Who Needs the Pen to Be Mightier than the Sword

Its in the common interest to create a society where "the pen is mightier that the sword" if only because the pen is less dangerous that the sword and mistakes with a pen are easier to fix than those committed with a sword. The first attempt at political organization probably stemmed from two lines of historical experience that have proven beneficial if not crucial for the survival of humanity: family and tribal loyalty on one hand, and the importance of preserving preferred hereditary traits leading to more productive crops and domesticated animals. The logic consequences of these line of thinking was the absolutist hereditary monarchy which failed in the long term after numerous obstinate attempts to make it work. The first attempts at democracy the most well-known in Ancient Greece were not very impressive too: they managed to kill Socrates and loose their freedom to a dictator - Alexander and later to Imperial Rome.

Only the unique combination of Enlightenment in Western Europe (brought in part by Arabic and Muslim cultural influences both original and through their acting as an intermediary for the penetration in Europe of Ancient Indian and Chinese culture and their role for the preservation of Ancient Greek and Roman sources), combined with the advances in trade and industry brought to the initially fledgeling democracies of Switzerland and the North of Europe to culminate with the creation of the U.S.A.

The problems is that even after the end of the cold war and a seeming worldwide consensus on the fact that their is no alternative to liberal democracy and market economy as the only political and economic guarantees for aligning the interests of the individuals to create viable political and economic entities, too many of the countries whose governments proclaim adherence to the above principles (often under some international pressure) in reality develop corrupt states, harboring organized crime and terrorists and stiffing economic development while covertly or overtly abusing the human rights of their hapless citizens.

It cannot be that the citizens of these failed or failing states want this. It is against their interests. I cannot be that the people of the developed countries want them to suffer too if not so much for reasons of sympathy and compassion but more realistically because of the danger that oppression and crime in one country can easily spill over the world through mafia activities, terrorism and the actions of the corrupt state causing suffering and death regardless of borders, cultural preferences and political allegiance.

From a political point of view the easiest way to deal with one's interests may be to take care of everything on your own. Retire in the mountains, fish and hunt for dinner and forget about the rest of the world. That may be a boring but feasible and with some luck sustainable existence. The security, freedom and opportunities of civilization come with complications and danger of becoming a slave of nonessential desires and activities. But it's the only prudent way.

Proper institutions may help but ultimately its everyone's responsibility to take pursue personal goals. The care of others though gives the power and ability to pursue these goals more efficiently and effectively while mainlining a level of security and freedom impossible individually. Freedom as understood by Roosevelt in his four freedoms: "freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom of faith and freedom of expression".

Interests and Rights

Philosophy

The thesis that individual interests ultimately converge to form municipal, national and international political and business institutions will be the focal point of my research. Initially the priorities of these interests can be discerned as personal above community and if rated by urgency short term as more important than long term. An qualitative prioritization of interests is possible along a modified Maslow's pyramid of needs could follow the the prioritization along the lines of security/survival issues, followed by freedom and last the existence of opportunities for building a better life. In other words: you cannot be free if you fear about your security and you cannot be sure of your safety if your fate is determined by someone else when you are not free, and you cannot be either safe or free if you are denied opportunities to work for your happiness.

Political reality is a social construct. There is no contradiction in the above statement. Political institutions are created by people acting together to pursue their common goals. On the other hand institutions impose, rules of behaviour, utilise resources and change the world in ways that affect not only the people that created them and not only in ways that were initially intended. Consequently, people can change these embodiments of their political ideas in ways they consider better suited to further their (people's) goals. The influence, growth and durability of these institutions depends on how well they work towards furthering the interests of the people involved in them and the resistance they encounter. Individual rights are a rough guide towards this stated compliance of policies with interests. The more universal recognition rights have the more people will work towards defending them consequently these rights will have more weight.

Therefore ultimately the priority of interests will be cyclical with the individual interested in promoting collective interests as this will help achieve individual goals more effectively and efficiently and the same is valid for the interdependence of short term and long term interests. While immediate needs might be more pressing especially if they involve security and survival, but planning ahead can make survival and safety much more easier to achieve. The interdependence of interests grouped by survival/security, freedom and opportunity is discussed in the first paragraph.

Conclusion
The reason why game theory often does not lead to satisfactory results when analysing real life developments. s that people tend to escalate often and fast from security/survival/sustainability concerns to attempts to secure freedom and striving towards opportunity led by the correct understanding that they are inseparably linked. That's why rebellions are possible because innovation is humanities most proven method to deal with adversity and freedom and opportunity are crucial for innovation.