TaN: Control is a general and objective term that can be one of two types: dominion and domination. The difference is with respect to intention and consent.
With dominion, it is usually in reference to control with the intention of looking out for the interest and welfare of the one/s governed or subject to control, whereas domination is control for selfish intentions and ends. While the former seeks to take the interests and well being of their wards into consideration (as well as the whole or the common good), the latter seeks to only satisfy its own needs and wants and desires — which is to consider everything and everyone there for their pleasure and enjoyment, not mindful of the consequences and misery and suffering that may and will arise.
Dominion involves those are tasked with the care and welfare of others — including non-people like animals, plants, and the general environment. They respect and recognize that even non-people need to be “respected” — i.e., they should be treated as if they have rights (because I have always maintained that only people can have rights, only those who can exercise and defend rights can have rights). Dominion is exercise only by responsible people; they perform their duties and obligations and know their limitations and obey the spirit of the law (rather than the letter).
Domination involves imposition of the will (and whims and pleasures) of those who are supposed to be the caretakers instead of the needs and concerns of the wards. The wards are looked upon or considered as “property” of those who have been left in charge. The wards exist at the pleasure of the stewart akin to the monarchies of old where everything within the domain of the king is considered his property, to do as he pleases, even the inhabitants.
And this is what is happening to the world today — this world has been left to us by God to tend and care and not our property to abuse, squander, and exploit as we desire. In fact, much of what is going on today has been twisted from the old original intentions and responsibilities into what we call today as private property — as against personal property.
TaN: It is both pitiful and shameful that the world today is increasingly and geometrically putting more and more emphasis on and importance to money and on financial gain rather than on service to others for their well-being and good. And this evil spares neither person nor industry nor profession.
With money, you are either in control or it controls you — as written in the Holy Scriptures (Matt 6:24, KJV): “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
When we spend money because it needs to be spent — as in spending for food when we are hungry — we are in control. But when we spend on wants, especially when it is totally unnecessary — as in spending for another pair of shoes when you already have three or more pairs that are still in good functioning condition or taking a ride when the destination is within 5 to 10 minutes walking distance and the path is shaded and well-maintained (a totally unnecessary spending, an over-indulgence), in contrast with spending for spending for a second pair of shoes because the first pair is for everyday use while the second pair will be for formal occasions or taking a ride to a destination within 5 to 10 minutes walking distance because you are already late for an important appointment (which is a want but not totally unnecessary) — then it is money that is in control.
Another thing is most people either cannot differentiate properly between need and want or they (intentionally) refuse to understand and differentiate the two and would go to any length to justify their unnecessary indulgences and claim them to be “legitimate” needs just so they will not feel guilty.
Needs are things that we cannot live without, such as food, whereas wants are everything else — usually things that are for convenience or makes our lives more comfortable. Moreover, there are needs that become wants but there will never be wants that become needs.
It is utter nonsense to think that something that we did not need suddenly becomes a necessity. One of these is the common excuse to justifying cars as needs when they used to be a luxury. Cars cannot be a necessity because there are more people who do not have cars and they manage very well so there cannot be a justification for cars being a necessity.
In conclusion, today, the line differentiating good from evil grows thinner and paler with each passing day and this is because people are giving in to the temptation of justifying their over-indulgences for the sake of greed (profit for business through their aggressive and unethical advertising and marketing campaigns), irresponsibility and inconsideration for others and the environment, and just plain self-interest and self-gratification. And evil is taking over via money.
TaN: The main problem of many such international associations such as countries is that they are too large (both in number of members and their overall population sizes). There is such a thing as economy of scale even in organizations. It can be noticed that most countries that are considered developed have (relatively) small(er) population sizes.
It is this small population that where (true, i.e., participative) democracy is possible. This can readily be seen in the Scandinavian countries, especially Finland. In most other so-called democratic countries, it is actually republicanism — where the people elect representatives to govern them instead of the direct governance of true participative democracy.
Although it is possible to have direct governance despite large populations, the problem is that if and when the need arises when a policy must be decided on or law be enacted, the time and effort consume to determine the consensus will take a very long time and this is impractical when there is urgency.
Moreover, such direct governance is possible only with a mature society — people who do not (really) need laws and policies in order to behave responsibly and act accordingly — i.e., with consideration for others. People would be able and always decide and act with the best interest of the common good.
As to the prevalent republicanism, the danger is that the representative elected can be one who has selfish interest and a personal agenda and was elected through manipulation, intimidation, corruption, chicanery, bribery, and all the other ways and devises where money can or is used to get elected.
This is evident in cases such as (but not limited to) the Philippines and although it is sad that we see people — especially those who are well educated — still making bad candidate choices, the blame cannot be totally placed on them.
There is also the matter of the choice of candidates available. Oftentimes, there are just no good candidates to choose from — as in the of the Philippines and the recent elections of/in the United States of America. In these instances, the voter is in a dilemma — to opt for the “lesser of the bad candidates” is to give into what is wrong — and, by the way, it is NOT a choice — whereas to abstain would just be a party to whoever wins the election.
One possible reason for this is the instance that happen some years back in one election in the Philippines where a prominent business tycoon and former Cabinet member had to run for election as barangay captain because their exclusive village is within the jurisdiction of a large squatters colony and one of the latter is running. If the rich do not run, the poor is unopposed and their village will be at the mercy of the squatters.
In the case of national elections, there is a slew of ill-qualified scoundrels who are more than eager to run for public office and none from those who should be running. This results in having no choice but to vote for someone who is expectedly bad for the country or abstain. And, as mentioned above, abstaining is not a better alternative.
Finally and to return to the original topic, democracy, for all its good points, is not really the ideal form of governance system. Instead, the ideal governance system is benevolent dictatorship — the system in place in Heaven. In Heaven, there is no voting or consensus-taking in decision-making. What God says goes. There is neither any argument nor discussion. It is efficient and effective.