Using a pyramid form to model the human socio-economic system would seem to imply that leadership is not only natural but required. Whether or not this is true is dependant upon the individuals that make up the society in question. The founding fathers of the United States of America structured the governmental system of the nascent democracy so as to allow and even favor the collective rule of individuals over a central government. Logistics seems to dissolve the ground from under this form as a nation this complex, powerful and influential can not simply be allowed to "run itself". Or so it would seem. The foundations of the original idea of democracy are still in place and intact. The only real compromise that has occurred is that of capitalism, which has no relationship to democracy, freedom or the true prosperity of a nation in the first place. Capitalism is the opposite of democracy. In a democratic system, the pyramid is topless. The ultimate rule is with the masses, or the bottom levels of the structure. In capitalism, the rule emanates from the top. The nature of that rule is skewed however, as it's only real interest is in its own propagation. Alpha male or the herd. The United States of America has up until now managed to balance the two and to create a synergy between them that has resulted in the best of both worlds. The power and determinism of capitalism and the consciousness and dampening of democracy. The constant struggle between them is beginning to take on a new shape as economics and capitalism go global. 100 years ago, the only persons participating in the capitalist system in the United States of America were Americans, voters. This is no longer the case. The constant need for economic growth and expansion has driven the willingness to allow others to enter and play the capital game in the USA. They may not necessarily be democratic in their thinking. They do not vote, nor do they have a right to have a say in the political system of this nation. Yet, due to there wealth, they do. No, foreigners coming to America do not receive $10,000 upon entering and the guarantee of a high-paying job for free. Thats an urban legend. The problem is that there is a class of foreigners that arrive with more influence over the future of this nation the us, the wealthy. Communist China owns a vast amount of the US economic system. Funny isn't it. The poor that come here from Latin America get a bad rap but at least they are "one man, one vote" CEO's from the Middle East, the Ukraine and China cast a big shadow over the capital and they don't care about the rights of the people. They may not even believe in democracy and think that they have a better idea than us. The people of their nations would, in all likelihood, agree with us regarding the matter of government of the people, by the people and for the people. But they have neither the vote nor the money to have a say in the matter. This would seem to be an increasingly precarious balance. Would it not be better if the "average" people of the would all had the power to vote and express the will of the people in the matter of the future of the world? When the USA was isolated by time and distance we could control (for the most part,sometimes) the actions of the capitalists who sought to trample the foolishness of democracy in favor of the raw power of capital and the rule of the powerful. We have no such control over the capitalists of other nations yet they have a greater vote in the running of our nation than we do. A single, global system would allow the balance to be restored, and the rule of the individual (ALL of them, not just the one's who "know better" ) to return. Global democracy is the only answer. Socio-economic sanity and the equitable distribution of wealth are one in the same thing. Yes, the United States is working very hard to export the democratic systems of government and level the planet on the same playing field, insuring that justice and personal freedom are the property of all. Economic justice is the next step. No, not the communist concept of the destruction of wealth. Rather the restructuring of the capitalist system to insure that the lower levels of the pyramid are solid and growing thereby forming a stronger foundation for the future and the stability to support our ever more accelerated race into the future. We have the ability to exercise our collective voice in the political system, what we lack is the power to exercise our collective wallets and "shout down" the wealthy. Its really just common sense.

Clash of the Pyramids

The new world order is coming. The last few posts have been a little on the angry side. I become annoyed at the firm and resolute unreality of the vast majority of people. With increasing population and a planetary system that is increasingly impacted by each decision that we make the idea of a future populated be hundreds of individual geo-political entities vying for a smaller and smaller pool of resources with demands for those resources increasing is so far from reality that to argue against it is to lend to it what little legitimacy that kind of thinking will ever have. Chinese computers cost as much as French one's. People in Thailand want cell phone's, high-paying jobs and vacations as much as you do. The same infrastructure that will provide you with wireless information and communications will serve them as well. Education in any other language is the same. "No man is an island" neither is any nation. Yes Virginia, there is a new world order.

We here in the United States of America have a real problem with this idea. The reasons are to many to cover. The reality is, however, that we are the largest "pyramid" on the planet. Perhaps not is population but certainly in socio-economic development. And without a doubt, in technology. China is potentially, a rival economy as they continue to grow and India is developing it's position as a technological leader. The rest of the world will not stay in the shadow of the American Empire forever. Were not going to bomb them back into the stone age just to hold our lead, therefor sometime in the next 50 years we will cease to be the center of the universe. The rest of the world will soon be as developed, wealthy and sophisticated as we are. One world, one culture (technology) and one government to administer the lot. Global communications require global systems. A global economy will require global currency, these things are simply a matter of efficiency. Education, health-care, justice and human rights are global needs and will increasingly require global management and administration to facilitate. These are facts, not opinions. As we move closer to this state, the separate, distinct pyramids, growing and expanding begin to merge together at their bases. Increasingly, society begins to resemble a single structure split at the top into several separate capstones. This is the most unstable formation of all. the conflict comes from the power of the separate tops acting on the increasingly common bottom. We need to adopt a policy of reality only. "We" must, if we are to insure the safety and stability of the future recognize this process, adopt it as our collective goal and act as one to achieve it. The past is dead. We are moving into the future at an ever-increasing rate and it is a future who's shape is already formed. Denial will cause us to fragment and at these speeds, disintegrate. Let's decide to agree on the shape of the future as a little more than that which is obvious and surrender our resistance of it. How much longer can we last as angry juveniles stamping our feet and saying "NO" to the only future that we can have? This brave new world will either be a dark, dystopian nightmare born of the sickness of leadership or a free society base upon the principles of justice and equality. If your voting for the former, just sit on your ass and mind your own business, don't worry, it'll happen. If the latter, get the hell up and get to work.