Economic Reformation of the Heart
There are those among the classics including the modern who have in the height of the Great Recession claimed that Political Will is the conscience of the people relative to culture; a majority culture eventually gave rise to a majority rule. This majority rule is taken for granted as a right, and individuals have claimed it to be a birthright hence; inalienable right. This has somewhat repeated over time that the few have a natural right to dictate the terms of survival for everyone else.
For a start, Political Will must comply with the principles of Democracy which is not a number representation. And secondly, when 'conscience' and 'rights' are involved, we are talking rational or valid values and principles that sanctions a practice or objective contribution to the organisation of society; objective social relations. And thirdly, the outcome of which is conducive to a 'consensus' or 'social contract'. That is; individuals are 'Free' to participate in the activities of their society.
In My Social Relations, the preceding value is traced to the elements of self; the subjective material vs pure principle; or self construct vs being, and subjective vs objective. The departure of principle values binding the material destabilises the element of the material self into nothingness. This is previously referred to as 'stripping the material'; when the material is reduced to it's pure self, it fails to uphold a stable existent and caught in a downward spiral. And at the same time, the objectification of the material into being must ensure the individual's freedom is validly attached.
Material Freedom is bound by force and by subjective material desire therefore invalid. Political Freedom is the exercise of power whether firepower or wealth as a means of persuasion is also invalid. It is Rational Freedom that upholds the individual's right to produce the outcome as 'Natural'. And we have also explained the God principle in Nature that man is not dictated by the will of God but consciously aware of what ought to be the right thing to do. Pure Freedom is innocent of the law and not obliged to expectations.
An atheist version of pure freedom is where a consensus might rule that a culprit must be executed in order to safe keep citizens. But Natural Pure Freedom has an in-built tendency to preserve life, opt for alternative measures of restoring natural relationships. Purity in itself has no purpose, but Natural purity has an inborn objective purpose. And recently; there is 'Something in Nothingness', it could be subjective entity or objective being.
By looking at the above, it is not possible to have a valid Political Will that binds social relations objective. Any laws resulting from political will are usually arbitrary. And these arbitrations are normally imposed to prevent some groups from gaining access or advantage to resources and or to legislate some common activity to gain popular political opportunism. But the conscience in Nature spans beyond politics and its culture to reach all of humanity irrespective of the individual's following. That is why it is a universal and an inalienable right.
So far we have established the pure basis of natural law that is innately common. By nature we have 'claim of right' to protest our grievances but we don't have a natural right to execute our trespasses. Political will is largely representative of a culture which might cause an uprising against the decision, but even they are not free. They are motivated by desire. A law which favours one party over the other is unstable, but the sanction of the principle based on Nature validates and stabilises the law.
The Political Will therefore is natural in the sense that the outcome produces an objective purpose to the order of society. The conscience spans cultural and patriotic sentiments to reach the most people, and their collective conscience upholds what ought to be the right thing to do. It is not a majority rule, rather a collective consensus. So, collective is not referring to a pure group but a collective from various groups sharing a common understanding.
I have claimed earlier that a conscious collective is subjective in a sense that individuals are motivated by passion and desires accumulated by the senses, but the collective conscience is when the senses are elevated to their rational functions. The outcome therefore is not a knee jerk reaction or a spur of the moment decision, but a reasoned response that has considered the consequences. And there you have Democracy not a conscious collective or majority rule and or popular opinion based on a desire, but a rational decision that spans the hearts and minds of citizens irrespective of their cultures and beliefs or standings.
It is an appeal to that portion of the mind which connects to the heart, and motivates us to be responsible and considerate of our fellow human beings. An appeal in times of severe economic hardship, that those at the bottom of society are just as human as anyone of us with needs, aspirations, and struggles. It is suggested that by distribution of the means of survival according to one's share based on his/her standing is already reasoned as a violation of universal and inalienable rights. It has divided the preceding basis for decision making, and as long as a political will motivates a ruling regime on one wing of the nation, it would continue to prolong the struggle to make ends meet.
Reformations have for as long as time immemorial been the reinforcement of the social structure by forever impoverishing the poor and weak of society. While wealth and resources of society are transferred from the bottom to the top few, an aggregate of social consequences are accumulated at the bottom. The struggle for survival might force him to borrow what he previously owned and by subjugating his labour to someone else. But someone else has borrowed from another who may or may not exist. If wealth is transferred from the bottom to the top, and at the same time the top borrows more, the bottom would be paying off twice as much. And this is not possible as the income only accumulate interests on what's owing. It is therefore hinted at a loan from the transferred wealth, and not from a third party. It is definitely absurd to do both.
There is no proof of economic growth gained by impoverishing the poor other than to reinforce that a fundamental element of the market is that wealth cannot be generated by the few rich alone. They need the poor to generate values. And by now we all know what constitute values that uphold social relations of the market distinct from subjective materialism. An economy lacking a heart in the market has no spirit and will fail to grow...