Erinn Earth - devaPriya Yogini,

The first situation is family, then there is family and relatives, then there is clan, then there is a nation or country, then there is global control. In that order control happens.

Control has to be here and cannot be eliminated by anyone. Resenting it will not change this.

In the family, the parents are the dictators. In the family and relatives or the extended family, the elderly ones generally are the dictators.

In the clan, a group of elders serve as the dictators such that for instance, one can be banished from the tribe or killed or imprisoned, restricted by the elders’ orders.

In the nation or country, you have elders again of various clans running things with one person having the major influence as the dictator. This person may or may not have massive power depending on the history of the clan.Then there is global control which only means one nation as the planet itself being one country which is what the world will evolve to being in the near future.

Some people did not like that the States join together as the United States and have laws which are federal which override local laws. Similarly, some persons will resist the formation of one nation for the entire planet.

The Brits, some of them, wanted to split from the (EU) European Union. That happened but only superficially. History shows that it is an evolution to move from tribes or clans to a nation. And in all cases some specific tribe or clan or group will lose, as how for instance the South lost their human property (slaves) by the Union of the United States and laws enforced at gun point even by one group which claimed that they were right and the slavers were wrong.It does not matter what it is, the point is that some will control and stipulate and there will always be one group which does not like something and does not agree to something. Therefore, in the democratic way, they say people should vote to decide who will have his way. As soon as that decision is made the minority group will be offended and will want to take up arms to fight for what they want.

But the question is:What is the way of history or nature?What is practical?

Is it right or wrong? That is not the question because there will always be someone who feels that an action should or should not be imposed. Everyone will never agree all together. Hence agreeing to disagree, one has to fall under some rule of some system. Total freedom for everyone is not practical.

The idea about the constitution giving everyone rights to do what they want, makes no sense because not every person in the country at the time when it was written and proposed originally, agreed to it. But what happens is that those who disagreed were effectively suppressed, squeezed out, and to this day, those voices are not even mentioned in the history. The other misleading thing is that the people who wrote it were either Brits or descendants of Brits who were informed of and progressive on the history of Britain. They used that history to present their idea. It was on the basis of Brit history and particularly French history that the freedom from tyranny ideas flourished. It was not an American idea originally.And we must remember that these same freedom people killed off and disenfranchised the native Americans. The whole proposal to use the constitution makes no sense because the morals of those people are put to question when we considered how they seized the land of the indigenous people they found here. And how did they use their guns? What is the example there for us to follow?

There will be those in control who dictate much of what we do or do not do. That is gong to happen. If we get guns and kill those who want to control us, we, as the rebels, will then have to face down each other and fight again to determine who among us dominate. It is best in my view to make the best of this human development by accepting the reality that some of us have to rule over some of us and in that there will be things some who are governed do not want to do,