Why Don’t We Legislate According To Personal Conduct?

A ruler can never experience success in Democracy without successful election, but election is somewhat unrelated to the ability to govern. 

One rule of government is equality. It makes those who govern accountable because they face the same problems as their subjects— the same rules apply to them.

We call the associated love of fairness “egalitarian.” If westerners find communism too totalitarian about it, the introductory idea of fairness is certainly part of the allure of communism.

However, the domain of democratic principles has boundaries. Tyranny is defined as “the prince ruling to his own (best) interest, rather than prioritizing the interest of the state.” We may quibble if the interests of the people promote the interest of the state. 

We find Tyranny and oppression to enjoy a strong positive correlation in history. Does this mean tyranny causes oppression, or is oppression a side effect of tyranny?

How could I doubt that tyranny CAUSES oppression? Simply put, a business proprietor models a tyranny by some evaluation of it. While this isn’t proof one way or the other, it proves the DISTINCTION is  important.

Likewise, the maxim “What is permitted to others is forbidden to us,” introduces “us and them” thinking— ordinarily opposed to egalitarian equality and inclusiveness.

Observing that it defines a framework for most religious practice fails to deter us from deprecating the sentiment.

However, any effort to evaluate inclusion along moral lines will face two difficulties: 

1. Moral people cannot correctly be called “free,” if they are obligated to participate.
2. By contrast, it demonstrates a failing of aristocracy, if what is permitted to others ultimately becomes opposed— that is, it is not freely permitted to them.

The reason that religion does not convert us to aristocracy is that the deciders must ultimately become accountable to those who must perform the experiment of their governance. 

Most complaints that religion is oppressive derive in some way from adherents having influence, but not accountability. 

To balance the books for perspective, monarchs and religious practitioners both familiarize themselves with the problems of servitude (often through philanthropy) so that they will not forget them when later, when they execute authority.

The military has a perennial familiarity with this discussion, encapsulated in the admonition, “you have to learn to FOLLOW orders before you can GIVE orders to others.”