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―A PSYCHOLOGY OF ANIMALS HAVING MEMORIES," "EGOS AND THEIR TENDENCIES―A PSYCHOLOGY OF ANIMALS HAVING EGOS," "FACING TENDENCIES FALLING INTO A VICIOUS CIRCLE―A PSYCHOLOGY OF ANIMALS HAVING HABITS," and "PARTICULAR THINGS AND GENERAL THINGS" are also called "These Books" in this book.

THE CONSTITUTION OR FUNDAMENTAL LAW

    The law which all the law 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 as egos intend to 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 on 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. From the beginning, 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, such systems as democratic systems and separations of powers, that is, the systems which can check powers need to be arranged. Moreover, the constitution needs to provide those systems clearly.
    Some other individuals or groups' hindering 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 others have those to secure social rights which will be defined later. For example, the administrative power has the ability to promote human lives and health by improving social structures and promoting the welfare.
    In addition, 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 the nature. For example 1, the administrative power has the abilities to destroy the nature by overissuing public enterprises and has 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 and the military 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 the 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 including state powers, 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 including state powers, it cannot help being recognized that there are some private powers which exist and function in order to acquire public powers. For example, as such private powers, there have been some armed forces to win stark struggles for powers and the human powers, money, and means of the manipulation of public opinion to win elections. Public powers including state powers and the private powers which affect public powers and which exist and function in order to acquire public powers can be called "Political Powers."

POLITICAL RIGHTS

    The rights for individuals to affect public powers including state powers and their laws, systems, organizations, and functions directly or indirectly through voting, speech, inspection, lawsuit, and so on 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: "However, 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 of people and a failure to secure social rights of the maintenance of minimum lives of billions. In addition, in order to reduce unnecessary, persistent, and large-scale pain, we need to maintain the minimum lives and the health of billions of people and prevent public and private violence and the oppression by governments. 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 already 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 power does, 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 of protecting 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 acting in peace time and by functioning to individuals, and can protect them by acting in war time and by restraining violence from violating them. 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. Therefore 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. A lot of the crimes provided by law have been private powers' violating liberal rights. Though the following was not intended, as a result, providing crimes by law, holding courts, and administering punishment 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.
    All the sae, 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 relatively directly. 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 which 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 urgent than freedom. Before social rights were recognized or sought, there had been economic inequality, economic contradictions, and so on, and human beings had sought the minimum lives.
    All the same, without liberal rights of speech, political rights, and so on, citizens cannot even 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, individuals and groups became 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, the 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 cause monopoly, the monopoly paralyzes the "invisible hand," and causes depression, unemployment, and so on. In such ways, only by realizing liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, the separation of the three powers, and so on, 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, effective 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 human beings have made state powers regulate the destruction of the nature.
    The rights for citizens to make state powers maintain or promote existence, life, health, the minimum lives, the minimum labor conditions, the minimum education, and so on can be called "Social Rights." State powers' maintaining or promoting them can be called their "Security" of social rights or Securing social rights.
    In such ways, 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 among 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 on. 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 are contrastive, and the part of a state power violating and protecting liberal rights and that securing social rights are contrastive.
    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 on.
    Though the following is an extreme representation, liberal rights are violated when the part protecting them is functioning actively. In contrast, the social rights are secured when the part securing them functions 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 an individual's existence and functions can be restrained by some powers and when the possibility of their being restrained gets smaller by some parts of a state power's restraining those powers which restrain them, the individual's seeking such existence and functions is a liberal right. In contrast, when it is hardly possible that some of an individual or group's existence and functions are maintained or promoted without any powers and when the possibility of their being 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 some other individuals or groups' violence 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 can also be looked upon as the violation of liberal rights by public and private powers with violence, intimidation, theft, deceit, or the like. 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 centuries 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 on, 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.
    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 those 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 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 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 involved in them 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 like, for example, private lives other than public functions of those public officers? As for the chief and the senior officers of the administrative powers, the chiefs and the senior officers of the departments including the police and the military in it, 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, 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 expanding. 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 the liberal rights which can be restricted only for the sake of some social rights.

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 of the states 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) of the other liberal rights are restricted under certain conditions for the sake of some human rights. In other words, the other parts (3) of those liberal rights 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. (1) and (3) can be called "the Liberal Rights (and certain parts of the other liberal rights) which need not and should not be restricted for the sake of anything." That is, the words of "and certain parts of the other liberal rights" can be omitted.
    However, it is hard for any constitution to cleary provide all of (3). Therefore, it is necessary and possible that the constitution clearly provide (1) and (2) and the conditions and purposes under which (2) are restricted.

DEVIATION OF A STATE POWER FROM SOCIAL RIGHTS

    However, by displaying some pretexts like the security of social rights, 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, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law, and run wildly to autocracy, despotism, or the like. Such have been experienced in the twentieth century as autocracy, totalitarianism, old communism, and so on.
    Nonetheless, we have never resolved class struggle, economic inequality, contradictions of capitalist economy, and so on yet. Communism, socialism, and so on 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. Against the part protecting liberal right, the liberal rights, the political rights, the democratic systems, the separation of the three powers and the rule of law which are strict need to function.
    From now on, more and more on the global level, the environment deteriorates, natural resources are exhausted, and the world 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 fetches some totalitarianism far 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, political rights, democratic systems, separations of 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 and democratic systems more actively than ever. The deviation of 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, political rights, democratic systems, separations of 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 them 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 holder of powers have abused not only science and technology but also various things. It can be put to be, well, collaboration, neutrally, alignment, and, badly, abuse, collusion, corruption, and so on. In the case where political powers are aligned with economic powers, it is hard to say which are dominant. In the case where state powers are aligned with scientist and technologist, it cannot help being said that the former are dominant. That is, it cannot help being said that science and technology and scientists and technologists have been and will be abused by the holders of state powers and political and economic powers. It cannot help being said that from now on, above all, information technology and biological technology will be abused.
    This book fear, above all, the following.
    First, at least part of the tally of the votes of elections, referendums, and so on will be done more or less with information technology. With such electric tally it is more possible than with traditional tally that the holders of public powers and a few superior technologists fabricate those returns more or less.
    Second, 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 and a few superior scientists or technologists 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 very highest medical care will be limited to part 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 that have promoted them actively. In those ways, rather 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. All that is necessary for citizens is that state powers function as a result. All the same, no state powers could function if they did not compose organizations to a degree.
    However, again, what matters to everybody is how state powers function, and how 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.
    According to the findings so far, there seems to be a split between the functions of a state power protecting liberal rights and those securing social rights. First, let us distinguish the functions protecting liberal rights and those 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 OF A STATE POWER 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 the latter is the same as the former and includes 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 is the functions of a state power 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:

political rights, democratic systems, separations of 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, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law; the ways for the civilian officers of the administrative power to control and check them; the way for the legislative power and the judicial power to restrain the administrative power.

    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, political rights, democratic systems, separations of 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. 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 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 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 is the direct and the strongest power violating liberal rights. Moreover, it sometimes violates not only liberal rights directly but also political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law indirectly, and can run wildly to autocracy, despotism, or the like. In order to prevent those, it is possible and necessary not only that they are restrained by civilians 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. In addition, it is possible and necessary that the functions of the police are limited to the investigation, (arrest), and interrogation of suspects, prevention of crimes, rescue in case of disasters, and prevention of man-made disasters and that the functions of the military are limited to national defense, collective security, rescue in case of large-scale disasters, and 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 those functions and that the legislative power provides their details. 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 enforce those provisions, 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 of 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, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law and run wildly to autocracy, despotism, 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. Most crimes are private powers' violating liberal rights, and so this process of trials has had the functions protecting liberal rights, too, to a degree. All the same, if the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law do not function, that process sometimes rather violate liberal rights. Moreover, the holders of state powers abuse that process in order to violate liberal rights, political rights, and so on 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 the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law function to the process of trials.
    The above are the functions of a state power protecting liberal rights. Simply, the functions of a state power protecting liberal rights is the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law, the functions of the police and the military checked by those strict systems, and the process of trials in those strict systems. In the functions of a state power protecting liberal rights, it is possible and necessary that the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law function, that the police and the military checked by those strict systems function, and that the processes of trials in those strict systems function. More simply, the functions of a state power protecting liberal rights are strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law.

THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS WHICH NEED TO FUNCTION IN THE 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 who are entrusted with these functions need to be fair and strict. It is, above all, against authority that they should be so. For example, those who, even if they overlook minor injustice by subordinates, never overlook any injustice by superiors are the best public officers. 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 single-member constituencies be adopted, that proportional representation not be adopted, and that parties be excluded as strictly as possible. In these books, the words of the strict democratic systems mean those systems where fair and strict public officers can be elected directly and indirectly, too.

FUNCTIONS OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC AND SEPARATIVE SYSTEMS

    First, democratic systems, 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 and the members of the legislative power and by the indirect violation of the freedom of speech and expression of them. Second, the liberal rights of the citizens who try to protest that and the judges in the judicial power who try to unconstitutionalize that are violated more easily. That power violating those liberal rights is the same as that violating general ones.
    Therefore, in order to protect not only liberal rights but also political rights, democratic systems in themselves, the separation of the three powers in itself, and the rule of law in itself, it is necessary that the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law function, and it is possible. The functions protecting liberal rights and those protecting those systems overlap largely. In other words, the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law innately have the functions protecting themselves.　Democratic systems including political rights, separations of 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 the functions protecting liberal rights or the like are used, they means the functions protecting those rights and 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 OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO EXIST IN GENERAL

    In order to secure the right to exist in general, that is, to totally abolish and prevent totally destructive means and to reduce pain as in general as possible, 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. The total abolition and prevention of totally destructive means needs to belong to the functions of the rule of law in each state. 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 cooperate with other states and international or world organizations for the total abolition and prevention of them. Second, the legislative power needs to prohibit them 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.
    Out of them, private individuals and groups and the collusion and corruption between private and public ones can be restrained mainly by the traditional police and prosecution and by the separation of the three powers. Moreover, public ones can be restrained mainly in the traditional separation of the three powers and the separation explained later.

THE FUNCTIONS OF A STATE POWER SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS

    In contrast to the functions protecting liberal rights, though it is possible and necessary that the constitution provides social rights and the way to secure them, it cannot provide their details but can only provide their outlines.
    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, on the basis of science and technology. It is possible and necessary that the administrative power involving such specialists research and carries out the policies for the security of social rights.
    Concretely, the functions securing social rights are the following functions：

the proposal to the legislative power of tax and the way to collect, distribute, or manage it, and its actual management; the permissions to and regulation of enterprises; the coordination of labor and management; the construction and maintenance of social structures; the promotion of the welfare; the education of children, and the regulation of the destruction of the nature; the science and technology to research and carry out all those functions.

It is possible and necessary that the administrative power has such functions. After all, excluding the public armed forces, the functions controlling and checking it, and the prosecution, 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 regulations, how the functions securing social rights can deal with them? They can resort to the traditional means of appealing to the process of trials, 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 or permitting. For example, when some enterprises do not comply with regulations, the functions securing social rights can invalidate the business license which have been issued to them. Moreover, the functions securing social rights can stop the supplies or permissions of ports, water, gas, electricity, information, comuication network, and so forth which they have been providing or permitting. When some individuals abuse some welfare, they can stop it and some other welfare that they have been providing the individuals. Such invalidation or stop is a sufficient sanction and power in the modern society. In such ways, 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, and they hardly need any public armed forces or trials.
    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 it, and the prosecution; most of the administrative power is functions securing social rights. In the functions securing social rights, not only are the strict public armed forces, the strict process of trials, 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 precede, 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 or socialism was that the planners of the economy were absorbed in struggle for power inside or outside of the party and that they could not concentrate on the planning of the economy 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.
    Above all, the security of social rights requires the competition concerning the contents of the policies and the ability to plan them. In elections, candidates cannot help proposing some policies for the security of social rights and showing their own competence for planning them. Considering it, also for the security of social rights, elections are considerably better than stark struggle for powers.
    General citizens might be unable to see the details of their policy and the accuracy of their asserted competences. 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 that general citizens elect the planners of the policy 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, it is the strict separation of the three powers and the strict rule of law that 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 against the illegal or unconstitutional behaviors by public officers in general. It is necessary and possible that they are applied to all public functions including the functions protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems and those securing social rights.
    However, as long as such unconstitutional or illegal behaviors are excluded, the separation of the three powers and the rule of law do not need to function strictly to the functions securing socail rights, and if they are too strict, they are not appropriate. Again, while the ways to protect liberal rights and democratic and separative systems can be provided by law in detail, the ways to secure social rights cannot, and most of them cannot help being entrusted to the public officers of the administrative power. Though the public officers who are entrusted with the functions securing social rights need to be fair, but it is not enough. They need to be competent and flexible. They need to be able to make and carry out flexible policies in situations on the basis of science and technology. However, can general citizens appreciate such abilities or policies? All the same, as was explained above, simply, securing social rights is satisfying general citizens desires. It is not a bad thing that general citizens elect them on the basis of not rationality but emotions.
    However, democracy can lead to governments' manipulating public opinion, flattering the people, seeking the national interest excessively in the international society, and the like. All the same, they are not as bad as autocracy, despotism, and the like. Mental manipulation is not as bad as physical manipulation, that is, violence. In addition, general citizens are deceived by them because their social rights are not secured. For example, they are deceived by flattering the people and seeking the national interest excessively because their minimum lives are in danger. Also in order for general citizens not to fall into them, social rights need to be secured to a degree.
    However, it is so only in the functions securing social rights. It should not be so in the functions of the rule of law protecting liberal rights explained earlier. For this very reason, we need to seek the separation of the functions protecting liberal rights and those securing social rights.
    In the above ways, the democratic systems in the functions securing social rights are different from those in the functions protecting liberal rights. While the democratic systems in the functions protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems can be called "Strict" Democratic Systems, those in the functions securing social rights can be called "Human" Democratic Systems.

FUNCTIONS OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS

    In the above ways, the functions of administrative power excluding the public armed forces, excluding the civil officers controlling and checking it, and excluding the prosecution, human democratic systems, the separation of three powers, the rule of law which are moderate, and providing or stopping or proposing to stop the services or the permissions are the functions of a state power securing social rights, and they can be called Functions of the Human Rule Securing Social Rights, Functions Securing Social Rights, or Functions of the Human Rule.

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 need to be banned by the constitution and law, 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 on of totally destructive means but also of all unconstitutional and illegal behaviors of all public and private individuals and groups.
    It is the military or the civilian officers controlling them in the functions protecting liberal rights that have the largest tendency to issue the command or permission of the research and development of weapons including totally destructive means and expansion of armaments. However, it is some departments in the functions securing social rights that can manage the science and technology and the resources which are necessary for the development and production of weapons including totally destructive means. In other words, 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 services and permissions which they have been providing. That is, the functions securing social rights have the function securing the right to exist in general, too.
    The propulsion which have developed and produced nuclear weapons since the middle of the twentieth century have 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 nuclear weapons whose quality and quantity well surpass those which can destroy the whole of the opponent nations, which are unnecessary. Such complexes will be the propulsion for the development and production of super-biological weapons from now on. Out of such a complex, the functions securing social rights contain (5) and control (3)(4). Therefore the functions of the human rule can dissolve such a complex, and can stop the development and production of totally destructive means.
    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, the functions securing social rights contain the function to regulate the destruction of the nature and to preserve it. Moreover, they contain the functions to enforce economic sanctions against international violence.
    In those ways, the functions securing social rights have the function to secure the right to exist in general, too. 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.

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

    In those ways explained in the above sections, the functions of a state power are divided into the two groups of those of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and those of the human rule securing social rights, and a clear split can be found between them. The former are functions to protect liberal rights and democratic and separative systems, that is, democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers, and the rule of law, are functions where strict democratic and separative systems are necessary, possible, and suitable, and have the final power of using the public armed forces. The latter are functions to secure social rights, are functions where the strict democratic and separative systems are unnecessary, impossible, and unsuitable, where human democratic systems are necessary, possible, and suitable, and where the the flexible administrative power is necessary, possible, and suitable, and have the final power to stop or propose to stop the services or the permissions which they have been providing.
    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 involving the three powers strictly separated. In addition, we can allot the functions securing social rights to another system involving 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 that (of the rule of law) protecting liberal rights and that (of the human rule) securing social rights in such a way will be explained later in detail. 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 the system securing social right 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 the national interest excessively in the international society from infiltrating the system protecting liberal rights.
    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 effectively, maintain the appropriate population, to stabilize the economy, and to maintain civilians' minimum lives. Though those are no more than the security of social rights, they are very hard and requires the planning and carrying out of synthetic policies. In this situation, 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, and the rule of law and run wildly to autocracy, despotism, and the like. Then the interests of the holders of political and economic powers precede, and no appropriate policies cannot be planned. In addition, the planners do not compete one another and do not brush up themselves and policies and cannot plan any appropriate policies. Therefore totalitarianism, autocracy, despotism, or the like do not function even for the security of social rights including 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, despotism, or the like, 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. In such ways, 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 totalitarianism, autocracy, despotism, or the like while displaying the pretext of the security of social rights icluding the security of the existence of living things including human beings.

MUTUAL RESTRAINT AND COOPERATION

    The separability of a state power means not only (1) that the separated can function by themselves to a degree but also (2) that they can restrain one another when and where they need to and (3) that they can cooperate with one another when and where they need to.
    As for (1)(2), most of this book is occupied with their explanation. (3) will be simply explained with a few example enumerated in this section. For example 1, though it is a function of the system securing social rights (S system) to relieve and prevent the damage from great natural disaster, famine, poverty, infection, and so on, it is probable that the military or the police belonging to the system protecting liberal rights (L system) need to cooperate with S system in that relief and prevention. In such a case, few will criticize that the military or the police cooperate with the S system according to its leadership and request. For example 2, in the culture or sports festival hosted or sponsored by S system, it is probable that the band of the military or the police accompany something or that the air force perform air show, but few will criticize that L system do those according to S system's request. Rather, most will hail them, won't they?
    Also on those grounds, it is possible that each state power is separated into the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and that of the human rule securing social rights.    As for the local and cultural education of children, it will be explained later.

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

SEPARABILITY

    The above chapter showed that each state power can be separated into the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and that of the human rule securing social rights. Then, is it possible to reform and separate the traditional organizations of each state power into those systems?
    Again, the separability of a state power means not only that the separated can function by themselves to a degree but also that they can restrain each other when and where they need to and that they can cooperate with each other when and where they need to.
    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. Moreover, the following are separable in each of the three powers.
    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 of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and the other has the legislative functions of the human rule 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, most of the administrative power in every state has already been separated 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 of the rule of law protecting liberal rights, and most of the other departments have the administrative functions of the human rule 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 most of them have the judicial functions of the rule of law protecting liberal rights in the traditional way and that a part of them have the judicial functions of the human rule securing social rights in a new way. In contrast to that possibility, is it necessary? This question will be considered later.

SEPARATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER INTO THE TWO LEGISLATIVE 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 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 functions of the administrative power securing human rights, like how much to public enterprises, how much to medical care and welfare, or 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 much homogenized. It is possible and necessary that one of the two houses in such a bicameral system has the legislative functions of the rule of law protecting liberal rights 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, 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 such possibility and necessity are realized, the former can be called the (Legislative) House (of the Rule of Law) (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) 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 the house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L house) is the protection of liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law and that it provides strict democratic system including political rights, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law where L house should exist and function. It is possible and necessary that the constitution provides that the purpose of the house of the human rule securing social rights (S house) is the security of social rights, that it provides the human democratic systems where the S house and system should exist and function, and that it does provide or does not provide the loose separation of the three powers and the loose rule of law where S house and system should exist and function.
    As for the legislation concerning the protection of the liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law, 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. As for the legislation concerning liberal rights, political rights, and so on, 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, vice versa.
    All the same, there are a few pieces of legislation concerning things where the protection of liberal rights, political rights, and so on and the security of social rights seem to be intermingled and inseparable. For example, there are 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. However, there are unexpectedly a few things which are really inseparable. If there were things inseparable, both houses could have equal authorities, which would not be so difficult.
    Now let us look through what 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, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law 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, because it is concerning the protection of political rights and democratic systems, it is possible and necessary that L house is given priority. As for the legislation concerning the election of the members of S house, it is possible and necessary. Moreover, as for not only that of the legislative power but also that of the administrative power and the judicial power, it is possible and necessary. That is, it is not at all that each house or system should exclusively deal with its own democratic system including election.
    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 concerning the ratification of the treaties concerning international or world economy, labor, communication, culture, education, health, and the preservation of the global environment and global resources, and that the L house is given priority concerning the ratification of the treaty concerning collective security, disarmament, and international liberal rights, political rights, and so on. If a treaty comprehends both of them and if its chapters, sections, items, and so on 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 equal authority concerning its ratification.
    As for the legislation concerning the tax, which is inseparable, it is possible and necessary that the two houses have equal authority.
    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, political rights, and so on and that concerning the security of social rights and that each house discuss and decide its own part preferentially in such a way as was explained above. 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, it is possible and necessary that the whole of the budget is decide with their equal authority.
    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. In this situation, 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 decides earlier or, for example, with more than two-thirds. It is possible and necessary that the constitution provides such nulligication, too.
    The appointment or election of the chief of the administrative power of each system and the chiefs of the judicial power will be explained later.
    In the above ways, it is unexpectedly clear concerning what, which house should be given priority or both houses should have equal authorities. 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 decide through the appeal to it by, for example, one third 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, concerning S house, because human democratic systems need to function, political parties, large districts, proportional representation, and a larger number of representatives are possible and necessary. In contrast, concerning L house, because strict democratic systems need to function, no parties, small districts, 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.
    In such a way, by separating the legislative power into the two houses of L house and S house, 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.
    Above all, as for the published policies, that is, manifests in elections, when they are separated, the policies protecting liberal rights, political rights, and so on and those securing social rights can respectively be clear to the general electors, and they can select the suitable policies.
    As for the change of 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, the chief of administrative power in S system, and the chiefs of the judicial power will be explained in the separation of the administrative power and the judicial power respectively. We will go on to the separation of the adminstrative power for the time being.
    As readers go on reading the following sections, such a question as "where is the traditional president or prime minister?" 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, its possibility and necessity 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 (S system) and is controlled 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 preferentially in such a way as was explained in the above section by the 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 of the citizens in the state decides the propositions of the selection and change of the chief of the police and of the law concerning the protection of liberal rights in the state and concerning the organizations and functions of the police and proposes them to the plenary session of L house. In addition, it is possible and necessary that that committee decides and order important policies concerning the protection of liberal rights and the functions of 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 what correspond the above.
    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 them by the civilian officers controlling them are restrained by the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law in this 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 not under an individual but under such organizations as were explained above, we can prevent the military or the police from running wildly and prevent some individuals 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 them. By separating it into the police and military and the other part, we can prevent the whole of the administrative power from running wildly and prevent its chief from abusing it to a great degree.
    We should prevent the collusion of the police and the military which have already been separated. Above all, 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. In order to prevent their collusion, it is possible and necessary 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). 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 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 natural resources are incorporated into the system of the human rule. The separation of the departments of finance and tax and of diplomacy will be explained later.
    When we look over them in such a way, we find that the budget of the administrative power in S system 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 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. How to arrange various kinds of public enterprises? This is an example of the research of synthetic policies.
    In addition, as was explained earlier, S system has the power to stop or to propose to stop the services or the permissions which they have been providing. 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 adminstrative power excluding the police and the military and excluding the department of the finance and the tax and a part of the department of diplomacy, which will be explained later, are entrusted to some experts who can make the synthetic policies securiong 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 house securing social rights (S house) in such a way as was explained in the above section. Moreover, even it is possible that the administrative power in S system become an unified organization. From the beginning, the overseparation of the administrative power in S system has caused its excessive expansion, reduced its efficiency, and increased the public cost. It is not only possible but also necessary that such overseparated administrative power in S system is unified.

SEEMINGLY INSEPARABLE ORGANIZATIONS

    Seemingly inseparable but easily separable organizations will be incorporated into either the administrative power in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system) or that in the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system).
    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 the administrative power in S system. The police or the military belonging to the administrative power in L system sometimes need to cooperate in those functions with the administrative power in S system, but it is no more than cooperation and it is under the request and the control by the administrative power in S system.
    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. 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 the administrative power in S system. 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 the administrative power in S system. It is possible and necessary that those are provided by the constitution and laws. Anyway, the liberal right of the freedom of speech concerning public and political powers, their holders, political systems, policies is never restricted. The criticism of governments' policies are necessary in the very kind of crisis.
    As for the minimum education of children, it is the functions of the administrative power in S system 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 them. All the same, if the majority of citizens want public powers to promote them, that promotion is a function of the administrative power in S system. 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 the administratie power in S system. 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, it is not impossible that it is also separated into those two systems. For example, it is possible that the tax is divided according to its categories, and the divided are alloted to the two systems and that each system collects and manages its own money. Even it is possible that each system issues its own banknotes.
    However, the management of money needs considerable expertise and fall into the very sphere 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 strict and which 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 banknotes' issue, and so forth are incorporated into 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 of the rule of law 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 which it has been providing but also its own 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 S system run wildly to the expansion of armaments or a war while violating the constitution, the law, and the international law, S system has the power of not letting them to withdraw their money. Those powers including that which has been found here can be called (its own) power to stop (or to propose to stop) the service, permission, and money (which it has been providing and keeping).
    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, to get straight to the point, it is possible and necessary that it is separated into two parts of (1) and (2), that (1) is incorporated into the administrative power in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system), and that (2) is incorporated into the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system). The functions of (1) are the protection of the liberal rights and democratic and separative systems, that is, democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers, and the rule of of the citizens of each state while functioning in the international society. More concretely, the functions of (1) are the negotiations in the international society concerning national defense, collective security, and disarmament. In contrast, the functions of (2) are the security of social rights of the citizens of each state while functioning in the international society. More concretely, the functions of (2) are the negotiations in the international society 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, the regulation of the destruction of the national and global environment, and the preservation and effective use of national and global natural resources.
    Here we find the following three points.
    First, the functions of diplomacy are clearly distinguished into the functions protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems, that is, democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers, and the rule of law on the one hand and the functions securing social rights on the other hand. This distinction of functions is developed into the separation of the organization of diplomacy.
    Second, not only the functions of diplomacy but also the functions of international or world organizations are clearly distinguished into the functions protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems and the functions securing social rights. 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 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 of functions can be developed into the separation of international or world organizations.
    Third, from the beginning, it was wrong that such various and important functions were concentrated on a traditional president or prime minister. This concentration and his or her desire for power and money and what is called military-industrial complexes are the main cause of aggressive wars, expansions of armaments including the research, development, and hold of totally destructive means in the international society. In addition, this concentration and his or her lack of expertise are the main cause of economic instability and disparity in the international society. By this separation, traditional president or prime ministers are dissolved. Also for this reason, those disorders caused by the entanglement of the diplomacy protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems and that securing social rights are dissolved.
    Thus it is possible and necessary that the diplomatic organization in the administrative power is separated into that in L system and that in S system. Moreover in details, this separation is possible in the following way.
    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 who are nominated by the committee or the organization 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, the plenary session of L house can resolve preferentially in such a way as was explained earlier. Though the possibility of the members of this 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, those members can 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 through such things in such a way, we find that the responsibility of this 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 of its committees 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 often happens that "everybody's business is nobody's business," it is more dreadful that an individual abuses such responsibility and runs wildly to autocracy or despotism, to war, or to expansion of armaments. Such dreadfulness of the abuse of responsibility has often been experienced in the history. Irresponsibility is better than 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. Those can be applied to each of the committees of L system controlling the police and the military.
    In contrast, the diplomacy in S system can be entrusted to the chief or diplomats of the administrative power in S system specialized in economy, welfare, culture, education, preservation of the nature, and so forth. 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 the house of the human rule securing social rights (S house) decide preferentially in the way explained earlier. That is, it has already been assured that each part of diplomacy of the administrative power can be responded its own part of the legislative power.
    It is not only in each state power but also in the international society or the world or 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.
    Even if there are international organizations, meetings, or negotiations concerning both of the two systems, it is possible and necessary that both of the representatives of the two systems of each state attend them. In this case and when the individual resolution is concerned with one of those two systems, the representative concerning it can vote. In this case and when the individual resolution is concerned with both of those two systems, the two can negotiate. In this case and when the two agree on a vote content, the two can vote it. In this case and when the two disagree, they can abstain from the vote.
    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 systems (S system), if there remained traditional presidents or prime ministers 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 the police and the military and the diplomacy concerning national defense, collective security, disarmament, and so forth are supervised respectively by the committees in the legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L house) and that the strict democratic and separative systems, that is, democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers, and the rule of law function to them and their committees in L system. In addition, it is possible and necessary that the part of the administrative power securing social rights including the whole of the functions of finance and tax and the diplomacy securing social rights are managed by some experts which is elected directly or indirectly by general citizens in S system.
    Again, 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 functions of diplomacy. The dissolution of presidents or prime ministers can prevent them from going to aggressive war, abusing the 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 traditional presidents or prime ministers who held at least the whole of the administrative power is dissolved. Distinguished from the traditional presidents or prime ministers who had all the administrative power, those who manages the part of the administrative power excluding the whole of the public armed forces and excluding the functions of diplomacy concerning national defense, collective security, disarmament, and so forth can be called the Chief (of the Part) of the Administrative Power of the Human Rule Securing Social Rights, 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 be appointed by the legislative house of the human rule securing social rights (S house) which was explained earlier preferentially in such a way as was explained earlier.
    It is desirable that an expert who himself or herself has the ability to plan the policy 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 that 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 a state or nation. 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.

ABOUT LOCALLY CULTURAL EDUCATION

    As for adults' education and culture, it is possible and necessary that they seek it freely on the basis of liberal rights of thought, speech, and expression. What about children's education?
    The right where children acquire minimum education or where parents make some public powers provide their children with minimum education is a part of social rights, and its security is the functions of the system of the human rule protecting social rights (S system) of a state power or a municipality.
    Here locally cultural education will matter, above all, in a multi-ethnic country or federation. This separation into those two systems never hinder municipalities or states from providing children with locally cultural education. In order to prevent ethnic conflicts, it is possible and necessary that the legislative and administrative power in S system of a municipality or state provides them with it.

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.
The police, the military, and the functions of diplomacy concerning national defense, collective security, disarmament, and so on.
(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) and its chief.

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, if the judicial power in itself and each court and each judge in it have already gotten independent of the others to a great degree, it can be said that such a separation are unnecessary and that it can go on existing and functioning in a traditional way.
    However, the nomination of the supreme court's judges by traditional presidents or prime ministers makes their tendencies to judge influenced by factionalism, and it impairs the independence of the judicial power.
    Such impairment is lesser when the legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L house), which was explained earlier, nominates them preferentially in such a way as was explained earlier than when traditional presidents or prime ministers do it. For example, it is possible and necessary that the committee concerning the composition of the judicial power in L house proposes the nomination of judges, that its plenary session nominates them, and that when the legislative house of the human rule securing social rights (S house) nominates them differently, the nomination of the former becomes final nomination.
    When that problem who nominates them is resolved in such a way, the judicial power do not have to be separated, do it?
    As was explained earlier, it is impossible and unsuitable 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 (1) in the administrative power, and to the judges (2) in the judicial power. However, those ways to entrust them are different. While the former (1) can be on the basis of human wisdom and science and technology, the latter (2) should be on the basis of the constitution and laws. That is, the latter (2) cannot help reading those unwritten details between the lines of the constitution and laws. Though the latter (2) should interpret social rights, welfare, health, happiness, and so on in concrete situations, the latter should do so on the basis of the constitution and law from the beginning to the ending.
    In addition, the lawsuits where citizens accuse the administrative power of its fault or negligence to which they attribute their social rights' insecurity occupy most of the lawsuits concerning social rights. In addition, it is the essence of the separation of the three powers and the rule of law for judicial power to accuse unconstitutional or illegal behaviors by state powers, and the judicial power needs to be their center.
    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.

NOMINAL CHIEF OF A STATE

    Practically, the "chief of the state" is unnecessary, but it sometimes seems to be necessary formally and nominally, for example, in national or international festivals or ceremonies. Then the chairman of the legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L house) will be proper to be it.
    However, the chief of the state will be unnecessary even formally or nominally. When some superior public officers have to attend festivals or ceremonies, for example, as for the military's ceremonies, the chairperson of the committee controlling the military can attend them, and as for cultural festivals, the chief of the part of the administrative power of the human rule securing social rights can attend them. That is, in just the same way traditional presidents and prime ministers are dissolved, formal or nominal chiefs of states are dissolved.

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 sections, it is possible and necessary that each state power be 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 powerThe house
of the rule of law
protecting liberal rights		The house
of the human rule
securing social rights
The administrative powerThe police
The military
The functions of diplomacy
dealing with national defense, collective security,
disarmament, and so on
The committees controlling them separately
The other part
of the administrative power
and its chief
The judicial powerThe judicial power

    In addition, "Democratic and Separative Systems" were defined earlier as democratic systems including political rights, the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law, but they are redefined as follows.

Democratic and separative systems: Democratic systems including political rights; separations of powers including the separations of the three powers and the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and that of the human rule securing social rights; and 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

BEYOND THE POSSIBILITY AND THE MINIMUM NECESSITY

    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, the explanation of that necessity has been that of the minimum necessity. The necessity or merit, above all, of this separation will be explained in this chapter.

SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS AND 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.
    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 was not restrained, and a lot of resources were poured into such expansion. This expansion of arms is attributed also to the struggle for powers between bureaucrats.
    Those were 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 causes.

[THE 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 will deteriorate, natural resources will be depleted, and the world population will go on growing and reach that which can be narrowly maintained on the earth, and in these situations, the economy and citizens' lives tighten. 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. It 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, war, and so forth.
    Again, the planing 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 (democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers, and the rule of law), 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 the 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 both prevents the deviation from social rights including the above and 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 will deal with the future but could have dealt 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, 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, at the same time, S system tends to fall into manipulating public opinion, flattering the people, the majority's arrogance, excessively seeking national interest, and so on. Moreover, it is probable that some politicians who temporarily gather voters' support through only one enthusiastic election 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 sustem and L 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 force, that is, the police and the military, the department of diplomacy, and the human and financial power for the security of social rights was concentrated on the traditional presidents or prime ministers. Traditional presidents or prime ministers are dissolved by this separation and by the incorporation of the police, the military, and a part of diplomacy into the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system) and by the incorporation of the other part of the administrative power into that of the human rule securing social rights (S system) and by the former's being respectively administered by the committees in the legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L house) and the latter's being administered by the chief of the part of the administrative power in S system. 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 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 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 dissolved.
    The dissolution of military-civilian-academic-industrial complexes, which have lead the research, development,　and production of nuclear weapons and which will lead the research and development of general totally destructive means, is one of the decisive ways to totally abolish and prevent them.

[PREVENTING THE WAR FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST]

    Though going to war for the sake of the national interest is include in the deviation from social rights explained earlier, it will be dealt with also in this section, too.
    In conventional 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, and that for the national interest is excluded. In contrast, nobody in the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system) has the authority to go to war, The authority to seek the national interest, if it is anywhere, is in S system. In addition, that system should seek the national interest not by war but by the negotiations in the international society. Thus, by this separation, there is no authority to go to war for the national interest anywhere. Therefore this separation prevent the war for the national interest to a considerable degree. By the way, almost all wars in the history have involved a kind of national interest. With this prevention of the war for the national interest, the dissolution of traditional presidents or prime ministers, that of what is called military-industrial complexes (military-civilian-academic-industrial complexes), and so on gathered together, this separation can prevent 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 the national interest and instigated the masses to them, and plunged into them 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 the national interest 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 such instigation and war 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 (democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers, and the rule of law) 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 (including the police and the military) and the civilians controlling them can be restrained by the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law 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 cooperate with the unconstitutional or illegal activities of a part of L system including public armed forces.
    Moreover, against the public armed forces running wildly or their abusers, it is possible for S system to restrains them with its own power to stop or to propose to stop the services or permissions which it has been providing and the money which it has been managing. For example, even if the police or the military run wildly by themselves, 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, above all, concerning those against public powers, a few legal disputes will occur. In order to prevent them, it need 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 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 managing for them.
    The power of democratic systems, the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law and the power to stop or to propose to stop services or permissions which has been provided and the money which has been managed are heterogeneous. Such heterogeneous powers can restrain public armed forces and the civilians controlling them efficiently without interrupting each other. This is 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 too much decreases its clearness for citizens and public officers and cause a confusion in democratic systems and separations of powers. In addition, it decreases the state power's 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.
    All the same, in order for us to protect liberal rights and democratic and separative systems (democratic systems including political rights, separations of powers, and the rule of law), strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law need to function in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights (L system), and some separations are essential there.
    In contrast, strict separations are not only unnecessary but also inadequate in the system of the human rule securing social rights (S system), above all, in the administrative power in S system. Again, a synthetic policy need to be planed and carried out efficiently in this system. Far from preventing over-separation, it is possible that the administrative power in S system 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.
    In those ways, 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 systems, separations of 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 restrain 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. As was explained earlier the main cause of the increase of public cost and tax is the extreme expansion of the administrative power in S system. It is necessary that it is not only cut but also unified as much as possible.
    However, military expansion and the formation of what is called military-industrial complexes (military-civilian-academic-industrial complexes) are one of the course of the increase of public cost and tax. All the same, the security of social rights on the one hand and national and collective defense 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.
    In such ways, 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, 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 fittness 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 the national interest and to instigate the masses. This separation makes such 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 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 systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law in L system, and so they 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, and 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 systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the rule of law 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 and the money which it has been providing, permitting, or managing 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, water, gas, electricity, ports, airports, information, communication network, money, and so forth which it has been providing, permitting, or managing.
    Again, (1) public armed forces and the civilian officer controlling them are restrained both with (2) strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law in L system and with (3) the power of S system's own to stop the services and the money which it has been providing, permitting, or managing by S system. 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.

This is the last resort against public armed forces' running wildly or being abused.

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