COPYRIGHT(C)2000 OUR-EXISTENCE.NET ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
TOP
Mail
SEPARATING EACH STATE POWER INTO THE TWO SYSTEMS OF THAT OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THAT OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS
BASIC WORDS
THESE BOOKS
This "SEPARATING EACH STATE POWER INTO THE TWO SYSTEMS OF THAT OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THAT OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS" can be called "This Book." This book, "EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY," "DETAILS OF EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY," "SENSATIONS AND RECOLLECTIONS OF IMAGES," "EGOS AND THEIR TENDENCIES," "FACING TENDENCIES FALLING INTO A VICIOUS CIRCLE," and "PARTICULAR THINGS AND GENERAL THINGS" are called "These Books" in this book.
THE CONSTITUTION OR FUNDAMENTAL LAW
The law which all the laws should be based on in each state, nation, or country can be called the "Constitution," "Fundamental Law," or the like. If the representation is not unified, some misunderstandings will be caused. Therefore it is called the Constitution in these books.
LIBERAL RIGHTS
Individuals' causing their intentional functions just as egos intend can be called "Freedom." In addition, the pieces of freedom which need to be admitted in the constitution can be called "Liberal Rights." Today, the freedom of life and body, that of speech and thought, that of private property and contract, and so forth are provided by the constitution in almost every country, state, or nation. However, only by providing them in the constitution, they cannot be protected or secured practically. In order for the constitution itself and liberal rights to be protected, we need to prevent powers from running wildly, and in order to do so, the systems like democratic systems and separations of powers which can check powers need to be arranged. Moreover, the constitution needs to provide those systems clearly.
That some other individuals or groups hinder some intentional functions contained in a liberal right of an individual from being caused can be called the "Violation" of the liberal right by them or their Violating it.
In contrast to violation, some other individuals or groups' preventing a liberal right of an individual from being violated can be called the "Protection" of it by them or their Protecting it.
POWERS
The individuals or groups, their functions, or their means which have the abilities to destroy, restrain, or promote some other individuals or groups, their functions, or their means directly or indirectly can be called "Powers." The powers which have the abilities to destroy or restrain them directly and physically can be called "Armed Forces." Armed forces are included in powers. Some powers have the abilities to violate liberal rights. Armed forces have the abilities to violate liberal rights directly and physically.
However, some powers have the abilities not only to violate liberal rights but also to protect them by restraining some other powers from violating them. Armed forces have the abilities not only to violate them but also to protect them directly and physically by restraining some other powers from violating them. For example, some armed forces have the abilities to protect the liberal right of life and body by restraining violence from violating it.
Moreover, not only do some powers have the abilities to violate or to protect liberal rights but also some other powers have those to secure social rights which will be defined later. For example, some departments of the administrative power has the ability to promote human lives and health by improving social structures and promoting the welfare.
In addition, some powers have the abilities not only to violate, to protect, or to secure human rights but also to destroy or to preserve some other living things and nature. For example 1, some departments of the administrative power has the abilities to destroy nature by overissuing public enterprises and some other departments have those to preserve it by regulating its destruction. For example 2, armed forces have the abilities to injure or to kill not only some human beings but also some other living things.
STATE POWERS
The powers which need to exist and function in order to protect or secure human rights can be called "Public Powers." State powers, legislative ones, administrative ones, judicial ones, local legislative ones, local administrative ones, the police, the military, and so on are public powers. In addition, the armed forces which need to exist and function in order to protect or secure human rights can be called Public Armed Forces. The police, the military, or the like are public armed forces. In addition, the complex of public powers which need to contain some public armed forces and which need to be separated at least into the three powers of the legislative power, administrative power, and judicial power can be called a "State Power." In addition, a state power, the human beings whose human rights it should protect or secure, and the other living things and nature including the land within certain borders can be called a "State," "Nation," "Country," or the like. The word of "state" was usually used in these books.
In contrast to public powers, state powers included, it cannot help being recognized that there are some private powers. The largest of such private powers are "economic powers" like companies and firms. In addition, in contrast to public powers, state powers included, it cannot help being recognized that there are some private powers which affect public powers or are looked upon as the means to acquire them. For example, as such private powers, there have been some armed forces to win stark struggles for powers and the human powers, money, and technology to win elections or to manipulate public opinion. Public powers, state powers included, and the private powers which affect public powers or are looked upon as the means to acquire them can be called "Political Powers."
POLITICAL RIGHTS
The rights for individuals to affect public powers, state powers included, and their laws, systems, organizations, and functions directly or indirectly through voting, speech, inspection, lawsuit, and so forth can be called "Political Rights" or "Democratic Rights."
They are also the means to protect or secure general human rights and to maintain or enlarge and deepen democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law.
Political rights can be looked upon as a component of democratic systems, too. In these books, the meaning of the words of democratic systems contain the meaning of the words of political rights in these books.
THE RIGHT TO EXIST IN GENERAL
As was explained in "EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY," the right derived from the desire and purpose to totally abolish and prevent totally destructive means and to reduce the unnecessary, persistent, and large-scale pain caused by human beings as in general as possible can be called the "Right to Exist in General." However, also in that book, the following is recognized: "... suppose that the use of totally destructive means extinguish the human beings on the earth, it is a violation of liberal rights of the freedom of life and body of billions or tens of billions of human beings and a failure to secure social rights of the maintenance of minimum lives of the same number of human beings. In order for human beings or evolved ones to exist until the drastic change of the earth or the sun and to reduce their pain, we need to maintain the minimum lives and the health of hundreds or thousands of billions of them and prevent world wars, massacres, and so forth. The former is included in the security of social rights, and the latter is included in the protection of liberal rights. Thus, the ultimate desire is included in liberal rights and social rights. Thus, it is not at all that the ultimate desire cannot be satisfied unless the right to exist in general is established." Therefore, this book, too, will not mention the right to exist in general unless necessary above all.
THE PART OF A STATE POWER VIOLATING AND PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS
More than any other powers do, some parts of each state power have the abilities to violate liberal rights, and the public armed forces have the abilities to violate them directly and physically. There are some parts of a state power which have the abilities to violate liberal rights. They can be called the "Part of a State Power Violating Liberal Rights."
However, some parts of each state power have the abilities to protect liberal rights by restraining some other powers from violating them, and the public armed forces have the abilities to protect them directly and physically by restraining some other powers from violating them. There are some parts of a state power which have the abilities to protect liberal rights. They can be called the "Part of a State Power Protecting Liberal Rights."
As is significant, the part of a state power violating liberal rights and the part protecting them are much the same. For example 1, the same police or military can violate them by being abused by autocrats, and can protect them under the separation of the three powers and the rule of law. For example 2, the judicial power often protects liberal rights when its independence is secured, and it often violate them when its independence is not secured. Metaphorically, they are two sides of the same coin or a double-edged sword. The part of a state power violating liberal rights and the part protecting them which are much the same can be called the "Part of a State Power Violating and Protecting Liberal Rights." However, when the words "violating and protecting" are always used, the sentences will be complicated. Therefore it is also called the Part of a State Power Protecting Liberal Rights in these books. All the same, when it is necessary to emphasize that it contains the part violating liberal rights, the words of the Part of a State Power Violating and Protecting Liberal Rights will be used.
By the way, before the realization of democratic systems and the separation of the three powers, each state power had been providing crimes and punishments by law, holding courts and deciding innocence or guilt and punishment when guilty, and administering punishment. These processes can be called "(Traditional) Trial Processes." A lot of the crimes provided by law have been private powers' violating liberal rights. Though the following was not intended, as a result, those trial processes have had the functions of making state powers prevent liberal rights from being violated by private powers to a degree. In addition, to a degree, they have had the functions of binding state powers by law and of restraining them from violating liberal rights.
Again, it is to a degree that they have had those functions. They are not enough to protect liberal rights actively. Therefore human beings have realized liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law mainly in order for liberal rights to be protected mainly in Western Europe and North America mainly since the eighteenth century.
Democratic systems are systems where citizens check state powers less indirectly. In contrast, the separation of the three powers is a system which separates the state power into the three parts of the legislative power, the administrative power, and the judicial power and makes them check one another.
THE PART OF A STATE POWER SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS
However, human beings seek not only liberty but also, of course, existence and, at least, the minimum lives. Simply, life and health is more compelling than freedom. Before social rights were recognized or sought, there had been economic inequality, economic contradictions, and so forth, and human beings had sought the minimum lives.
All the same, without liberal rights of speech, political rights, and so forth, citizens cannot claim the minimum lives. After citizens had attained liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law to a degree, they came to be able to claim the minimum lives. In addition, after the beginning of the rapid development of science and technology and the Industrial Revolution had made economic inequality and some contradictions of the capitalistic economy clear, they start claiming the minimum lives intensely and clearly.
All the same, individuals and groups with some capital can make full use of it and of the individuals with little capital and store more and more capital on the basis of the freedom of private property and contract. Though enterprises are free to compete, they are also free to compromise, such compromises bring about monopoly, the monopoly paralyzes the "invisible hand," and causes depression, unemployment, and so forth. Thus, only by realizing liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, the separation of the three powers, and so forth, there are still economic inequality and some contradictions of capitalistic economy, and many individuals are forced to undergo dreadful lives.
Therefore citizens have been claiming the rights to live and to work, providing them by law, enlarging the financial and human powers in state powers to secure the minimum lives and to promote the welfare and enlarging and strengthening the authorities to secure the minimum working condition.
In addition, though capitalism makes much not only of economic competition among enterprises but also of social competition among individuals, creative competition is possible when children are equally educated and the young get to equal starting points. Therefore citizens have made state powers provide children with the minimum education.
Moreover, since the latter half of the twentieth century, the destruction of the nature by the expansion of enterprises and human daily lives has been exposed more and more and has been threatening human life and health. Therefore citizens have been making state powers regulate the destruction of the nature.
The rights for citizens to make public powers, state powers included, maintain or promote life, health, the minimum lives, the minimum labor conditions, the minimum education, and so forth, in short, existence can be called "Social Rights," the Right to Live in a Broad Sense, or the Right to Exist in a Broad Sense. Public powers' maintaining or promoting them can be called their "Security" of social rights or Securing social rights.
Thus, there are some parts in each state power which have the ability to secure social rights. That parts consist of the authorities to regulate and coordinate enterprises, the relations between them, and those between labor and management, the financial and human powers to construct and maintain social structures, those to promote the welfare, those to provide children with the minimum education, the authorities to regulate the destruction of the nature, and so forth. The parts of a state power which have the ability to secure social rights can be called the "Part of a State Power Securing Social Rights."
THE CONTRAST BETWEEN LIBERAL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ONES
Liberal rights and social rights make a good contrast, and so do the part of a state power violating and protecting liberal rights and that securing social rights.
The part of a state power protecting or violating liberal rights protects them by restraining some other powers from violating them. If this part restrains any individuals who are not doing any unconstitutional or illegal behaviors, it is a violation of liberal rights by this part. Whether it violates or protects liberal right, this part restrains individuals and groups' bodies, functions, or means. In contrast, the functions of the part securing social rights are to promote individuals and groups' bodies, functions, and means, for example, lives, health, knowledge, skill, houses, roads, ports, and so forth.
Though the following is extreme examples, liberal rights are violated when the part protecting them is functioning actively. In contrast, the social rights are secured when the part securing them is functioning actively. Liberal rights are protected when the part protecting them is lazy. In contrast, social rights are not secured when the part securing them is lazy. The part protecting liberal rights needs to be restrained so that those rights can be protected. In contrast, the part securing social rights needs to be promoted so that those rights can be secured.
Abstractly speaking, when some of the existence and functions of an individual can be restrained by some powers and when the possibility that those existence and functions are restrained gets smaller by some parts of a state power's restraining those powers which restrain those existence and functions, the individual's seeking those existence and functions is a liberal right. In contrast, when some of the existence and functions of an individual or group can hardly be maintained or promoted without any powers and when the possibility that those existence and functions are maintained or promoted gets larger by some parts of a state power's doing something, the individual or group's seeking such existence and functions is a social right. For example, seeking the same life can be either a liberal right or a social right. When an individual's life is about to be violated by the violence of some other individuals or groups and is protected by the administrative power's restraining the violence, seeking such life is a liberal right, more closely, the freedom of life and body. In contrast, when a family's life are in danger because of the shortage of food and water and are saved by the administrative power's supplying them, seeking such life is a social right, more closely, right to live in a narrow sense.
RESTRICTION OF SOME PARTS OF SOME LIBERAL RIGHTS FOR THE PROTECTION OR SECURITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS
A lot of traditional crimes like murder, injury, threat, theft, and deceit can also be looked upon as the violation of liberal rights by public and private powers. For example, murder and injury can be looked upon as the violation of the freedom of life and body, and theft and deceit the violation of the freedom of private property and contract. All the same, the concept and practice of crime and punishment had been existed for thousands of years before the beginning of the assertion of liberal rights. In addition, though the assertion of liberal rights involved the necessity of warrants, the right to appeal, and so forth, they have not impaired the separation of the three powers or the rule of law but have improved them and made them stricter. In addition, the initial assertion of liberal rights concentrated not on private powers but on state powers. In addition, if democratic systems, the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law are strict, they can check state powers to a great degree, and they prevent state powers from violating liberal rights. Therefore, as long as those systems are strict, those systems, the concept and practice of crime and punishment, and liberal rights are not contradictory.
All the same, it is still probable that the concept of crime and punishment is made vague and expanded by the holders of powers and that citizens' right, above all, liberal rights are violated. Therefore we had better redefine crimes as the violation of some human rights by public or private powers. For example, an assault on the president or the prime minister can be looked upon as the violation of their liberal rights, that is, the freedom of life and body, and, as long as they are elected by citizens directly or indirectly, it can be looked upon as the violation of citizens' political rights.
Then, remaining problems are some conflicts among rights. As for the conflict between the freedom of speech and expression and the education of children, it is the conflict between liberal rights and social rights, and so it will mentioned in the following section.
As was done above, when crimes are redefined as the violation of human rights, it can be looked upon as the restriction of the liberal right of the freedom of body for the sake of the protection or security of human rights that the suspected are investigated, arrested, or detained, or go into the process of trials or that those who are convicted are punished. Also here, their freedom of thought and speech is not restricted. Simply, they can say anything or nothing in all the processes from interrogations to trials to punishment. In addition, as long as death penalty is abolished, the freedom of life is never restricted.
As for the conflict between the freedom of speech and expression and defamation and invasion of privacy, the pride and privacy of general citizens should be more protected from now on than so far. In contrast, how about the pride and privacy of politicians, public officers, and economic and social authorities? From the beginning, liberal rights, above all, the freedom of speech, began as not that dealing with private powers or general citizens but that dealing with public or political powers, above all, state powers. From that viewpoint, it is funny that the freedom of speech should head toward general citizens. Therefore, as far as general citizens are concerned, it is tolerated that the prevention of defamation and protection of privacy have priority over the freedom of speech. In addition, those of public officers who do not have heavy responsibilities or authorities can have as much or a little less priority as or than those of general citizens have.
In contrast, the freedom of the speech and expression concerning public powers including state powers in themselves and what are involved in them is a liberal right which need not and should not be restricted for the sake of anything. A little more closer, the freedom of the speech and expression concerning the policies, ordinances, and actual functions of the administrative power including the military and the police, customary laws, written laws, constitutions, and international laws and the functions of the legislative power, the functions of the judicial power, the functions of municipalities, and political systems in general, and the public functions of public officers including chiefs is a liberal right which need not and should not be restricted for the sake of anything. This need to be clearly provided in the constitution.
In contrast, what about the speech and expression concerning the things other than public functions of those public officers like, for example, private lives and personalities? As for the chief and the senior officers of the administrative power, the chiefs and the senior officers of its departments including the police and the military, the members of the legislative power, politicians seeking those positions, and the judges of the judicial power, their private lives and personalities need to be taken account of when they are elected, appointed, promoted, or dismissed. In addition, they can restrict liberal rights in general under the pretext of the prevention of defamation and invasion of privacy. On those grounds, the freedom of the speech and expression concerning them, too, is a liberal right which need not and should not be restrained for the sake of anything.
After all, the freedom of the speech and expression concerning public powers and their holders is all a liberal right which need not and should not be restricted for the sake of anything.
RESTRICTION OF SOME PARTS OF SOME LIBERAL RIGHTS FOR THE SECURITY OF SOCIAL RIGHTS
As early as in the first half of the twentieth century, for the sake of the security of some social rights like the right to exist in a narrow sense and some rights of laborers, some liberal rights like the freedom of private property and contract were restricted. Moreover, after the last half of the twentieth century, the parts of liberal rights which are restricted for the sake of the security of social rights are spreading. For example 1, the freedom of the expression like adult videos is restricted for the sake of the education of children. For example 2, the freedom of private property and contract is restricted for the sake of the preservation of the nature. For example 3, in order to prevent the spread of some infectious diseases, infected persons are sometimes isolated, and their freedom of body is restricted.
However, they are not all but some parts of not all but some liberal rights which can be restricted only for the sake of not all but some social rights. Those parts which can be restricted and those parts which can restrict them need to be clearly stipulated in the constitution and stirictly defined.
THE LIBERAL RIGHTS WHICH NEED NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED FOR THE SAKE OF ANYTHING
In this place, we had better confirm and summarize the liberal rights (1) which need not and should not be restricted for the sake of any right including liberal rights or social rights or anything. (1) are the following:
(1-1) The freedom of life (in each state where there is no death penalty)
(1-2) The freedom of pure mental functions like thinkings and emotions, for example, that of thought and belief
(1-3) The freedom of speech and expression concerning public powers and their holders.
Some parts (2-1) of the other liberal rights (2) are restricted under certain conditions (a) for the sake of some human rights (b). In other words, as long as there are no (a), the other parts (2-2) of (2) are liberal rights which need not and should not be restricted for the sake of any right or anything. For example, the freedom of body of those with arrest warrant or conviction or the diagnosis of designated infectious disease is not complete liberty, but the freedom of body of those without them is a liberal right which need not and should not be restricted for the sake of anything.
It is impossible for the constitution to clearly provide all of (1)(2), that is, all liberal rights. In contrast, it is possible for it to clearly provide all of (1) and (2-1), and (a) and (b). It is necessary and possible that the constitution clearly provides (1) and (2-1), and (a) and (b).
DEVIATION OF A STATE POWER FROM SOCIAL RIGHTS
However, by displaying some pretexts like the security of social rights or the security of the existence of human beings or living things, some state powers can restrict and violate the liberal rights which need not and should not be restricted for the sake of anything, obscure the conditions under which some parts of some liberal rights are restricted, impair liberal rights in general, democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law, and run wildly to autocracy, totalitarianism, or the like. Such have been experienced in the twentieth century as autocracy, totalitarianism, old communism, and so forth.
Nonetheless, we have never resolved class struggle, economic inequality, the contradictions of capitalist economy, and so forth yet. Communism, socialism, and so forth can revive, and some parts of them are necessary. All the same, they are necessary only in the part of a state power securing social rights, and they are not only unnecessary but also unfit in the part protecting liberal rights. In the part protecting liberal right, liberal rights, democratic systems including political rights, the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law which are strict need to function.
In addition, from now on, more and more on the global level, the environment deteriorates, natural resources are exhausted, and the population is reaching that which can be maintained barely on the earth. In those situations, the economy and citizens' lives are being tightened more and more. In those situations and dynamics, it is the security of social rights of world citizens to preserve the environment, to preserve and make good use of natural resources, to maintain the appropriate population, to stabilize the economy, and to secure the minimum lives of citizens, and in order to secure them, synthetic policies need to be planed and carried out. However, it is probable that somebody creates a far-fetched kind of totalitarianism from such necessity of synthetic policies. That is, it is possible that a kind of totalitarianism displaying the pretext of the existence of the whole of the living things or human beings or the like emerges. That a state power restricts or violates liberal rights, democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law by showing the pretexts enumerated above can be called the "Deviation" of the State Power from Social Rights or the State Power's Deviating from Social Rights.
In order to plan and carry out the synthetic polices explained above and secure social rights in the situations and dynamics explained above, policies are debated with the freedom of speech included in liberal rights and fair elections included in democratic systems more actively than ever. The deviation from social rights does not function even for the security of social rights or the existence of living things including human beings. Also in order to secure social rights, we need to ensure liberal rights, democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law.
THE ABUSE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INCLUDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY BY POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC POWERS
Science and technology progresses if it is left alone. It progresses all the more if it is aligned with political or economic powers. That alignment has already brought about the environmental destruction, the depletion of natural resources, the exponential growth of the world population, and, above all, the development and hold of totally destructive means. From now on, it will bring about not only the above but also the human lives which is unhealthy both physically and mentally. This physical and mental unhealthiness is such as we can hardly foresee. In those situations, science and technology, above all, information technology and biological technology are being criticized more and more.
In those situations, the writers of this book can assuredly say the following.
Of course, the holders of political and economic have abused various things, science and technology included. More and more from now on, science and technology, above all, information technology and biological technology will be abused.
First, at least part of the tally of the votes of elections, referendums, and so forth will be done with information technology. With such electric tally it is more possible than with traditional tally that the holders of public powers fabricate those returns.
Second, in the situations explained earlier, while reserving the environment, reserving and effectively using natural resources, and maintaining the appropriate population, in order to stabilize the economy and secure the minimum lives of citizens, synthetic policies need to be planed and carried out, and some pieces of information technology will be used in that planning. Here it is possible that the holders of political and economic powers fabricate those policies in order for them to fit their interests and that they announce that those policies were planned by "artificial intelligence" and are the fairest and the fittest. Such synthetic policies are hard to plan whether they are planned by the wisest human beings or the most sophisticated artificial intelligence or both of them in collaboration. With their interests involved there, the appropriate policies cannot be planned.
Third, concerning biological technology, the more it progress, the higher medical care will be, but we cannot foresee whether the cost of higher medical care will be higher or lower and whether or not general citizens will be able to access it. Anyway, it is certain that the newest and highest medical care will be limited to a few of the holders of political and economic powers. Here it is possible that while they live long in good health, general citizens do not and that the latter cannot help being furious.
Those are the possibilities from now on. Also concerning the development and hold of nuclear weapons, the manipulation of genes, and the development of the space which are already going on, it is not scientists and technologists but the holders of political and economic powers who have been forming military-civilian-academic-industrial complexes, that have promoted them actively. Thus, more than science and technology in itself or scientists and technologists in themselves, we need to fear the abuse of them by the holders of political and economical powers,
SEPARATION OF A STATE POWER INTO THE TWO SYSTEMS OF THAT OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THAT OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN FUNCTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS
The functions and the organizations of a state power can be distinguished. For example, legislation in itself, administration in itself, and justice in itself are functions. In addition, the mutual check and cooperation between them are functions. In addition, the protection of liberal rights and the security of social rights are both functions. In contrast, houses and committees in the legislative power, departments, sections, the military, the police, and their units in the administrative power, and courts in the judicial power are organizations. No state powers could function if no organizations were constructed.
However, all that is necessary for citizens is that state powers function as a result. Their organizations exist for their functions. In order to improve state powers, we need to look over them while paying more attention to their functions than to their organizations and to reorganize the latter for the former. Moreover, when the functions of each state power can be clearly separated, by separating its organizations along the separation, the possibility comes into view that each state power is separated.
According to the findings so far, the functions of a state power protecting liberal rights and those securing social rights seem to be distinguished . First, let us distinguish the functions (of the rule of law)protecting liberal rights and the functions (of the human rule) securing social rights.
By the way, the separation of the three powers is a separation of a state power where the legislative power, the administrative power, and the judicial power are separated and check one another. Also in each of the three powers, it is necessary to distinguish between the four of the functions and the organizations protecting liberal rights and those securing social rights.
THE FUNCTIONS PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS
As was explained earlier, the part of a state power violating liberal rights and the part protecting them are much the same. Those which are almost the same can be called the Part of a State Power Violating and Protecting Liberal Rights. However, when the words "violating and protecting" are always used, the sentences will be complicated. Therefore it is also called the Part of a State Power Protecting Liberal Rights in these books. All the same, please do not forget that it contains the part of a state power violating liberal rights. The same applies to the functions, organizations, and so on of a state power protecting liberal rights.
Now, the following are the functions of a state power (violating and) protecting liberal rights.
It is possible and necessary that the constitution provides the outlines and the details to some extent of liberal rights, and the following which is necessary for the sake of the protection of liberal rights:
democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and rule of law; the separation of the public armed forces into the two group of the police and the military and the limitation of their functions to the protection of liberal rights, democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law; the ways for the civilian officers of the administrative power to control and check those public armed forces; the way for the legislative power and the judicial power to restrain the administrative power including those civilian officers.
It is possible and necessary that the legislative power provides the details to a great extent of the above provided in the constitution. In addition, it is possible and necessary that it provides the violation of liberal rights, democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law as crimes and provide the punishments when guilty.
It is possible and necessary that the civil officers in the administrative power, according to the constitution and laws, control and restrain the police and the military. It is possible and necessary that the prosecution and the police controlled and restrained by them, according to the constitution and laws, investigate, (arrest), interrogate, and prosecute suspects of crimes. It is possible and necessary that the military controlled and restrained by them prevent public or private forces from invading from the other states or regions. Moreover, it is possible and necessary that the legislative power and judicial power, according to the constitution and laws, prevent the chief or higher officers of the administrative power or those of the police or the military from abusing the public armed forces.
It is possible and necessary that the judicial power, according to the constitution and laws, holds courts, lead trials, and judge, concerning suspects of crimes, innocent or guilty and punishments when guilty.
It is possible and necessary that the administrative power, according to the constitution and laws and the decisions by the judicial power, administers the punishments.
As was explained earlier, it is some armed forces that can protect liberal rights directly by restraining some other armed forces from violating them. In a state power, it is public armed forces (separated into two forces of the police and the military) that can protect them directly by restraining some other forces from violating them. All the same, at least in each state, of all the powers, public armed forces are the direct and the strongest power violating liberal rights. Moreover, they sometimes violate not only liberal rights directly but also democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law indirectly, and can run wildly to autocracy, totalitarianism, or the like. In order to prevent those, it is possible and necessary not only that they are restrained by civilians and that they and those civilians are restrained in the separation of the three powers and the rule of law but also that the public armed forces is separated into, at least, the two forces of the police and the military, that the private and public violence in the state and the private small-scale violence invading the state are assigned to the former, and that the public violence and private but large-scale violence invading the state is assigned to the latter. Then, that strongest power can be separated into those two. More concretely, it is possible and necessary that the functions of the police are limited to the investigation, (arrest), and interrogation of suspects, the prevention of crimes, the rescue in case of disasters, and the prevention of man-made disasters and that the functions of the military are limited to national defense, collective security, the rescue in case of large-scale disasters, and the prevention of large-scale man-made disaster. In order for the police and the military to be limited to those functions, it is possible and necessary that the constitution provides the outlines of those functions and that the legislative power provides their details in laws. In addition, it is possible and necessary that the chief and higher officers of the administrative power, and those of the police and those of the military ensure compliance with these regulations throughout the organization, that the police investigate, (arrest), and interrogate, and prosecute the suspects of the deviation from those provisions even in the police in themselves, even if they are bosses or colleagues. In addition, it is possible and necessary that the police investigate, (arrest), and interrogate, and prosecute the suspects of the deviation from those provisions even in the military.
However, some civil officers in the administrative power or some parties of the legislative power sometimes control the public armed forces totally, abuse them, violate liberal rights, democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law and run wildly to autocracy, totalitarianism, or the like. In order to prevent this, it is possible and necessary that general citizens, through democratic systems, above all, elections, check the chief of the administrative power and the members of the legislative power and that the administrative power, the legislative power, and the judicial power, in the separation of the three powers and the rule of law, restrain each other.
As was explained earlier, human beings have been providing crimes and penalties in the law, holding courts, deciding innocent or guilty and penalties when guilty, and administering them. These processes can be called "(Traditional) Trial Processes." Most crimes are private powers' violating liberal rights, and so those trial processes has had functions protecting liberal rights, too, to a degree. All the same, if strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law do not function, in those trial processes liberal rights are sometimes violated. Moreover, the holders of state powers abuse that process in order to violate liberal rights, political rights, and so forth and to run wildly to autocracy, despotism, or the like. For example, they violate the freedom of thought and speech and that of life and body of their opponents by providing that kind of speech as a treason and by diminishing judges' independence not formally but practically. In order to prevent those, it is possible and necessary that strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law function to those trial processes.
SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONS PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS
The above are the functions of a state power protecting liberal rights. Simply, the functions protecting liberal rights are (1) strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law, (2) the trial processes in (1), (3) the investigation, (arrest), and prosecution by the police and the prosecution restrained in (1)(2) of the suspects of the crimes which are the violation of liberal rights (and democratic and separative systems), and (4) the national defense by the military restrained in (1)(2)(3) against the invasions which are the violation of liberal rights (and democratic and separative systems). It is possible and necessary that strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law function in the functions protecting liberal rights.
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS WHICH NEED TO FUNCTION IN FUNCTIONS PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS
It would be unnecessary to explain the strict separation of the three powers and the strict rule of law in details, but it would be necessary to explain the strict democratic systems.
The words of the strict democratic systems mean that there is no injustice in elections, that there is no bribery between public and private organizations, and so on. However, they means the following, too, in these books.
In the functions protecting liberal rights, the public officers need to be fair and strict. It is, above all, superior officers that should be so. For example, those who, even if they overlook minor injustice by subordinates, never overlook major injustice by superiors are ideal public officers protecting liberal rights. They do not need to have the ability to make complicated and sophisticated policies. The democratic systems in the functions protecting liberal rights need to be those where general citizens can elect public officers who have such fairness and strictness. As for electoral systems, as far as the functions protecting liberal rights are concerned, it is better that small constituency systems be adopted, that proportional representation not be adopted, and that parties be excluded as strictly as possible. In these books, the words of strict democratic systems also mean those systems where fair and strict public officers can be elected directly and indirectly.
FUNCTIONS PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC AND SEPARATIVE SYSTEMS
First, democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law are violated by the direct violation of the liberal rights of the freedom of life and body of the chief and higher officers of the administrative power, the members of the legislative power, and the judges of the judicial power and by the indirect violation of their liberal rights of the freedom of speech and expression. Second, they are violated by violation of the liberal rights of the citizens who try to protest those violations. The power violating their liberal rights is the same as that violating general liberal rights. In addition, again and again, in order to protect liberal rights, we need to protect democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law. Therefore, in order to protect not only liberal rights but also democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law, it is necessary that those systems function, and it is possible. The functions protecting liberal rights and those protecting those systems overlap largely. In other words, those systems innately have functions protecting themselves. Democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law can be called "Democratic and Separative Systems," and the functions of a state power protecting liberal rights and the functions protecting democratic and separative systems which overlap largely can be called "Functions of the Rule of Law Protecting Liberal Rights and Democratic and Separative Systems," the Functions of the Rule of Law Protecting Liberal Rights, the Functions of the Rule of Law, or the Functions Protecting Liberal Rights. That is, even when the words of democratic and separative systems are omitted, those words mean the functions protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems in these books. Please do not forget this.
After all, while we intend to seek the functions protecting liberal rights, we have gotten to the functions protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems.
FUNCTIONS PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO EXIST IN GENERAL
The security of the right to exist in general consists of (1) totally abolishing and preventing totally destructive means and (2) reducing the unnecessary, persistent, and large-scale pain caused by human beings as in general as possible. For the sake of (1), the law and system for their abolition and prevention are arranged and administrated strictly in each state, in the international society or world, and in international or world organizations. First, the constitution needs to prohibit the research, development, hold, use, and trade of totally destructive means by any individual or group in the state and to provide that the state power should cooperate with other states and international or world organizations in the international society or the world for the total abolition and prevention of them. Second, the legislative power needs to prohibit those as crimes by law and to provide punishments for them. Third, the police and prosecution need to investigate and prosecute them. Fourth, the judicial power needs to judge on them. Fifth, the punishments need to be administrated. Those which are the targets of the investigations are, above all, the military, the chief and higher officers of the administrative power, public and private research institutes, large enterprises including multinational ones, and their collusion and corruption in each state and in the international society, above all, what is called military-industrial complexes. Therefore functions securing (1) composing the functions securing the right to exist in general are included in the functions protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems.
FUNCTIONS SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS
In contrast to the functions protecting liberal rights, though it is possible and necessary that the constitution provides the outlines of social rights and the way to secure them, it cannot provide their details.
In addition, though the legislative power can provide social rights and the way to secure them in the law more closely than the constitution, it cannot provide them as closely as it can provide those of liberal rights. For example 1, even if anybody provided in the law the ways and the norms of the promotion or restriction of the economy, they would change in a few weeks or months. For example 2, even if anybody provided in the law the concrete ways to promote health, science and technology including medicine would make progress and those ways would change in a few years. It is possible and necessary that such concrete ways and norms are researched or changed depending on the situations by some specialists, whether they are public officers or not, flexibly on the basis of science and technology. It is possible and necessary that the administrative power involving such specialists or cooperating with them flexibly research and carries out the policies for the security of social rights.
Concretely, the functions of a state power securing social rights are the following functions:
the collection, distribution, and management of the tax, the permissions to and regulation of enterprises, the coordination of labor and management, the construction and maintenance of social structures, the promotion of medical care and welfare, the mimum education of children, and the regulation of the destruction of the nature, and the science and technology to research and carry out them.
After all, the public armed forces, the functions controlling and checking them, and the prosecution excluded, most of the administrative power is functions securing social rights.
Though the judicial power, in particular cases, can point out the responsibility of the administrative power and decide on compensation when it fails to secure some social rights, it is not an active function for the security of them. In addition, such pointing out and decision occupies only a small part of the functions of the judicial power, and most of them are concerned with the protection of liberal rights and democratic and separative systems.
POWERS TO STOP OR TO PROPOSE TO STOP THE SERVICES OR PERMISSIONS WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PROVIDING
However, when some individuals or enterprises do not comply with their regulations, how the functions securing social rights can function to them? They can resort to the traditional means of appealing to trial processes, but they can do otherwise. While the functions protecting the liberal rights have their own power of the public armed forces, the functions securing social rights have their own power to stop or to propose to stop the services or the permissions which they have been providing. This power can also be called the "Power (of S system's Own) to Stop Services (or the Like) (with Which It Has Been Providing Us)." For example, when some enterprises do not comply with some regulations for the preservation of nature, the functions securing social rights can invalidate the business licenses which have been issued to them. Moreover, the functions securing social rights can stop the accesses or access permissions to ports, water, gas, electricity, information, comuication network, and so forth which they have been providing them. When some individuals abuse some pieces of welfare, they can stop them and some other pieces of welfare which they have been providing those individuals with. Such invalidation or stop is a sufficient sanction and power in the modern society. Thus, the functions securing social rights have their own power to stop or to propose to stop the services or the permissions which they have been providing others with, and they hardly need any public armed forces or trial processes.
This power originates from their having been securing social rights in itself and are contrastive to armed forces. While it becomes clear that the latter are a power when they function or propose to function, it becomes clear that the former is a power when it stops functioning or proposes to stop functioning.
Moreover, this power is effective against public powers including state powers which in turn include public armed forces. Above all when the public armed forces or the civil officers controlling them behave themselves unconstitutionally or illegally, this power is effective to restrain those behaviors. For example, when the military or the civil officers controlling them run wildly to autocracy or aggressive war, the functions securing social rights can stop the money, electricity, water, gas, communication network, information in itself, and so forth and can weaken the military. Here a few legal disputes will occur. In order to prevent them, it need to be provided in the constitution that when some individuals or public officers or organizations behave themselves unconstitutionally or illegally, the organization securing social rights has the right and duty to stop the services and permissions with which it has been providing them.
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS WHICH NEED TO FUNCTION IN THE FUNCTIONS SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS
Excluding the public armed forces, the functions controlling and checking them, and the prosecution, most of the administrative power is functions securing social rights. In the functions securing social rights, not only are the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law unnecessary, but also, if they are too strict, they are not appropriate. Then, how about democratic systems.
If the administrators of the functions securing social rights are appointed or selected by those who have political, economical, or social powers, their interests are given priority to, and the social rights of general citizens are hardly secured. Therefore the administrators of these functions need to be elected directly or indirectly by general citizens.
In addition, one of the causes of the failure of old communism was that the planners of the economy were absorbed in struggle for power inside or outside of the party and could not concentrate on the planning of the economy or fell into inability or that those who are fit for not that planning but that struggle became those planners. There is struggle not only outside but also inside of the proletariat. Old communism or socialism did not expect the struggle for power inside the proletariat. Though elections may be a kind of struggle for power and fierce, they are not as fierce as any other kind. Democratic systems are also necessary so that the administrators cannot be absorbed in struggle for power, that they can concentrate on the planning of the economy, and that those who are fit for that planning can be selected. However, another of the the causes for that failure was that not small part of the gross domestic product was spent for the expansion of armaments in the Cold War. All the same, the main cause of such expansion was again struggle for power in the bureaucracy inside the party. The elections of holders of powers in democratic systems reduce such struggle for power in general. Therefore democratic systems are necessary for all things including the security of social rights.
In addition, also in order for the policies for the security of social rights to become appropriate, those policies need to be discussed freely and actively. In addition, the planners of those policies and the candidates for those planners need to compete with one another concerning the contents of the policies and the abilities to plan and carry out them, and in elections, those candidates need to show those contents and abilities and compete with one another. In order for those to be done, liberal rights including the freedom of speech and democratic systems including fair elections are necessary.
General citizens might be unable to understand the details of their policy and the accuracy of their asserted abilities. However, most of the security of social rights is to satisfy the daily drives and desires, to increase pleasure emotions, and to decrease displeasure emotions. Therefore it is not a bad thing for general citizens to elect the planners of the policies for the security of social rights not by rationality but by emotions.
Above all in the functions securing social rights, it is necessary to prevent political powers' collusion with and bribery from economic powers. In order to prevent them, democratic systems by general citizens need to function. Of course, the strict separation of the three powers and the strict rule of law need to function to such collusion and bribery. From the beginning, the strict separation of the three powers and the strict rule of law need to function to the illegal or unconstitutional behaviors by public officers and organizations in general. It is necessary and possible that they are applied to all the public functions including the functions protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems and those securing social rights.
However, as long as political powers' collusion with and bribery from economic powers are excluded, the separation of the three powers and the rule of law do not need to function strictly to the functions securing social rights, and if they are too strict, they are not appropriate.
However, above all, the democracy in the functions securing social rights tend to fall into (1) governments' manipulating public opinion, flattering the people, seeking national interests excessively in the international society, and the like. All the same, they are not as bad as (2) autocracy, totalitarianism, and the like. Mental manipulation (1) is not as bad as physical manipulation (2), that is, violence. In addition, general citizens are deceived by (1) because their social rights are not secured. For example, they are deceived by flattering the people and seeking national interests excessively because their minimum lives are in danger. Also in order for general citizens not to fall into the (1), social rights need to be secured to a degree.
However, (1) can be permitted only in the functions securing social rights. The harm which the functions securing social rights tend to fall into like (1) needs to be excluded completely from the functions protecting liberal rights. For this very reason, we need to seek the separation of the functions protecting liberal rights and those securing social rights.
Thus, the democratic systems which need to function in the functions securing social rights are different from those which need to function in the functions protecting liberal rights. While the latter can be called "Strict" Democratic Systems, the former can be called "Human" Democratic Systems.
SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONS SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS
In the above ways, the functions securing social rights are, in human democratic systems, and the separation of the three powers and the rule of law which are not so strict, a part of the administrative power's providing or stopping or proposing to stop services and permissions, and that part of the administrative power excludes public armed forces, the civilians controlling and restraining them, and the prosecution. In the functions securing social rights, it is possible and necessary that human democratic systems function, and it is not possible or necessary that the strict separation of the three powers and the strict rule of law function.
SOCIAL RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO EXIST IN GENERAL
In order to secure social rights, the functions securing social rights need to research and develop science and technology for themselves and cooperate with public and private research institutes and enterprises. In contrast, in order to secure the first part of the right to exist in general, that is, to abolish and prevent totally destructive means, the functions securing social rights should not research or develop those means or cooperate with those institutes or enterprises involved in that research or development. Such research, development, and cooperation, whether by public or private organizations, need to be banned by the constitution and laws, and in order for them to be observed, the functions securing social rights need to be restrained by the functions protecting liberal rights. From the beginning, it is true not only of the functions securing social rights or of the research, development, and so forth of totally destructive means but also of all unconstitutional and illegal behaviors of all public and private individuals and organizations.
However, the functions securing social rights can also restrain the research and development of totally destructive means. If any individuals or organizations should issue the direction of the research, development, and production of totally destructive means to the enterprises or institutes having the ability to carry out the direction, they are the military or the civilian officers controlling it in the functions protecting liberal rights. However, general enterprises and institutes, those ones included, are under the administration by the functions securing social rights, and they can direct those enterprises and institutions not to comply with that direction. Furthermore, the functions securing social rights can restrain the development and production of weapons including totally destructive means by stopping providing those science and technology and resources. This is included in their own powers to stop or propose to stop the services and permissions which they have been providing others with.
The locomotive which has developed and produced nuclear weapons since the middle of the twentieth century has been the complex of (1) the military, (2) the civilian officers controlling (1), (3) some scientists and technologists, (4) some enterprises, and (5) civil officers controlling (3)(4). It has been the substance of what is called a "military-industrial complex." Such complexes in superpowers have produced the unnecessary nuclear weapons whose quality and quantity well surpass those which can destroy the whole of the opponent nations. Such complexes will be the locomotive for the development and production of super-biological weapons from now on. Out of such a complex, (5) are contained in the functions securing social rights, and (3)(4) are contained or administered by them. Therefore the functions securing social rights can dissolve such a complex, and can restrain the development and production of totally destructive means.
That is, the functions securing social rights have the function securing the first part of the right to exist in general, too.
In addition, while reducing pain by coping with wars, violence, crimes, and the like is a function protecting liberal rights, reducing pain by securing minimum lives and promoting health is a function securing social rights. In addition, reducing pain by preserving nature is a function securing social rights. Thus, the functions securing social rights have those securing the latter half of the right to exist in general.
After all, in order to secure the right to exist in general, it is possible and necessary that the functions protecting liberal rights and the functions securing social rights function separately and in different ways.
THE SEPARATION OF THE FUNCTIONS OF EACH STATE POWER INTO THE FUNCTIONS OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS AND THE FUNCTIONS OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS
Again, the functions protecting liberal rights are (1) strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law, (2) the trial processes in (1), (3) the investigation, (arrest), and prosecution by the police and the prosecution restrained in (1)(2) of the suspects of the crimes which are the violation of liberal rights (and democratic and separative systems), and (4) the national defense by the military restrained in (1)(2)(3) against the invasions which are the violation of liberal rights (and democratic and separative systems). It is possible and necessary that strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law function in the functions protecting liberal rights. In contrast, the functions securing social rights are, in human democratic systems, and the separation of the three powers and the rule of law which are not so strict, a part of the administrative power's providing or stopping or proposing to stop services and permissions, and that part of the administrative power excludes public armed forces, the civilians controlling and restraining them, and the prosecution. In the functions securing social rights, it is possible and necessary that human democratic systems function, and it is not possible or necessary that the strict separation of the three powers and the strict rule of law function. Thus, the functions of a state power are clearly divided into the two groups of those protecting liberal rights and those securing social rights, and a clear split can be found between them. Therefore it is possible that the functions of each state power is separated into the functions (of the rule of law) protecting liberal rights (and democratic and separative systems) and the functions (of the human rule) securing social rights.
SEPARATION OF A STATE POWER INTO THE TWO SYSTEMS OF THAT OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THAT OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS
Can we allot those functions divided into two groups to some organizations? In the functions protecting liberal rights, the strict separation of the three powers needs to function, and allotting them to one organization impairs that separation, and so we cannot allot them to one organization. In addition, also in the functions securing social rights, the loose separation of the three powers needs to function, and we cannot allot them to one organization. However, we can allot the functions protecting liberal rights not to an organization but to a system containing the three powers strictly separated. In addition, we can allot the functions securing social rights to another system containing the three powers loosely separated. The former can be looked upon as a strict system, and the latter as a loose system. Each state power can be separated into such two systems. The former system can be called the "System of the Rule of Law Protecting Liberal Rights (and Democratic and Separative Systems)," System of the Rule of Law, System Protecting Liberal Rights, or L system (of a State Power). The latter system can be called the "System of the Human Rule Securing Social Rights," System of the Human Rule, System Securing Social Rights, or S system (of a State Power).
The necessity of the separation of each state power into those two systems of L system and S system thus will be explained later in details. Here only one piece of the necessity will be explained. Separating each state power into those two systems and making a split between them clear prevents the tendencies which S system tend to fall into like the deviation from the social rights explained earlier, politicians' collusion and corruption with private enterprises, the majority's arrogance, flattering the people, and seeking national interests excessively in the international society from infiltrating L system.
The most serious in the deviation from social rights is the following. More and more from now on, the environment is aggravated, natural resources are exhausted, the world population increase, and the economy and citizens' lives tighten. In those situations, it is the most important part of the security of social rights to preserve the environment, to preserve and make good use of natural resources, maintain the appropriate population, to stabilize the economy, and to maintain civilians' minimum lives. Though those are no more than a part of the security of social rights, they are very hard and requires the planning and carrying out of synthetic policies. In such situations, it is possible that a kind of totalitarianism which display the pretext of the existence of human beings or living things looms out, violates liberal rights and democratic and separative systems, that is, democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law, and run wildly to autocracy, massacres, great wars, and so forth. Then, the interests of the holders of political and economic powers precede, and no appropriate policies cannot be planned. In addition, the policies are not discussed freely and actively and go inappropriate. In addition, the planners of the policies lose themselves in the struggle for not policies but powers and cannot plan any appropriate policies. Therefore autocracy, totalitarianism, or the like does not function even for the security of social rights or the security of the existence of living things including human beings. When each state power is separated into the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system) and that of the human rule securing social rights (S system), the following is possible. The synthetic policies required for the security of social rights are made in S system and its periphery by means of liberal rights and democratic systems protected by L system. In L system, all including public armed forces and civilian officers controlling them can only raise the purpose of protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems and cannot display the pretext of securing social rights or the existence of human beings or living things. Public armed forces, which is the strongest power to run wildly to autocracy, massacres, great wars, and so forth is in L system, and S system cannot use it. Public armed forces and civilian officers controlling them are restrained by strict democratic and separative systems in L system. Moreover, S system can restrain the public armed forces with its own power of stopping or proposing to stop the services and permissions which it has been providing them with. Thus, separating each state power into the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and that of the human rule securing social rights is the decisive way to prevent state powers from running wildly to autocracy, totalitarianism, or the like while displaying the pretext of the security of social rights or the security of the existence of human beings or living things. That is, it is the decisive way to prevent the deviation from social rights.
DISSOLUTION OF THE WEARINESS OF OVER-SEPARATION
There will be some people made sick only by hearing the word of separation. First, such weariness needs to be dissolved. The strict separation of the three powers in L system is essential. In addition, the separation of the police and the military in L system is essential. In addition, the loose separation of the three powers in S system is necessary. By the separation into the two systems of L and S, while each of the adminstrative power and the legislative power is separated into that of each system, the judicial power does not need to be separated. As for the legislative power, in each of most countries, a bicameral system is adopted, and the legislative power is separated into two houses. One of them becomes that of one system, and the other becomes that of the other system. As for the administrative power, it has already been ramified into seemingly various departments. Public armed forces like the police and the military excluded, those seemingly various departments have the functions of securing social rights like the department for finance, that for the coordination of the economy, that for the development of social capital, that for the coordination of labor and management, that for the promotion of medical care and welfare, that for education and culture, and that for the preservation of the nature. Such ramifications are not only unnecessary but also harmful. Such ramifications have increased public cost and tax and decreased the efficiency of public functions. From now on, it makes it hard to plan and carry out synthetic policies. Therefore, it is possible and necessary that those departments are unified and becomes one organization as S system's own administrative power. This possibility of unification has made clear for the first time by the separation of L system and S system. This separation makes the points of separation clear, as a result, makes the possibility of unification elsewhere clear, and, as a whole, reduce separation, far from over-separation. This is explained simply in this section. Its details are explained timely while explaining the possibility of the separation of organizations.
POSSIBILITY OF SEPARATION
The separability of a state power consists of
(1) that there are not so many functions which do not belong to any of the separated (residue),
(2) that there are not so many functions which belong to more than one of the separated (overlap)
(3) that, though the separated need to carry out the residue in (1) and the overlap in (2) together in collaboration, that collaboration is possible,
(4) that the separated can function by themselves to a degree, and
(5) that the separated can restrain one another when and where they need to.
As for (4)(5), most of this book is occupied with their explanation. As for (1)(2)(3), they are explained later timely while the separation of organizations are explained.
THE SEPARATION OF THE ORGANIZATIONS INTO THE TWO SYSTEM OF THAT OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THE SYSTEM OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS
THE SEPARATION OF ORGANIZATIONS
The above chapter showed that, in each state power, it is possible that its functions are separated into the functions (of the rule of law) protecting liberal rights (and democratic and separative systems) and the functions (of the human rule) securing social rights, that the former are alloted to the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system), and that the latter are alloted to the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system). Then, is it possible that not the functions but the organizations of each state power, while improved to effectively perform those functions, are separated into those two systems, and that the separation of each state power into those two systems is completed?
The possibility and necessity of the separation of the three powers of the legislative power, administrative power, and judicial power has already been demonstrated in the history, and each of them contain some organizations. In each of them, the following organizations are separable.
As for the legislative power, in a lot of states, bicameral systems have been adopted, and the legislative power has consisted of two houses. It is possible that one of the two houses in such a bicameral system has the legislative functions protecting liberal rights and the other has the legislative functions securing social rights and that they are independent of each other and restrain each other and cooperate with each other when and where they need to.
In addition, the administrative power in every state has already been ramified into some departments. Out of such departments, it is possible that the police and the military, that is, public armed forces and the civilian officers controlling and checking them have the administrative functions protecting liberal rights, and most of the other departments have the administrative functions securing social rights.
In addition, in the judicial power, courts have already gotten independent of one another. Moreover, in each court, judges have already gotten independent of one another. Out of such courts or judges, It is possible that a lot of them have the judicial functions protecting liberal rights in the traditional way and that a few of them have the judicial functions securing social rights in a new way.
SEPARATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER INTO THE TWO HOUSES OF THAT OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THAT OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS
As was explained earlier, though the legislative power cannot and should not provide by laws the details of the social rights and the ways to secure them, it can and should provide their outlines. Above all, how to allot financial and human powers to various administrative functions securing social rights like how much to public enterprises, how much to medical care and welfare, and how much to public education occupies much of the discussion and decision about budgets. It is possible and necessary that the legislative power discusses and decides such budgets. Though the administrative power should be dominant in the system of the human rule, this does not at all mean that the legislative power is unnecessary in it.
Many states adopt bicameral systems in the modern world. However, many of them do not function. That is because the two houses in each of them are almost homogenized. It is possible and necessary that one of such two houses has the legislative functions (of the rule of law) protecting liberal rights (and democratic and separative systems) and that the other has the legislative functions (of the human rule) securing social rights. In addition, it is possible and necessary that the former house constitutes the system of the rule of law as a legislative power and exists and functions in strict democratic and separative systems, that is, democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law and that the latter house constitutes the system of the human rule as another legislative power and exists and functions in human democratic systems and the loose separation of the three powers and the loose rule of law. When they are separated thus, the former can be called the (Legislative) House of the Rule of Law Protecting Liberal Rights (and Democratic and Separative Systems), the (Legislative) House of the Rule of Law, the (Legislative) House Protecting Liberal Rights (and Democratic and Separative Systems), or L House, and the latter can be called the (Legislative) House (of the Human Rule) Securing Social Rights, the (Legislative) House of the Human Rule, the (Legislative) House Securing Social Rights, or S house.
In a state where there are an "Upper House" or the like and a "Lower House" or the like, it is possible and necessary that the upper house develops into L house, and that the lower house develops into S house. Now we find that they have already developed so to a degree in some states.
It is possible and necessary that the constitution provide the ways of their separation in the following ways.
It is possible and necessary that the constitution provides that the purpose of L system including L house is the protection of liberal rights and democratic and separative systems, that is, democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law and that it provides the strict democratic and separative systems where L system including L house should exist and function. It is possible and necessary that the constitution provides that the purpose of S system including S house is the security of social rights, that it provides the human democratic systems, the loose separation of the three powers, and the loose rule of law where S system including S house should exist and function. As far as those loose systems are concerned, it may be unnecessary that they are provided in the constitution.
As for the legislation concerning the protection of the liberal rights and democratic and separative systems, it is possible and necessary that the constitution provides that L house is given priority. As for the legislation concerning the security of social rights, it is possible and necessary that the constitution provides that S house is given priority. More closely, as for the legislation concerning liberal rights and democratic and separative systems, it is possible and necessary that the constitution provides that L house decides earlier and that L house's decision becomes laws when S house decides differently and when the L house decides, for example, with more than two-thirds again. As for the legislation concerning social rights, the contrary is possible and necessary.
However, there are a few pieces of legislation where the protection of liberal rights and democratic and separative systems and the security of social rights seem to be intermingled and inseparable. For example, the following seem so. That is, legislation concerning the whole of the budget and the tax, the ratification of comprehensive treaties, the appointment of the chief of the whole of the administrative power or that of the whole of the judicial power seem so. However, when we look over them, we find that there are unexpectedly a few pieces which are really so. If it were for things inseparable, both houses could have equal authorities, which would not be so difficult. Now let us look over the pieces of legislation which seem to be intermingled and inseparable.
It is possible and necessary that the L house is given priority concerning the legislation dealing with the violation of liberal rights and democratic and separative systems and illegal and unconstitutional behaviors by public officers, whether they are in L system, in S system, in the legislative power, in the administrative one, or the judicial one or whether they are military or civil officers or higher or lower officers. Above all, if the illegal or unconstitutional behavior is the corruption of the chief of the administrative power in S system, it is possible and necessary that L house is given priority. That is, it is not at all that each system should exclusively treat its own illegal and unconstitutional behaviors.
As for the legislation concerning election including the right to vote, because it is a function protecting democratic and separative systems including democratic systems including political rights, whether the election is that of the organizations of L system or S system, it is possible and necessary that L house is given priority. Even as for the legislation concerning the election of the members of S house, it is possible and necessary that L house is given priority.
If the legislative power has the initiative concerning the amendment of the constitution, because the constitution is the core of the rule of law, it is possible and necessary that L house is given priority. Even if the amendment is concerned with social rights or the security of them, it is possible and necessary.
If the legislative power has the authority to ratify treaties, it is possible and necessary that S house is given priority in that concerning the security of the social rights of the world citizens or the national citizens like international or world economy, labor, communication, culture, education, health, and preservation of nature, and that the L house is given priority in that concerning the protection of the liberal rights and the democratic and separative systems of the world' citizens or national citizens like collective security and disarmament. If a treaty comprehends both of them and if its chapters, sections, items, and so fort can be divided, it is necessary and possible that the divided can be alloted between them. If a treaty contains both of them inseparably, it is possible and necessary that the two houses have the equal authority to ratify it.
As for the legislation concerning the tax, which is inseparable, it is possible and necessary that the two houses have the equal authority decide it.
As for the discussion and decision of budgets, it is possible and necessary that the budget is divided into the two parts of that concerning the protection of liberal rights and democratic and separative systems and that concerning the security of social rights, and that each house discuss and decide its own part with such a priority as was explained above given. For example, it is possible and necessary that L house is given priority concerning the maintenance cost of the military, the police, the judicial power, and L house, and that S house is given priority concerning the maintenance cost of the other organizations. At the last stage of the decision of the whole of the budget, it is possible and necessary that the both houses have equal authorities to decide.
As was explained earlier, liberal rights can be divided into those which need not and should not be restricted for the sake of any right or anything and those which cannot help being restricted under certain conditions for the sake of the protection or security of human rights, and that division and those conditions need to be clearly provided in the constitution. Here, we need to prevent the house securing social rights from legislating against those provisions. It is possible and necessary that L house nullifies any legislation or administration concerning the unconstitutional restriction of liberal rights, even if S house legislates earlier or, for example, with more than two-thirds. It is possible and necessary that the constitution provides such nullification, too.
The appointment or election of the chief of the administrative power of each system and the chief of the judicial power will be explained later.
Thus, it is unexpectedly clear which house should be given priority concerning what or both houses should be equally given priority concerning what. Nonetheless, there can be some conflict between houses or members concerning them. In such a case, it is possible and necessary that the judicial power judge through the appeal to it by, for example, one fifth of the members of either house.
Concerning the above, it is possible and necessary that the constitution provides them. In contrast, the following will not need to be provided by the constitution.
As for election, around S house, because human democratic systems need to function, political parties, large constituencies, proportional representation, and a larger number of representatives are possible and necessary. In contrast, around L house, because strict democratic systems need to function, no parties, small constituencies, no proportional representation, and a smaller number of representatives are possible and necessary. All the same, it is difficult to exclude political parties completely, but it is possible and necessary that a larger number of independents are elected.
By separating the legislative power into the two houses of L house and S house thus, the general electors can distinguish the candidates suitable for each house and elect them. Simply, the strict are suitable for L house, and the flexible are suitable for S house. Though the following may sound extreme argumentation, genius is unnecessary and harmful in and around L system, and it is necessary and possible to a degree in and around S system.
Above all, as for the published policies, that is, manifests in elections, when they are separated, each of the policies protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems and those securing social rights can be clear to the general electors, and they can select more suitable policies.
As for the public cost and tax, because the legislative power is separated into only two houses, the separation does not cause the increase of public cost and tax when compared with traditional bicameral systems.
SEPARATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE POWER
The functions of the legislative power concerning the appointment or election of the chief of the administrative power in L system, that of administrative power in S system, and that of the judicial power will be explained in the separation of the administrative power and the judicial power respectively, and let us go on to the separation of the administrative power for the time being.
As readers go on reading the following sections, such a question as "where is the president or prime minister who has been controlling the whole of, at least, the administrative power?" may arise. The writers of this book tend to answer it with saying, "Why is such a thing necessary?" The traditional president or prime minister who has been controlling the whole of, at least, the administrative power is dissolved by this separation. However, the possibility and necessity of such dissolution will be understood after the following sections are read to some extent.
Now, it is possible and necessary that the police and the military, that is, public armed forces belongs to the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems (L system) and is restrained by strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law. In addition, it is possible and necessary that each of the chiefs of the police and the military is appointed and changed by the legislative power with such a priority as was explained earlier given to legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L house). In addition, it is possible and necessary that the committee in L house whose purpose is to protect the liberal rights and democratic and separative systems in the state drafts the nomination of the chief of the police and the laws for that purpose them to the plenary session of L house. In addition, it is possible and necessary that that committee plans the policies for that purpose and commands the police. Above all, it is possible and necessary that that committee supervises the police. In addition, it is possible and necessary that the committee in L house whose purpose is national defense does the same concerning that purpose and the military.
Moreover, it is possible and necessary that not only the unconstitutional and illegal behaviors and running wildly by the military or the police but also the unconstitutional and illegal behaviors and running wildly, and the abuse of those public forces by the civilian officers controlling them are restrained by the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law in L system.
From the beginning, it was wrong that such a strong power as the military or the police was held by an individual like a president or a prime minister. By laying them under not an individual but such organizations as were explained above, we can prevent the military or the police from running wildly and prevent an individual from abusing them.
From the beginning, it was wrong that a president or a prime minister holds the whole of the administrative power, which is a gigantic power, including public armed forces. By separating it into public armed forces and the civilian officers controlling them on the one hand, and the other part of the administrative power and those controlling it on the other hand, we can prevent the whole of the administrative power from running wildly and being abused to a great degree.
By the way, we should prevent the collusion of the police and the military which have already been separated. The police and the prosecution should investigate and prosecute the unconstitutional and illegal behaviors by the military in the same way as those by the other public officers and general citizens, and it is, above all, here that collusion should be prevented. In order to prevent their collusion, it is necessary and possible that no concurrent posts be allowed to their chiefs and higher officers and to the committees supervising them, which were explained earlier.
Most of the other departments of the administrative power have the functions of securing social rights and can be incorporated into the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system). Closely, it is possible and necessary that the department to secure workers' right, that to provide children with minimum education, that to promote, apply, or restrain science and technology, that to promote general citizen's health, that to promote the other pieces of welfare, that to intervene in the economy and to coordinate it, that to construct and maintain social structures, and that to regulate the destruction of the nature and to preserve and effectively use natural resources are incorporated into the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system). The separation of the departments of finance and tax and of diplomacy will be explained later.
Out of an administrative power, the part which can and need to belong to the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system) can be called the "L's Part" of the administrative power, and the part which can and need to belong to the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system) can be called the "S's Part" of the administrative power.
When we look over them thus, we find that the budget of S's part of the administrative power occupies the majority of the whole of the national and local budget and that it consumes the majority of the whole of the national and local tax.
It seems that the policies and administrations by the administrative power are all linked and that they should be arranged synthetically. For example 1, it seems that whether or not the state or nation goes to war affects its economy and employment, above all, in its munitions industry. However, such linkage never brings good effect on anything including its own economy and employment in the long run. It is only temporarily, at most, for the first half of the war that it seems to bring good effect. For example 2, it seems that expansion of armaments affects its economy and employment, too. However, it prompts the formation of what is called military-industrial complexes, their further expansion, unnecessary conflicts in the international society, and the increase of military costs, and make citizens' daily lives tight. It is necessary that such linkage between war and the expansion of armaments on the one hand and the economy and employment on the other hand needs to be broken off. In order to break off that linkage, it is necessary that the military and the police, and the civil officers controlling them belong to L system, that the other departments of the administrative power belong to S system, and that they are separated, and these are possible.
In contrast, it is necessary that all the policies and administrations for the security of social rights be linked and arranged synthetically, and it is possible even when the administrative power is separated into that in L system and that in S system. For example, the increase of public enterprises can decrease unemployment. However, the overissue of public enterprises can destroy the nature and harm citizens' health. Here the policies concerning various kinds of public enterprises need to be synthetically planned. This is an example of synthetic policies for the sake of the security of social rights. That is, it is S's part of the administrative power that synthetic policies and administrations are necessary, and nothing more, nothing less.
In addition, as was explained earlier, S system has the power to stop or to propose to stop the services or the permissions with which they have been providing us. It is the administrative power in S system that have that power the least indirectly. Though they have to appeal to the judicial power and request the help by the police as a last resort, they do not need them in most cases.
It is possible and necessary that the administrative power excluding public armed forces like the police and the military and including the department of the finance and the tax, which will be explained later, and a part of the department of diplomacy, which will be explained later, are entrusted to some experts who can make the synthetic policies for the sake of the security social rights. In addition, it is possible and necessary that such experts or the individuals or groups who can control such experts are elected directly by general citizens or are appointed by the legislative power with such a priority as was explained earlier given to the house securing social rights (S house).
Moreover, even it is possible that S's part of the administrative power become a unified organization. From the beginning, the over-separation of that part has caused its excessive expansion, reduced its efficiency, and increased the public cost, and from now on, it makes it hard to plan and carry out synthetic policies. It is not only possible but also necessary that such a over-separated part is unified.
SEEMINGLY INSEPARABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Seemingly inseparable but easily separable organizations will be incorporated into either L's part of the administrative power or S's part.
The organizations having the functions against fire, for rescue, for emergency medical care, against the spread of infectious diseases, and for the measures to cope with natural disasters are incorporated into S's part of the administrative power. The police or the military belonging to L's part sometimes need to cooperate with S's part in those functions, but it is no more than cooperation and it is under the request and the control by S's part.
In addition, in order to prevent infectious diseases from spreading, citizens' behaviors sometimes need to be restricted. There are some conflicts between the liberal right of the freedom of body and the social right of the right to live in a narrow sense here. As was explained earlier, in order for some human rights to be protected or secured, some liberal rights cannot help being restricted under a certain condition. In such a case, as for the individuals who voluntarily comply with such restriction, they are exclusively the objects of S's part of the administrative power. As for those who do not comply with it, the police cannot help restricting their behaviors. All the same, it is possible and necessary that such restriction by the police are under request and control by S's part. It is possible and necessary that those are provided by the constitution and laws.
As for the minimum education of children, it is a function of S's part of the administrative power that provide them with it. As for the education and culture for adults, it is with the liberal right of the freedom of thought, speech, and expression that their hosts and clients enjoy it. All the same, if the majority of citizens want public powers to promote it, that promotion is a function of S's part. In this case, for example, in a sports festival, it is probable that the band of the police or the military accompany something or that the air force perform air show. All the same, it is no more than cooperation or volunteer activity and under the request and control by S's part. However, it does not need to be provided by the constitution, does it? As for the local, cultural education of children, it will be explained later.
The department of finance and tax and that of diplomacy, cannot be separated in such easy ways. Then, let us do it.
DEPARTMENTS OF FINANCE AND TAX
As for the department of finance and that of tax in the administrative power, it is not impossible that they are separated into the two parts of L and S. For example, it is possible that the tax is divided according to its categories, and the divided are alloted to the two parts, and that each part collects and manages its own money. Even it is possible that each part issues its own currency.
However, the management of money needs considerable expertise and fall into the very sphere the S's part of the administrative power in the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system). The system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system), which is inherently strict and should be so, cannot manage money so well. In addition, if it did it, its strictness would be sullied. It should function with its clean strictness whenever unconstitutional and illegal behaviors are caused in its own system, in S system, or by private groups or individuals.
Therefore it is possible and necessary that the department of finance, that of tax, that for the issue of currency, and so forth are incorporated into S's part of the administrative power in S system. Then, though the money of L system is managed by S system, it is necessary and is not impossible. From the beginning, most individuals and public and private organizations deposit their money in some public or private organizations, let them manage it, and withdraw it when necessary. L system can do it, too.
Here we find the following. Public armed forces are controlled in L system, the public money is kept and managed in S system, and S system keeps and manages even the money of L system. S system has not only its own power to stop or propose to stop the services and permissions with which it has been providing us but also the power to stop the withdrawal of the money of L system which it has been keeping and managing. For example, when the military or the civil officers controlling it in L system run wildly to the expansion of armaments or a war while violating the constitution, domestic laws, and international laws, S system has the power of not letting them withdraw their money. That which has been found here is included S system's own power to stop (or to propose to stop) the services and permissions (with which it has been providing us) in these books. Or, when it needs to be emphasized, the words of services and permissions will be accompanied by that of money.
As a result, S system gains power. Though those heterogeneous powers cannot be simply compared, its increased power would be not much inferior to that of the L system. However, it does not happen that its power goes too intense to keep balance of power. That is because the public armed forces need to guards S system, too, and because the former takes charge of the life of the officers of S system as well as general citizens'.
SEPARATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DIPLOMACY
As for the department of diplomacy, it is possible and necessary that it is separated into the two parts of (1)(2), that (1) belongs to L system, and that (2) belongs to S's part of the administrative power in S system.
(1) The diplomatic organization whose functions are the protection of the liberal rights and democratic and separative systems of the citizens of each state and the world while functioning in the international society or the world. More concretely, the functions of (1) are the negotiations concerning national defense, collective security, and disarmament in the international society or the world.
(2) The diplomatic organization whose functions are the security of social rights of the citizens of each state and the world while functioning in the international society or the world. More concretely, the functions of (2) are the negotiations concerning the growth or stability of the national and world economy, the promotion of health, welfare, education, and culture of the citizens of each state and the world, the regulation of the destruction of the national and global environment, and the preservation and effective use of national and global natural resources in the international society or the world.
Here we find the following four points.
First, it is found that it was wrong, from the beginning, that the heterogenous functions of the protection of liberal rights and democratic and separative systems and the security of social rights are concentrated on one diplomatic organization. When (1)(2) are separated, the diplomats of (1) cannot negotiate concerning national interests. Though the diplomats of (2) can negotiate concerning national interests, they cannot negotiate concerning national defense or war of aggression. Therefore the separation of (1) and (2) can prevent wars for the sake of national interests.
Second, it is found that it was wrong, from the beginning, that such heterogenous and important functions were concentrated on a traditional presidents or prime ministers. This concentration, their desire for powers, their collusion with economic powers and the formation and expansion of what is called military-industrial complexes are the main causes of the wars for the sake of national interests, expansions of armaments including the research, development, and hold of totally destructive means, and impending world wars. In addition, this concentration and his or her lack of expertise for the security of social rights are the main causes of economic instability and inequality in the international society. By this separation, traditional president or prime ministers are dissolved. by this dissolution, those disorders, too, are dissolved.
Third, the functions of diplomacy are clearly distinguished into the functions protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems of the citizens of each state and the world and the functions securing their social rights, and there is a clear split between them. This distinction and this split of functions is developed into the separation of the organization of diplomacy.
Fourth, not only the functions of diplomacy but also international or world public functions are clearly distinguished into those protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems of the world's citizens and those securing social rights of the world's citizens, and there is a split between them. For example, collective security and disarmament are the functions protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems of the world's citizens. In contrast, the development or stabilization of the world economy, the security of the minimum lives of world citizens, the maintenance of the worldwide information network, the preservation of the global environment, the preservation and effective use of global natural resources, the prevention of pandemics, and the countermeasure against large-scale natural disasters are the functions securing social rights of the world's citizens. This distinction can be developed into the separation of international or world organizations into the two systems of L and S.
Fourth, though this should have preceded the third, such separation of the functions and organizations of diplomacy themselves prevents those disorders caused by that confusion.
Thus, it is possible and necessary that the diplomatic functions and organization in the administrative power are separated into that in L system and that in S system. Furthermore in details, this separation is possible in the following way.
First, in L system, the following are possible. The legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L house) can constitutes an administrative organization and a committee for the diplomacy in L system, and that committee can oversee that organization. In addition, when some representatives need to attend some international conferences or meetings, those, whether they belong to that committee or that organization, who are nominated by that committee can attend them. In addition, as for the matters where the resolution of the legislative power is necessary like ratification of treaties, after that committee resolve, with such a priority as was explained earlier given to L house, the legislative power can resolve. Though the possibility of the members of that committee's attending it and its plenary session is smaller than that of those of the other committee's because of the attendance of international conferences or meetings, it is possible and necessary that those members are qualified to attend and vote remotely. The speech and vote by the members at sites of diplomacy will often be more proper than others.
When we look over such things thus, we find that the responsibility of that committee is very heavy. It is involved in whether or not it can stop war, whether or not it can disarm, whether or not it can abolish and prevent totally destructive means. However, from the beginning, the responsibility of L system and L house and of its committees in general are very heavy like the committee controlling the police and that controlling the military. We had better assign such heavy responsibility not to individuals like presidents or prime ministers but to organizations. Though it can happen that "everybody's business is nobody's business," it is more dreadful that an individual abuses such responsibility and runs wildly to autocracy, totalitarianism, war, or the like. Such dreadfulness of the abuse of responsibility has often been experienced in the history. As far as the functions of S system are concerned, irresponsibility is better than the abuse of responsibility. However, that would be the case if everybody's business were nobody's business also in those committees. There is no evidence that committees in legislative powers are more irresponsible than traditional presidents or prime ministers.
In contrast, the diplomatic functions in S system can be entrusted to the chief of S's part of the administrative power or an diplomatic organization in S's part. It is in this position that their abilities to make technical and synthetic policies have a great effect.
In addition, when the results of their negotiations need to be ratified by the legislative power, it is possible and necessary that, with such a priority as was explained above given to the house of the human rule securing social rights (S house), the legislative power resolves.
It is not only in each state power but also in the the international or world organizations that the separation of powers into the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system) and that of the human rule securing social rights (S system) is possible and necessary. Therefore it is possible and necessary that international meetings and negotiations are separated into the two systems, and that the representatives of the two systems in each state attend those in their own system.
However, how should we do in the transitional period into the above? In addition, how should we do if there are some international organizations, meetings, and negotiations concerning both the systems even after it. Both of the representatives of the two systems of each state can attend them. When the individual agenda is concerned with one of those two systems, the representative of that system can decide or vote. When the individual agenda is concerned with both of those two systems, the two can negotiate. When the two agree about a decision or vote, they can decide or vote it. When the two disagree, they can abstain from the bill, suspend it, or bring it home.
While those processes are repeated, the possibility and necessity of the separation of international or world organizations into those two systems will be clarified.
DISSOLUTION OF TRADITIONAL PRESIDENTS OR PRIME MINISTERS
From the beginning, even if each state power is separated into the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system) and that of the human rule securing social rights (S system), if there remained a traditional president or prime minister controlling both of the two, the effect of that separation would go lesser. As was explained in the above sections, it is possible and necessary that public armed forces like the police and the military and the organizations of the diplomacy concerning national defense, collective security, and disarmament are supervised respectively by the committees in the legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L house) and that, in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system), the strict democratic and separative systems function to those public armed forces, that diplomatic organization, and those committees. In addition, it is possible and necessary that, in the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system), S's part of the administrative power excluding the diplomatic organization concerning the protection of liberal rights and democratic and separative systems and including the diplomatic organization concerning the security of social rights and the whole of the organization of finance and tax are administered by some experts who is elected directly or indirectly by general citizens.
From the beginning, it was wrong that we entrusted a president or a prime minister with all the administrative power including the police, the military, and the whole of diplomacy. The dissolution of presidents or prime ministers can prevent them from going to aggressive war, abusing public armed forces, leading the research, development, and hold of totally destructive means, and so forth to a considerable degree.
Thus, it is possible and necessary that a traditional president or prime minister who held at least the whole of the administrative power is dissolved. Distinguished from a traditional president or prime ministers who had all the administrative power, the individuals or groups who manage S's part of the administrative power can be called the Chief (of the Part) of the Administrative Power of the Human Rule Securing Social Rights, the Chief (of the Part) of the Administrative Power of the Human Rule, or the Chief (of the Part) of the Administrative Power Securing Social Rights.
Such a chief can either be elected by the citizens of each state or can be appointed by the legislative power with such a priority as was explained earlier given to the house of the human rule securing social rights (S house).
It is desirable that the experts who themselves have the ability to plan the policies for the sake of the security of social rights, which needs to be synthetic. When each state power is separated into those two systems, the tendency for general citizens or S house to elect such chiefs gets larger.
ABOUT MUNICIPALITIES, FEDERATIONS, AND INTERNATIONAL OR WORLD ORGANIZATIONS
This separation of each state power into those two systems never hinder the existence and functions of traditional municipalities, federations, and international organizations. Moreover, it will be found out that it is possible and necessary that they are also separated into the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system) and that of the human rule securing social rights (S system).
However, their separation is not necessarily the same as that of state powers. For example, in a federation, it is possible that the military are contained in L system of the federation, that the police are contained in L system of each state or municipality, that the legislation and administration concerning the economy are contained in S system of the federation, and that the legislation and administration concerning cultural education are contained in S system of each state or municipality.
LOCAL, CULTURAL EDUCATION OF CHILDREN
Now, what about the local, cultural education of children which have been suspended?
The right with which children acquire minimum education or with which parents make some public powers provide their children with minimum education is a category of social rights, and its security is the functions of the system of the human rule protecting social rights (S system) of an international or world organization, a state power, or a municipality.
From the beginning, not limited to local, cultural education of children or education in general, there is no reason why administration in general should be monopolized by state powers. If the citizens of a municipality or a state in a federation hope that some pieces of administration is lead or monopolized by them, it needs to be realized. In addition, if they hope that some pieces are lead by the state power, it also needs to be realized. However, as far as the local, cultural education of children is concerned, they will hope that it is lead by their smaller municipality. It is possible and necessary that it is realized. Then, ethnic conflicts and extreme nationalism will be reduced.
SEPARATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE POWER INTO THE TWO PARTS OF THAT OF THE SYSTEM OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THAT OF THE SYSTEM OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS
On those grounds, it is possible and necessary that the administrative power of each state be separated into the following two parts of (1) and (2).
(1) The part of the administrative power of the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system):
the committees in the legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L house) supervising the following respectively.
(1-1)The police, (1-2)the military, and (1-3)the organization of diplomacy concerning national defense, collective security, and disarmament.
(2) The part of the administrative power of the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system):
The part of the administrative power excluding (1-1)(1-2)(1-3) and including the chief of this part.
JUDICIAL POWER
In the judicial power, each court has already gotten independent of the others. Moreover, in a court, each judge has already gotten independent of the others. Out of such courts or judges, it is possible that the majority of them remain those protecting liberal rights in the traditional way and that a minority of them become those securing social rights in a new way.
However, for the very reason that the judicial power in itself and each court and each judge in it have already gotten independent of the others to a great degree, such a separation will be unnecessary.
However, the following questions will be remaining. (1) Who appoints or elects the judges of the supreme court? (2) While the contents of the judicial power are made by judges, who constitutes its frames?
As for (2), it is possible and necessary that what becomes laws out of those frames and the procedures of litigations are enacted by the legislative power with such a priority as was explained earlier given to the legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L house) in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system) . In contrast, concerning what do not become laws, it is necessary and possible that they are decided by the committee concerning the frames of the judicial power in L house. That is, not only the committees explained in the above several chapters or sections but also such a committee as is being explained in this paragraph is possible and necessary in L system.
As for (1), the nomination of the judges of the supreme court by traditional presidents or prime ministers makes judges' legal interpretations influenced easily by their policies or political ideologies. Such influence is lesser when the legislative power nominate them with such a priority as was explained earlier given to L house in L system than when traditional presidents or prime ministers do it. For example, it is possible and necessary that the above committee proposes the nomination of judges, that its plenary session resolve on it, and that, when the legislative house of the human rule securing social rights (S house) resolve differently, the re-resolution of the former becomes final nomination.
When those problems (1)(2) are resolved thus, it will be unnecessary that the judicial power is separated.
As was explained earlier, it is impossible and inappropriate that the constitution and laws provide the details of social rights and the details of ways to secure them. Those details cannot help being entrusted to the bureaucrats (A) in the administrative power, and to the judges (B) in the judicial power. However, the foundations which what are entrusted should be based on are different. While A can be on the basis of human wisdom and science and technology, B should be on the basis of the constitution and laws. That is, B cannot help reading the unwritten details between the lines of the constitution and laws. B should interpret social rights, welfare, health, happiness, and so forth in concrete situations.
In addition, the lawsuits where citizens accuse S's part of the administrative power of its fault or negligence to which they attribute their social rights' insecurity occupy most of those concerning social rights. In addition, it is the quintessence of the separation of the three powers and the rule of law for judicial power to point out and accuse unconstitutional or illegal behaviors by state powers, and the judicial power is the core of that quintessence.
Thus, it is not at all that the judicial power is unnecessary in the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system). All the same, it is more important in L system than in S system.
On those grounds, it is possible and necessary that the judicial power is not separated, and L house in L system is given priority to concerning the nomination of the judges of the supreme court and the construction of its frames.
NOMINAL CHIEF OF A STATE
The real "chief of the state" having some real powers is unnecessary, but a nominal one seems to be necessary at traditional festivals or ceremonies. However, such festivals or ceremonies will be reviewed from now on. If they remain for a while, the following are possible. For example 1, the chairperson of L house or that of the committee controlling the military can attend the funerals of military casualties. For example 2, the chief of S's part of the administrative power or that of the department of education and culture can attend cultural festivals. That is, the nominal chief of the state, too, is separated into the two system of L and S.
SEPARATION OF EACH STATE POWER INTO THE TWO SYSTEMS OF THAT OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THAT OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS
On those grounds explained in the above chapters and sections, it is possible and necessary that each state power is separated in the following way.
| The system
of the rule of law
protecting liberal rights | The system
of the human rule
securing social rights |
| The legislative power | The house
of the rule of law
protecting liberal rights | The house
of the human rule
securing social rights |
| The administrative power | The police
The military
The organization of diplomacy
dealing with national defense, collective security,
and disarmament
The committees controlling them respectively
The committee constructing the frames
of the judicial power
| The other part
of the administrative power
and its chief |
| The judicial power | The judicial power |
In addition, "democratic and separative systems" were re-defined as follows.
Democratic and separative systems:
(1) democratic systems including political rights
(2) separations of powers including the separation of the three powers and the separation of the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and that of the human rule securing social rights, and
(3)the rule of law.
THE MERIT OF THE SEPARATION OF EACH STATE POWER INTO THE TWO SYSTEMS OF THAT OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THAT OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS
THE NECESSITY IN ITSELF
In the above ways, it is possible and necessary to separate a state power into the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system) and that of the human rule securing social rights (S system). However, those pieces of the necessity have been limited to those which can be explained in the explanation of the possibility. In this chapter, the necessity in itself of that separation will be explained.
PREVENTING DEVIATION FROM SOCIAL RIGHTS
[THE MAIN CAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF OLD COMMUNISM OR SOCIALISM]
The main cause of the failure of old communism or socialism is as follows.
Without the liberal right of freedom of speech and democratic systems in general, the planners of policies or their candidates cannot criticize one another and compete with one another and cannot be criticized by general citizens or selected through elections, the policies are not polished and became inappropriate.
In addition, though there are struggles for powers in all groups including the proletariat, old communism or socialism ignored those in the proletariat. In order to prevent fierce struggles for powers, citizens need to elect the holders of powers. Though elections are fierce, they are better than stark struggles. Without democratic systems, the candidate of the planners of the policies are absorbed in such struggles, not those who have the ability for such planning but those who have the ability and means for such struggles become the planners, and appropriate policies are not planed. In addition, if they had or had had appropriate abilities, they could not afford the time to plan, or their abilities would deteriorate, and they could not make adequate plans.
That is, old communism or socialism failed because of the inadequacy of economic planning which should have been its specialty.
In addition, in a gigantic power without separation, the means for intra- and inter-national struggles are not restrained. Above all, the expansion of arms including nuclear weapons is not restrained. In addition, the struggle for powers between bureaucrats leads to the expansion of arms. Not only the failure of economic planning but also the fact that a lot of resources are poured into arms expansion is one of the causes of the failure of old communism or socialism.
Of course, restraining the freedom of citizens excessively is one of the causes. All the same, if the economy had not gone so bad, there would not have been what can be called "collapse."
Those are the main cause of the failure of old communism or socialism. However, similar failures and disasters can be caused by some similar or distinct doctrines or dogmas.
[A KIND OF TOTALITARIANISM WHICH SHOW OFF THE PRETEXT OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE WHOLE OF HUMAN BEINGS OR LIVING THINGS]
More and more from now on, the global environment is deteriorating, natural resources are being depleted, and the world population goes on growing and reaching that which can be narrowly maintained on the earth, and in these situations, the economy and citizens' lives are tightening. Even in those situations, we need to preserve the environment, to preserve and make good use of natural resources, to maintain the appropriate population, to stabilize the economy, and to secure citizens' minimum lives. In order to do these, public powers need to plan and carry out synthetic policies. The planning and carrying out of such synthetic polices is included in the security of social rights and in the functions of the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system). From now on, S system will have to function very hard. In those situations, it is probable that somebody replace that necessity to plan and carry out synthetic policies by stealth with a kind of totalitarianism. That is, it is probable that a kind of totalitarianism which show off the pretext of the existence of the whole of human beings or living things looms up, destroy democratic and separative systems and run wildly to autocracy, world wars, the use of totally destructive means, and so forth.
Again, the planning and carrying out of such synthetic policies is included in the security of social rights and included in the functions of S system. Again, such a kind of totalitarianism is included in the deviation from social rights. Without liberal rights and democratic and separative systems, governments' policies are not criticized and debated and do tend to deviate from appropriate ones and go inappropriate also for the sake of the security of social rights or the existence of human beings or living things. In addition, without them, the collusion and corruption between the holders of political powers and those of economic powers cannot be restrained, they mix their interests into those synthetic policies and the planning and carrying out of them, which is very difficult even without that collusion and corruption, go impossible. In such situations, such failures and disasters as are more dreadful than those by old communism or socialism may break out.
[PREVENTING THE DEVIATION FROM SOCIAL RIGHTS]
When each state power is separated into the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system) and that of the human rule securing social rights (S system), the deviation from social rights including such communism, socialism, and a kind of totalitarianism as were explained above is prevented in the following way.
In order to secure social rights or the existence of human beings or living things, it is certain that synthetic policies need to be planned and carried out. Such planning and carrying out of them need to be done in S system with the liberal right of the freedom of speech and the human democratic systems which are particular to S system. When each state power is separated into those two systems, L system cannot intervene in such planning and carrying out of them. If there were anything hindering such planning and carrying out, it would be the violation of liberal rights and democratic and separative systems by somebody. All L system can do is not violate them but protect them. Simply, all L system should do is protect them inconspicuously and steadily. On the other hand, public armed forces, which are the strongest power to run wildly to autocracy, totalitarianism, and so forth are in L system, and so S system cannot use or abuse them. Thus, the separation of those two systems prevents the deviation from social rights including the above and simultaneously maximizes the security of social rights. This separation is the decisive way to make existence and liberty compatible.
If each state power had been separated into those two systems in the first half of the twentieth century, the fierce conflict between capitalism and communism, the Cold War, and the fierce expansion of arms including nuclear weapons would have been prevented. The public officers in L system in each country would have protected liberal rights and democratic and separative systems inconspicuously and steadily while hearing loud and showy disputes in and around S system. The separation of each state power into those two systems not only cope with the present and future problems but could have coped with the past problems.
PREVENTING THE DISORDERS WHICH THE SYSTEM OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS TENDS TO FALL INTO FROM INFILTRATING THE SYSTEM OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS
As was explained earlier, it is the strict democratic and separative systems (democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law) that need to function in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system). In contrast, simply, the security of social rights is to satisfy the daily desires of citizens, and it is human democratic systems that need to function in the system of the human rule of securing social rights (S system). However, simultaneously, S system tends to fall into manipulating public opinion, flattering the people, the majority's arrogance, excessively seeking national interests, and so forth. Moreover, it is probable that some politicians or parties who temporarily gather voters' support through only one enthusiastic election and run wildly to autocracy, totalitarianism, and so forth. Those are the disorders which S system tend to fall into. By separating each state power into those two systems of L system and S system and by making the chasm between them deeper, we can prevent those disorders which S system tends to fall into from infiltrating the former.
DISSOLVING GIGANTIC POWERS
[THE DISSOLUTION OF THE TRADITIONAL PRESIDENTS OR PRIME MINISTERS]
We find that, from the beginning, it was wrong that all the administrative power including the public armed force like the police and the military, the department of diplomacy, and the human and financial power for the security of social rights was concentrated on traditional presidents or prime ministers. Traditional presidents or prime ministers are dissolved by this separation, that is, by incorporating public armed forces and a part of diplomacy into the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system) and by incorporating the other part of the administrative power into that of the human rule securing social rights (S system), and by the former's being administered respectively by the committees in the legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L house) and by the latter's being administered by the chief of S's part of the administrative power. This dissolution of traditional presidents or prime ministers can prevent, to a considerable degree, aggressive wars, state powers' running wildly to autocracy, totalitarianism, and so forth, and the research, development, and hold of totally destructive means, and so forth which were lead by them.
[THE DISSOLUTION OF WHAT IS CALLED MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES]
There have been what is called "military-industrial complexes" since before the Cold War. They were intensely paid attention to in its beginning part, and they came to be called so. They have been practically the complexes of (1) the military, (2) the civil officers controlling it, (3) the scientists and technologists developing weapons and munitions, and (4) public and private enterprises producing them. They can be re-called "Military-Civilian-Academic-Industrial Complexes." While (1)(2) seek powers, while (3) seek authority and glory, and while (4) seek profits, such complexes expand by themselves. Therefore, the development and production of weapons and munitions, above all, totally destructive means advance at a staggering pace. By separating each state power into the two of L system and S system, out of those complexes, (1)(2) belong to L system, (3)(4) are under S system, those complexes are dissolved. More closely, by the separation into the two systems, as civilian officers, not only those (2) in L system but also those (5) in S system loom up, and those civilian officers (5) administrate (3)(4). The functions of (5) are promoting not destructive but peaceful pieces of science and technology. (5) are independent of (1)(2) by the separation of a state power into those two systems. (5) and (3)(4) administered by (5) can refuse the cooperation with (1)(2). Thus, military-civilian-academic-industrial complexes are almost dissolved with (5) wedged into them. Moreover, traditional presidents or prime ministers has been dissolved, there is nothing or nobody controlling both (2) and (5), and such complexes are completely dissolved.
The dissolution of military-civilian-academic-industrial complexes, which lead the research, development, and production of nuclear weapons in the twentieth century and will lead the research and development of totally destructive means in general, is one of the decisive ways to totally abolish and prevent them.
[PREVENTING THE WARS FOR THE NATIONAL INTERESTS]
Though going to war for the sake of national interests is include in the deviation from social rights explained earlier, it will be dealt with in this section, too.
In traditional systems, the authority to go to war was concentrated on traditional presidents or prime ministers. They no more exist by this separation. By this separation, the authority to go to war, if it is anywhere, is in the legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L house) in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system). In addition, that war is limited to that for the protection of the liberal rights and democratic and separative systems of the citizens of the state, that is, that for national defense and collective security. Thus, the war for national interests is excluded in L system. In contrast, nobody in the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system) has the authority to go to war in general, whether it is for national interests or for national defense. The authority to seek national interests, if it is anywhere, is in S system. In addition, that system should seek national interests not by war but by the negotiations in the international society. Thus, general wars, ones for the sake of national interests included, are excluded in S system. Again, by this separation, there is nobody controlling both L system and S system like traditional presidents or prime ministers. Thus, by this separation, there is nobody having the authority to go to war for the sake of national interests. Therefore this separation prevent the wars for national interests to a considerable degree. By the way, almost all wars in the history have involved national interests. With this prevention of the wars for national interests, that dissolution of traditional presidents or prime ministers, that dissolution of military-civilian-academic-industrial complexes, and so forth gathered together, this separation can prevent most wars in general to a considerable degree.
In addition, it cannot be denied that in some past wars, the holders of political and economic powers showed off national interests and instigated the masses to wars, and plunged into wars together with the masses. When each state power is separated into the two system of L and S, the representatives concerning wars and those concerning national interests are separately elected, the former can only propose the policies for the protection of liberal rights and democratic and separative systems, the latter can only propose those for the security of social rights, and the tendency toward the wars by such instigation is reduced to a considerable degree.
DOUBLE CIVILIAN CONTROL OVER THE PUBLIC ARMED FORCES
Public armed forces like the military and the police have been and will be the direct and strongest power to violate liberal rights and democratic and separative systems and to run wildly to autocracy, totalitarianism, and so forth. It is the most critical point for the restraint of powers.
The public armed forces and the civilians controlling them can be restrained by the strict democratic and separative systems in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system).
In addition, when each state power is separated into the two systems of L system and that of the human rule securing the social rights (S system), the possibility becomes almost naught that S system cooperates with the unconstitutional or illegal activities of any organizations of L system, public armed forces included.
Moreover, against public armed forces or their abusers running wildly, it is possible for S system to restrains them with its own power to stop or to propose to stop the services or permissions with which it has been providing them and the money which it has been keeping and managing. For example, even if the military run wildly, S system can weaken them by stopping the supply of money, electricity, gas, water, communication network, information, and so forth. The public armed forces may recognize the significance of holding those facilities. However, this separation makes it harder for the public armed forces belonging to L system to hold those facilities managed by S system.
Concerning such powers as stop services or the like and their implementation cause a few legal disputes. In order to prevent such disputes, it needs to be provided in the constitution that when public officers or organizations behave themselves unconstitutionally or illegally, the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system) has the right and duty to stop the services and permissions with which it has been providing them and the money which it has been keeping and managing for them.
The power of democratic and separative systems and the power to stop services or the like are rather heterogeneous. Such heterogeneous powers can restrain public armed forces and the civilians controlling them efficiently without interrupting each other. Those can be called the "Double Civilian Control" over the public armed forces. It gets by far clearer and by far more effective by separating each state power into those two systems.
INCREASING THE CLEARNESS OF EACH STATE POWER FOR CITIZENS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ITS EFFICIENCY AND DECREASING PUBLIC COST AND TAX
Separating a state power excessively decreases its clearness for citizens and public officers, decreases its efficiency, and increases public cost and tax. Above all, the over-separated administrative power decreases its clearness and efficiency and increases public cost and tax.
However, in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system), strict democratic and separative systems need to function, and the separation of the three powers and the separation of the police and the military are indispensable.
In contrast, in the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system), above all, in S's part of the administrative power, strict separations are not only unnecessary but also inappropriate. Again, a synthetic policy needs to be planed and carried out efficiently in this system. Far from preventing over-separation, it is possible that S's part of the administrative power becomes one unified organization. Such a thing as can become one organization was over-separated and increased public inefficiency and cost and tax. This separation decreases them.
Thus, this separation makes the point of separations clear, prevent over-separation and increases public clearness and efficiency and decreases public cost and tax.
MAKING THE POINT FOR CONSTRUCTION, DISSOLUTION, ENLARGEMENT, REDUCTION, PROMOTION, RESTRAINT, AND DISPUTES CLEAR
In a country where democratic and separative systems (democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers including the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law) have not been constructed yet and where liberal rights are not protected, first, the citizens need to dissolve despotic systems and to construct a system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system), and also after its construction they need to maintain it without letting their guard down. In a state where social rights have not been much secured yet, they need to enlarge and promote the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system). In a state where S system has been enlarged too much and where the tax is too heavy, they need to cut S system. The main cause of the increase of public cost and tax is the extreme expansion of S's part of the administrative. As was explained earlier, it is necessary that it is not only cut but also unified as much as possible.
However, military expansion is one of the courses of the increase of public cost and tax. All the same, the security of social rights on the one hand and the protection of liberal rights and democratic and separative systems including national defense, collective security, and disarmament on the other hand need to be argued and dealt with in distinct ways. Also in order to do that, the state power need to be separated into those two systems.
Thus, when each state power is separated into the two systems of L and S, the point for construction, dissolution, enlargement, reduction, promotion, restraint, and discussion is clear.
THE RIGHT PERSON IN THE RIGHT PLACE
It is strict persons that are fit for the human resources in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system). In contrast, it is flexible persons that are fit for those in that of the human rule securing social rights (S system). The upper the ranks are, the more those can be true. Those can be true the most when the ranks are such as are elected by the people, for example, the members of the legislative power.
Though citizens should elect them freely, they are also free to do so on the basis of their fitness. When each state power is separated into those systems and when the human resources of each system are separately selected directly or indirectly by citizens, the possibility gets larger that the right person is elected in the right place.
Of course, in the situations where there are no democratic systems including elections, those who have not such fitness but the ability and means for stark struggle for power acquire powers. Even with democratic systems, those who have the abilities and means to win elections acquire powers. However, in elections, candidates cannot help displaying their fitness for their aiming positions. Election is better than stark struggle for power.
In addition, candidates cannot help proposing some policies as campaign pledges. Here, the candidates for S system tend to flatter the masses by showing off economic affluence, and those for L system do so by showing off security. Without this separation, therefore without the separation of elections, those two kinds of policies tend to be synthesized in the direction of the deviation from social rights and totalitarianism like arms expansion and wars for the sake of national interests and to instigate the masses. This separation makes such harmful synthesis and instigation difficult.
PREVENTING THE COLLUSION AND CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC POWERS AND ECONOMIC POWERS
As for what is called military-industrial complexes (military-civilian-academic-industrial complexes), it was explained earlier that separating each state power into those two systems dissolve such complexes. The ways to prevent the collusion and corruption between political powers and economical powers in general will be explained in this section.
Such collusion and corruption can occur more in the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system) than in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system). That is because S system is in the position to regulate or permit the functions of most economic powers.
Whether or not a state power is separated into those two systems, it is the police and the prosecution that investigate and prosecute the unconstitutional and illegal behaviors of general citizens, public officers, and public organizations. When each state power is separated into the two systems of L and S, the police and the prosecution are restrained by strict democratic and separative systems in L system and cannot help being strict. On the other hands, the organizations which tend to collude with economic powers are in S system outside L system. Therefore the former can easily investigate and prosecute the latter. Therefore the collusion and corruption between political powers and economic powers can be prevented to a considerable degree.
THE LAST RESORT
By this separation of the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system) and that of the human rule securing social rights (S system), public armed forces like the police and the military are restrained with strict democratic and separative systems in L system. All the same, we cannot help admitting that public armed forces are still the strongest power to run wildly to war, autocracy, totalitarianism, and so forth. We cannot help admitting that the possibility that they run wildly to such things alone or by being abused by some civilians remains even a little. However, if they should run wildly or be abused, as was explained earlier, the power of S system's own to stop the services or the like with which it has been providing them are made clear and intensified by this separation. Again, even if they should run wildly or be abused, all that S system needs to do is stop the resources for arms production and water, gas, electricity, ports, airports, information, communication network, money, and so forth.
Again, (1) public armed forces and the civilian officer controlling them are restrained both with (2) strict democratic and separative systems in L system and with (3) the power of S system's own to stop the services or the like. This is the double civilian control explained earlier. It is desirable that it is the very DOUBLE civilian control. All the same, if the (2) should collapse, (3) cannot help functioning by itself. (3) is rather strong in the modern society and will be stronger from now on. (3)'s functioning by itself is what is called last resort.
References
EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY
DETAILS OF EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY
SENSATIONS AND RECOLLECTIONS OF IMAGES
EGOS AND THEIR TENDENCIES
FACING TENDENCIES FALLING INTO A VICIOUS CIRCLE
Mail
TOP
COPYRIGHT(C)2000 OUR-EXISTENCE.NET ALL RIGHTS RESERVED