human beings. This is the reason that the use of firearms for civilians were legalized, became the one hand to protect whites if racial uprising, but also to favor the elimination of people at social exclusion when they are resorting to crime. All this shows that the racial problem is far from resolved but hidden and only this policy apparent support miscegenation remains how to take political advantage of their victory over the Germans since it seems contradictory that had fought against them but at the same time would support their ideas. All this shows that miscegenation is just one more operating environment and that the best way to guarantee the rights of each race is that each living in different territories without mixing and property rights on its recognized land and free from interference of external powers. An example we have with France after the Second World War on the one hand spoke of equality and fraternity, and the other invaded and massacred the population of Algeria, saying of course that only came to defend their rights. After the economic crisis of 2008 and the continued arrival flood of illegal immigrants some European governments use policies far right as the replacement of a free healthcare for other payment began to consider feasible and thus shield the indigenous population before immigration they say not be able to stop, but which have no qualms in exploiting. All this shows that the best way that the rights of each race are respected is by creating a mutually recognized by all, in which every race live without mixing and without the imperialist experiments are allowed beyond their own areas territories racial, but this needs to be overcome the trauma of the second world war and understand that coexistence does not imply interracial mixing, and consequently a policy prohibiting illegal immigration is applied.
Because mafias of immigration, are not those supplying vessels in coming, but these weak governments that legalize quickly immigrants and preferably illegal on legal, because the best message you can throw who tries enter Europe illegally it is that if you get it all will be advantages not to mention the perpetuation of bureaucracy for the expulsion process. All in order to exploit economically those immigrants, but with the inevitable deterioration of the quality of life of a society that is becoming
more entrenched day before the rise of miscegenation and with fewer social rights, and all for profit companies. This is a numbed society that sees without realizing how their country is being invaded under the guise of a humanitarian issue and knowing that these immigrants, in the absence of an employment contract, dedicate themselves in many cases to steal or depend on state, a state which in turn conceals the deterioration of the quality of life of an increasingly unequal in order to look more like his great American idol society, that beast out of the sea and banned only slavery for blacks could flourishing factories migrate to the north and thus be exploited there. This society that observes impassive as immigrants invade our shores should remember the past, when the Vandals, about 400 AD, asked Rome to let them cross their borders for humanitarian reasons, and that after that Rome would allow them to spend were dedicated to loot the empire unashamedly. Today it is happening the same, but the mental block for world war caused causes that Western society believes to be doing good when he delivers his nation hordes of immigrants who do not even bother to ask permission to enter, which the Vandals who invaded Rome itself did. Because the best way to guarantee equality is rejecting miscegenation and living among equals, as well it more difficult to speculators achieve their ends. Immigrants must solve their problems fighting for their rights in their own countries promoting birth control and the distribution of wealth and believe that the solution does not have to always rely on going abroad. And if anyway have to migrate is to do the right thing countries sharing the same race and culture that is as better quality of life is guaranteed.
THE MISERY OF NATIONALISM
Today are increasingly common nationalist political parties, those parties base their arguments on fomenting hatred against states as a way to get followers. Actually use the same technique as destructive cults, cajole his followers into believing that all evils come from others and that all virtues have them accuse the government of everything even their personal problems because they do not want to acknowledge that the evil is inside your own
home. But this is a dangerous game, because nationalism encouraged the secession of territories to form smaller countries with the consequent increase in its precariousness in defending their affairs in the international arena, a test is the history of ancient Greece, he failed to become state and this left her vulnerable to subsequent invasions of Macedonians and Romans centuries after its heyday. Currently, some European nationalist parties claim that the secession of their states can be compensated by binding to the European community, but we must not forget that this community is not a nation but a mere association of nations with little cohesion among themselves and in any case this accession is not a reason to sever ties with their own states. What people do not realize is that many of those these radical parties come together really do not to defend the people, traditions or human rights but because they offer the opportunity to unleash their aggression is what truly they seek, as it is in many cases of people frustrated by personal problems and socially maladjusted and that if they had not found these radical nationalist groups they had joined other extremist groups even if they were contrary ideology, because its real objective and what attracts them it is not violence and social causes.
The truth is that many of those who adhere to these extremist or terrorist groups are not different from the murderers in series, the only difference is that use of these political parties as a cover in this case to cover up their desire for violence, because these parties They offer them an alibi to hide. What is clear is that only a society of stupid permitted to occupy political office those who encourage terrorism or breach of the law as in some countries, because without respect for the law or the constitution is impossible for a state you can progress.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned from this is that excessive des centralism can lead to anarchy and that when a country has no clear concept of nation and are led to believe that regions are nations then the breeding ground is created for generate hatred against the state. Because when a version of the state in each autonomy is created with all duplicate, is caused to citizens of those autonomies stop considering the national state as its representative.
This is not to say that all nationalist movements based on unfounded arguments, they can always be exceptions, such as the struggles for independence by the European colonies in America, but nationalist parties now seem to be looking more individual power than the social good and it is common to propose an idealized future in case of separation that does not correspond to reality occur, because not only the risk of civil war is run, rarely mentioned, but also there is a possibility of foreign invasions was produced as proof the history of Greece. Therefore I think it is much more sensible to propose a model state that recognizes only the central government those qualities that define nations, but at the same time guarantee to the provinces some form of self-government, because after all Union make force.
THE STRENGTH OF A GOVERNMENT
Today, it is common to hear about the different types of government that exist in the world or different democratic models. The truth is that a system of government to be suitable needs to control its territory effectively, but one of the biggest problems that exist today are caused by proportional political systems, these systems theory were created with the idea giving policy to all ideological tendencies representation, however in practice the opposite effect because there are many cases where after elections countries using this type of government are in a situation of powerlessness not being able the winning parties to form a working majority. Italy is an example of the failure of this system for their great tendency to break political alliances often leading to their legislatures last barely a year in most cases. O
Spain whose apparent stability is the result of subjecting the government to blackmail by separatist parties only seek the secession of the state and do not represent the interests of all but those of their own autonomous community, this means that after each vote the winner match to negotiate with these parties and the price paid to form a government will be the gradual destruction of the state. So I think the only way to give governments the political strength that a country needs without relying on dictatorial models or Monarchists is to create a republic with a
majority electoral system runoff. Thus the largest party could get fifty-one percent of parliamentary seats needed to govern with sufficient stability, the other forty-nine percent remain in the hands of other parties. Of course before the second round the parties could form alliances, but this would not be a compulsory procedure, as the largest party would form a majority in the case of attending alone and therefore get the necessary seats for the country to be governed and the election period would be more likely to come to an end normally. In any case we can say that this model would not be representative because in the second round, the winner of the two games that is entered into would be the most votes obtained. That said I would note that this is an opinion on current models of government, but I think the best model would be one in which each and every one of the laws were elected directly by citizens, in order to have a true democracy, but surely this will take too long to arrive given the little interest shown by politicians in it.
GOD AND CONTROL
Today there is much controversy between the association made between the idea of God as an element of universal command and the dispute while there regarding freedom of individuals to decide. This controversy occurs especially among leftist political parties because they tend to compare the abstract symbol of God with unjust domination of the old feudal systems. The trauma occurred over the centuries by many unjust systems of government has led to the belief that survival is possible only through government or anarchic systems governed by people from the working class. But it is necessary to clarify that in any organized system a government that has all social forces and those countries that have struggled to develop a governance model communist type is necessary have produced the same tyrannies or worse than occurred in the past. Because they often are the worst of the working class individuals who have assumed management positions, becoming examples of evil in no case less than any feudal system. Because power often attracts greed and it is absurd to think that evil is itself only rich, not poor. The truth is
that evil does not distinguish social class and think that tyranny is only possible among the powerful is an absurd belief.
It is logical to defend freedom of choice and thought, but it is also true that organized whole system needs a steering system, whether this refers to a country as if it is the universe and it is clear that in any organized system is necessary there are performance standards that the parties are required to comply. But to believe that because they have been examples of unfair government in the past, so we have to reject all forms of control is completely stupid. For this reason it is common in leftist parties reject religion because they believe wrongly that the existence of universal laws can question the freedom of the individual, but do not understand that when questioned the existence of a stable government, clear rules gives rise to disorder and anarchy.
Therefore, the perfect balance is when you understand that in any organized system the existence of mandatory standards for all is necessary, but at the same time contemplating the just rights of each individual. Therefore, a society that rejects religion is bound to be a materialistic society and aimless.
This partnership between God and the command has also been used frivolously by monarchies, because often it was to convince citizens that the need for a government legitimized crimes arbitrary rulers. However, it is important to differentiate between the logical necessity that any system is the existence of a command with the fact that control is properly directed, i.e. the fact recognize as divine, so to speak, the necessary existence of rulers, does not mean that therefore can not be put into question how the task of government is conducted. For this reason, in ancient times, it was common for monarchs tried divine qualities attributed to assume the role of both political leaders and religious. In this way they tried to deceive the public to confuse between logic I have unquestionable need for a government with the way they managed the government.
Humanity must find the right balance between the right of power and the individual's right, no one prevails over the other. A government like a religion should seek the good of the individual and the fact that there are those who use power to commit acts of tyranny is no reason to question the need for a government or a
religion. Likewise the fact that the existence of universal laws necessary need not question the right to free will of each individual, so the necessary balance in the universe must be the result of the harmonious agreement between the two forces. We must then consider as divine all that is true beyond a reasonable doubt, such as the need for a government-organized system around but without implying take for good methods that can be used in each of them. The conclusion is that the fact that it is divine or need a government not mean you should not be at the same time fair and democratic with all its citizens, whether it is the city government as if it is the universal government.
It is also a serious mistake to confuse divine justice with human justice, because this world still has a long way to go before it can be considered perfect. Therefore it can be considered divine all that is well done and therefore these divine qualities can be found in any individual alike, to the extent that act according to justice the truth or logic.
A PERFECT WORLD
Today it is hard to imagine that would be a perfect world without social inequalities in which all citizens have their basic needs met, but this world is possible, it is not an unworkable utopia, but this requires that citizens have the will and enough imagination to drive change toward a society that can be considered truly evolved. For this purpose possible first be necessary to establish a strict birth control by all couples to have only two children except the case in which they were given permission to have three, with this a fixed number of inhabitants it would ensure which would allow them the means of production they could maintain sufficient quality life. Having achieved this could move to the next consistent step in ensuring employment for all citizens, meaning that every person from the moment of his birth would have secured his job as if it were an essential part of the complex machine that is a city thus be possible to have a better life and emancipate earlier. It would also be possible to guarantee unemployment benefits to resolve any cases of temporary loss of work, this subsidy could in no way be like a salary, it must only
provide what is necessary for basic living expenses for a higher subsidy is not a good incentive to work, albeit in a society in which there was an effective birth control the number of jobs always coincide with the number of inhabitants so that unemployment would not exist except temporarily.
In a developed society a permanent economic growth would not be necessary, because although this is all developed society useful to give more importance to spread the wealth that indefinite growth, as growth plays a role of placebo of the masses more to create them the expectation that it may be your only way of salvation to get out of their situation of abuse and partial slavery.
The lack of growth unnerving especially those who refuse to provide basic rights to citizens, because they can not justify being in many cases rich countries, however these social rights are not recognized, so it is often in a position to economic crisis tends to distract citizens encouraging them to participate in wars which if you win, they can resolve their problems at the expense of the loser, and if it is lost, then the perpetrator state will be rid of those pesky unemployed to I had no intention to help by sharing their wealth. A useful measure to prevent exploitation would oppose illegal immigration, because this is ideal for operators to achieve their ends means, for rootless and without financial resources citizen will always be willing to accept a lower salary to the detriment of citizens native, it is clear that the more similar their leaders are citizens of either culturally or racially more difficult state prove that they also exploit them unemployed, it serves for operators always have hand willing cheap labor to accept any job and any salary to be unemployed than jobs. A company controlling its population will no longer have such a pressing need to grow and be guaranteed to all citizens working from the moment of birth. This does not mean that in a world evolved all wages must necessarily be equal, but it is logical that the state ensure that all citizens are entitled to at least one job, which not surprisingly is only possible if each country controls its population.
Also would be guaranteed by the state obtaining housing because to be full employment and a number of people always fixed would be easy to provide in the form of cheap rental or purchase
secured loan, because by not missing employment payment housing would be safe and thus all young people could become independent once fulfilled the majority of age.
A society can only be perfect when democracy is real and not fake like the present, because politicians only turn to the citizens to elect their leaders every four or five years and these people naively believe that is fair, because from its early childhood are taught in school that this political system corrupt in which we live is a democracy, but genuine democracy is one in which each and every one of the laws are voted individually by citizens, this could be done a form easily through internet. But these politicians, false democrats, who pardoned other political thieves every day, of course not want to lose their privileges and why not propose, because this model of false democracy that was born in Greece in 508 a. C, had the sole purpose of satisfying the desires of the new business class representing seafarers, potters and industrial of all kinds against the privileges of the landed gentry, and relied on the people to get the necessary power but not ready to share with the.
More recently a similar situation with the English Civil War of 1642 era began calling current democracy was repeated, people should wonder why there at the same time dictatorships and democracies misnamed, the reason is very simple and that political systems are similar because in both cases it claims to be in an egalitarian system that guarantees freedom when that is not true, because in both cases people's access to power is indirect and symbolic. There is no denying that progress towards democracy represents an advance for society, but as long as completion and delivered power to the people by recognizing this to decide each and every one of the laws.
Would also be different unions, as would be more oriented to perform their duties in the field of law and the legal profession has to be a parallel to state power. Nor is it logical to allow these organizations to disturb the public peace by organizing riots simply because these claim to be of social interest, for fighting for the sake of the workers of a company it may be legitimate, but that does not entitle harm to other citizens resorting to more typical criminal practices.
Another characteristic of a developed society is its refusal to rely on religious organizations should not confuse religion with religious organization, for religion is a way of thinking and a way of philosophy which is lawful, but religious organizations which aims is to compete with the state for power, it is fair that society is moral and educate their children accordingly, but it is also fair to refuse to accept those organizations who hypocritically claim to represent God, but they do alone in his own benefit with the tragic consequences that history has shown. There are still governments they agree with these organizations to supply them with an alibi with which to conceal their crimes in exchange for money, today few organizations that seek to give moral lessons when they should receive, so in a perfect world these organizations have to disappear and no more stand between man and God.