A social organism is comprised of people forming organizations for the purpose of conducting the necessary business of life in, one would suppose, the most effective and beneficial way possible. Somehow, though, things always seem to get fouled up. The 2008 financial/economic crisis is a case in point. The cause of it was basically that major financial instututions were selling baloney that was advertised as prime rib. Self-interest ran roughshod over sound judgment resulting in the total disregard of the collective. Most, if not all, of the blame goes to those in positions of power. The high and mighty financial institutions and those government agencies charged with overseeing their activities. But it didn't help that many of us other folk took out loans on our overvalued homes and maxed out our credit cards.

The crisis was dealt with in the short term. But anyone who thinks a long term solution preventing pernicious acts of unbridled self-interest from occurring ever again was put in place is only kidding themselves. Without a totally radical change from the way social systems are presently configured any so-called solution will only amount to a temporary fix. As Bernie Madoff and Sam Bankman-Fried confirm.

The selfish insular behavior of our financial institutions is, however nothing unique. It's pretty much the norm throughout society. The prevalent social dynamic is one in which members of particular associations tend to regard their group's survival as paramount over anything else. Examples of such behavior are rampant and indulged in by whatever kind of association one can think of, be it a government agency, business, bank, religion, political party, street gang, etc. We have, for instance, ideologically based groups, either godly or secular, tearing at each others throats to secure some illusive moral high ground as their exclusive territory - right-to life vs pro choice, for instance. We have political parties who contend that their ideology provides the only worthwhile perspective and seek to eliminate those with differing views. We have bureaucracies like Health and Human Services, better known as Welfare, exacerbating the very conditions they were formed to alleviate so as to ensure the survival of the welfare agency at the expense of those they're suppose to serve. We have street gangs like the Crips and Bloods which are, perhaps, the most brutal manifestations of this pathologically insular mind set, but they are merely conforming to the behavior of the society at large, i.e., their associations are the only ones that matter. And then there's the media providing the asylum where all this pathology plays out and becomes institutionalized.

Competing factions, such as Right to life vs Pro choice, the Crips vs the Bloods, can serve to check one another so that neither side will become all powerful but what cannot be checked is the continuing deterioration of the social fabric these contentious groups cause.

Along with these kinds of checks a social organism needs balance, which power-checking alone cannot provide. The idea of checks and balances was fundamental to the original vision of the American revolution. The contentious two party system was an unintended consequence that greatly disturbed the likes of George Washington. He foresaw the parties as having a corrosive effect on a free society. The two party system increases the checks but decreases the balance. The two parties duke it out for power and the dust they kick up in the process more often then not obscures the best possible solutions for particular problems.

It seems like all of our institutions lack a sense of propriety in managing themselves in relation to the overall social organism to which they belong. Without this holistic sense of things it is, of course, impossible to create and maintain a wholesome social/political system wherein all organizations can achieve their proper goals while also contributing to the health and well being of the whole society. With an holistic sense of social propriety, however, a symbiotic confluence of all participating entities can be created that promotes particular and overall conditions of synergistic vitality. This is what all groups and individuals need to be interested in promoting in spite of their differences. This would make it possible for everyone to contribute to the integrity of the whole social organism while at the same time serving their own self-interests as well.

Is this an unrealistic ideal? All ideals are by definition unrealistic. They are unreachable goals worth striving to approximate. The ideal is to keep trying to get as close to the ideal as possible.

The merging of self-interest and collective-interest, however, is not some abstract alien idea which needs to be artificially imposed upon people. The absolute separation of self and collective interest is a concept that needs to be imposed on us because it is false. It is in our very natures to conduct ourselves with respect to those two interests symbiotically. In the state of nature, for instance, individual members of primitive tribes worked for the welfare of the tribe as a whole because it was vitally connected to each member's self-interest, that is, their own self-preservation. In our more advanced societies we have individuals working for the common interest of various associations, or "tribes", which are extensions of their self-interest, be it a government agency, business, political party, religion, gang, etc. And, though, one may also believe that one is working for the betterment of the whole society through one's associations, this does not always prove to be the case. A business can provide products and jobs but be harmful to the environment (Dumping chemicals into a river, for instance). Political parties in seeking their own advantage can interfere with establishing and promoting optimum social conditions. Religious leaders who insist that their beliefs should be the law of the land create conflicts in society which threaten the ongoing cohesion of the overall community to which they belong and which is based upon religious freedom. We can lose sight of the larger picture as we become overly obsessed with our own peephole view of the world. The question for society is how to manage and contain all of its various groups in a coherent form on an ongoing basis.

Soviet communism attempted this through coercion from the top. The state had absolute power to create the perfect society and it botched the job. Attempting to micromanage a society from the top down is a flagrant violation of the nature of things. A macrocosm cannot create the microcosm. The microcosm creates the macrocosm. This is the natural condition of things and applicable to social organisms as well as any other structure. Trying to form a society the other way, from the top down, makes for unwieldy top heavy structures which are impossible to balance and eventually must fall apart. The social structure of the United States is much too top heavy and seems to be teetering out of control. There is a lot of checking and finger pointing going on but nothing much to promote cohesion and balance.

Proportion and symmetry are part and parcel of the concept of balance and these three elements might serve us better as societal goals than do the concepts of justice, equality and liberty. Of course, balance, proportion and symmetry do not have the seductive power that the concepts of justice, equality and liberty do, but without the former principles in view the latter ones are merely mirages that torment us with continual disillusionment. And, again, balance, proportion and symmetry can only be achieved by allowing the microcosm to form the macrocosm.

For this objective to be realized the government, of course, must change. Not just in the perennial transition of power, which is a meaningless exercise for entrenched bureaucracies and prevents the prospect of an ongoing cohehent social system. So, yes, change is needed. And not just in terms of cosmetic change but in terms of a complete dismantling and re-creation of all the organs of the body politic on an on going basis. That is, continually, periodically taking our institutions apart and putting them back together again, forming and reforming them constantly in ways best suited to deal with the ever changing social configurations that have been consistently outmaneuvering our misshapen, bloated and overweight body politic for decades.

As we know, it is the natural order of things to develop up from the microcosm to the macrocosm. Indeed, everything is created in like manner. The complex intricacy of the human body, for one example, is formed and maintained through the autonomous networking of individual cells. So, a system of small integrated components is what we should be looking at for the re-creation of the social organism. That is, a society made up of a network of autonomous communities forming from within themselves all the political, social and economic organs needed for their own particular situations while at the same time creating out of themselves the larger body politic in which they would all be incorporated according to the microcosms specifications and requirements.

Communities, then, would function as centers of power unto themselves with respect to their associations with other communities and to the society at large. The communities would form out of themselves a county government made up of a representative from each community. This same process would be repeated at the county terminal with counties networking to form a state apparatus, and so on and so forth for regional and national terminals of government. The microcosm forms the macrocosm congruous to the contours of the microcosm and therefore prevents the macrocosm from becoming something alien to the microcosm.

All terminals of government, in real time communication with one another, could contribute what timely input each had to offer from their particular vantage point in regard to a given situation and decide among themselves how best to handle it. Generally speaking, it would be incumbent upon local terminals to resolve their own problems. When this would not be possible, however, the matter would be relegated to the next terminal and so on until some satisfactory solution was formulated. Lines of authority would not be altogether fixed but would be commensurate to the value of the input one had to offer in an ongoing process of checks and balances throughout the system.

So, if a problem was irreconcilable at a local terminal authority would be given to another terminal to impose a solution. However, if and when the parties involved at the local terminal agreed to abide by a different solution arrived at among themselves, which they found preferable to the one imposed upon them by the county or other terminal of government, then the imposed solution could be overturned in favor of the local agreement.

This kind of system would give communities better representation and allow for programs and policies to be as fine tuned as possible to a community's particular situation.

Through this kind of networking it would be possible to establish an integrated system that forms social bonds which allow for differences while not tolerating contamination. Bonds that define how we are individually oriented, how we fit into the overall scheme and how we can all find ways of making things work more harmoniously than is now the case.

When a body is hierarchically structured and held together from the top and a centralized ruling entity is totally responsible for the fitness of the whole society then the failure of that ruling entity means the whole organism is at risk. But such a risk would be virtually eliminated if autonomous communities were predominantly responsible for the condition of a society and were directly involved in forming the entity which possessed whatever centralized power the autonomous communities deemed necessary. So, there would be no centralized power structure that the whole society was absolutely dependent upon or controlled by and such a structure could, if necessary, be reformed at a moment's notice.

The whole measure of a society can be taken by how it effects, and is effected by, the individual. In the United States individuals are primarily thought of as consumers to be cajoled, conned and/or compelled to buy any number of nicely packaged products from kitty litter to political platforms. Individuals are seen as quarry to be captured through the clever use of advertising techniques which operate on the irrational, the sensational, the unconscious level of our psyches. Hit them below the belt is the modus operandi. Or as one ardent member of a political faction once said, "When you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow."

We are continuously barraged with messages, images, signals, aimed at manipulating us in the crudest way possible. Appealing to our higher faculties would, one might suppose, be less democratic than appealing to the lowest common denominator. Anyway one is jerked around this way and that way by government, business, media and a variety of crusading cults without any recourse for individuals to correspond in a mindful manner. The prevailing attitude of most every social, political, economic grouping is "you're either for us or against us." Mutually beneficial interests are all but absent.

One would think that perhaps the Media might be the place to provide a forum that would serve to find common ground between the various factions. However, the Media is merely a multi-ringed circus of personalities and events using the most salacious and titillating aspects of the social/political scene to garner the highest rating share possible. Media stars pose as the guardians of reason and rationality while merely serving to promote one ideology or other and highlighting the scenes of mayhem and madness they're only too eager to broadcast.

There is definitely a problem with remote centers of power presiding over every community. Our very homes have been taken over by electronic media centers and we exist in their insane asylum twenty four hours a day. Television, smart phones and the Internet rule over the home while they should be under the control of the people who live there. We need to take back our homes, our neighborhoods, our communities and install a society which corresponds to the balanced view of things that every individual must be encouraged to acquire in order to successfully negotiate through the world. The real world. What is needed is a society emanating from such individuals freely grappling with one another to form the necessary associations that will serve to foster their vital connections. This would be a society which remains true to the contours of the individual from the microcosm to the macrocosm just as a living organism remains true to the design of its cellular components.

There's something about societies which are under the spell of national politics that unleashes people's irrationality. And in which rationality is seen as irrationality. We seem to want to do the extreme hard core thing with ideologies, drugs, violence, sex, food, etc. No rational perspective is available, only voices in tune with some fanatical group's biased opinions.

Presidents, congressmen, governors all take sides on issues like abortion and inflame an already volatile situation instead of using their offices to effectively contain disparate groups and impress upon them the necessity of putting the cohesion of the whole social organism uppermost in their minds.

The government should be, needs to be rational enough to realize that everything cannot be solved through legislation. Some things are best left up to individuals to decide. Problems arise when overzealous "cause" groups have their particular point of view legitimized by a legislature and procede to wage all out war to gain political advantage.

However, the thing is, all the various cause groups represent micro-centers of power which are displacing, or have displaced the old macro-centers of power. This is the effect of electronic information technologies that create decentralized arrangements. Individual electronic devices like smart phones that make it possible for each and everyone of us to be empowered to broadcast to the world. And this is something that must be effectively addressed. It is this phenomenon of smaller and smaller centers of power that contributes to people acting out their irrational impulses with such alacrity. The center cannot hold. What is needed is a change in the structure of our institutions so that these newly created micro-centers can all be reasonably incorporated into one constitutionally sound body.

At present it is a chaotic situation where micro-centers of power vie with each other for macro center control when they don't really need to. They don't need to be legitimized by centralized power organizations such as federal or state governments. They are in and of themselves complete spheres of influence as powerful as any government agency. Whether or not a group like Right-to-life has its point of view made into law is inconsequential because the law can be repealed when a new government is elected. Its real power is in its ability to instantly disseminate its message throughout society without restriction. Laws may come and go as political whimsy decrees but the right to get one's message out loud and clear is, and must continue to be, guaranteed in perpetuity.

Centralized power structures, like federal and state governments, cannot be vacillating between the poles of micro-centers of power according to the personal beliefs of those who happen to be in control of centralized power at any given time. We cannot be legislating one moral point of view over another, now this one, now that, as fashion dictates and expect a coherent social body to be the result. We need to have a governing perspective over fractious factions which does not take sides and is instrumental in facilitating their coexistence. They need to be contained within an overall structure which does not allow for the wholesale erosion of the social fabric that insular groups are now capable of causing. The government should act as referee in such matters as the abortion debate making sure that groups such as Right-to-life and Pro-choice play within the rules, see to it that each has equal opportunity to air their particular point of view and let individuals decide the issue for themselves.

All kinds of talking heads from intellectuals to the members of street gangs appear on various platforms on the Internet and emphatically demonstrate the glory in living by one's convictions alone without regard to holistic umbrellas. This is not to suggest there is anything necessarily wrong with having convictions. It's only a problem when they get so insular and distorted as to block the use of common sense, prevent the development of an integrated sensibility and contribute to the erosion of the social fabric.

Its like everyone is a loose cannon. So much is fed into us about taking sides to the extreme as the only way to get involved. Extreme expression is the only way to count for something. Even Sesame Street presents characters who are fixated on doing their own thing pathologically. And advertising constantly broadcasts the message that it's worth interrupting whatever you might be doing to indulge in consuming the product being advertised. And one is encouraged to take any measure whatsoever in order to obtain the product. The obsessive compulsive behavior of the characters in the ads celebrate a single-minded fanatacism to a single cause. There is generally nothing in place to encourage a more temperate, studied assessment of things. Nothing on how to manage strong beliefs within a harmonious social organism. Or sublimating basic drives and appetites into creative endeavors.

Such is the case with political ideologies as well. One cannot prove that a particular political ideology is absolutely superior over any other. We saw how communism failed as a one party system. And capitalism could not sustain a healthy social organism while it reigned supreme in the United States from the industrial revolution through to the first half of the twentieth century. So, no, neither is absolutely superior to the other in every way. A republic or parliamentary form of government works best because differing ideologies are allowed to compete with one another for the voter's confidence. That political campaigns are often fraught with mud slinging and behind the scene skullduggery is testament to the subjective nature of political perspectives and the unspoken realization that ideologies, in and of themselves, are deficient. So, they must be propped up with timely slogans, jargon and outright con jobs. A particular party needs to capitalize on the current societal situation and appear to the voter to be the perfect solution to every problem. The longer a particular party is in power, however, the easier it is for the other party to show itself as the more attractive one. This is further testimony to the improbability of the notion that any one party could be the be all and end all of reliable governance.

Hashing out effective legislation, programs and policies from among conflicting perspectives, party agendas and powerfully influential special interest groups that are not necessarily concerned with the larger picture seems an unlikely way to arrive at an ongoing healthy society. Such an objective could be much better served if the power and responsibility for maintaining social well-being was more dispersed throughout the social, economic and political system.

Every locality, in exercising its wherewithal to maintain itself as socially, economically and environmentally sound can contribute to the creation of the big picture much more effectively than a centralized government apparatus can with its practice of remote control micromanagement. The microcosm creates the macrocosm. In its creation of the macrocosm the microcosm must network with its counterparts so that each locality of the microcosm is configured and situated in such a way as to function in the most effective and beneficial way possible with respect to the macrocosm it creates. By having society formed from the microcosm of its localities each macrocosmic organ will be created as needed by the microcosm and serve exactly in response to microcosmic needs in relation to the whole social organism. This state of affairs would create a federal apparatus that could better fulfill the streamlined societal role assigned to it by the microcosm and also better attend to its role of managing foreign relations. Such social organization conforms to the natural ordering of things and, also, to electronic/information technologies and would tend to create the best of all possible worlds.

We need to be cognizant of the process of the natural ordering of things in deciding how we can best organize ourselves into social units. We cannot a priori shape things exactly as we might imagine they should be. Religions, political ideologies and social philosophies generally tend to form less than holistic visions for social organization. They attempt a make-over for human nature instead of using the basic attributes of human nature as part of their blueprint. We would certainly do better by designing social systems to fit human nature rather than trying to fit human nature into abstract designs.

The starting point for the design of a social body is self-interest. The recognition that we are all basically out for ourselves must be the principle by which a social organism is formed and operated. Some might think that this would be a formula for total chaos with everyone jockeying around looking for their own advantage without any regard for anyone else. But how would one's self-interest be served in such a state of chaos? The answer is it would not be served at all and therefore chaotic states are not naturally ordained. We do not need cultural authority to impose order on us but to validate our innate appreciation and desire for it. Law enforcement is an artifact of our natural proclivity for order.

In civilized societies there is a need for a catalyst to mold our instincts into a positive creative force. But declaring those instincts evil, as some religions do, is perhaps no longer the way to accomplish that. If it ever was. But traditional religions were born in ignorance. They didn't know any better. Basically, our instincts are good but they need to have a vigorous conditioning process through which they are channeled into enriching endeavors. We don't need to change ourselves we need to change how our civilizations are configured. We need to change the way in which our instincts are channeled through the social matrix. We need to change things with respect to present knowledge rather than seek to go on with respect to models based on the ignorance of the past.

To begin with we all need to develop a very strong sense that each and every one of us is the source of social order. That law, order and morality are concepts that have arisen and arise from within our very selves. We need to have the sense that the social order we are subject to is of our own making and not something that needs to be imposed on us authoritatively. Official authority is a necessary presence assigned to deal with conflicts that become unmanageable by people themselves. It is not a necessary presence for imposing social order on naturally unruly human beings. Authorities sometimes delude themselves into thinking, a la Big Brother, that they alone know what's best.

A society formed directly out of individual need for social organization is the only way to achieve a synergistic configuration allowing for the optimum presence of balance, proportion and symmetry. Government, then, would be formed from autonomous localities deciding how best to achieve synergy for themselves according to their own particular situation. They would decide how best to manage themselves and what assistance they would need from other terminals. Each locality would network with neighboring localities to form coalitions to create a county government that would have only the powers and responsibilities bestowed on them by their communities. And so on and so forth up to the federal government which would concern itself, not with party politics, but with carrying out its charter given to it by the local, county and state governments and to provide an intelligent overview of the entire social landscape so that all can appreciate the particular role they are playing in contributing positively to the whole.

Government officials would not be expected to exacerbate issues by seeking to extend their personal point of view into law. Volatile issues should be assuaged as much as possible by government officials. If a government official believes that abortion is murder, for instance, it should not become a crusade for that official to have his view made into law. In looking at such an issue the government should realize that there are legitimate opposing views among the people and figure out how best to govern the situation. Governing does not mean taking sides on every issue but in judging how best to manage opposing societal factions in the best way possible, the way in which a referee might oversee an athletic competition. Such a supervisory role would immediately lessen the tension and volatility among the opposing factions since their issue would not be politicized. It would have no quarter in the political arena except as a conflict that must be refereed. The interest of the government would be to keep the peace among the two sides.

One of the primary functions of government is to hold a people together by administering to everyone in the same way without favoritism in any way and to govern in a way that facilitates harmony between seemingly disparate factions, to put in place and maintain a society that works on its own like a beautifully designed organism where the microcosm forms the macrocosm. A government should, perhaps, measure its effectiveness not in how many laws it has on the books but by how few. But again, this is not a matter of size or quantity, not a matter of big government vs small government. It is a matter of incorporating a government proportionate to the society it governs.

Government should not be a place for the exercise of an individual's ambition. Government should also not be a place to further a particular ideological belief system. And people should not look to government to solve all their problems. Domestic affairs should be taken care of exclusively by local, county, state and regional governments. The Federal government would then be free to focus on the international arena. The ongoing complexities of globalization require a federal government's undivided attention. And such will be the case in the near and distant future. The federal apparatus would, of course, be informed and instructed by the social organism it represents. It would collect information about what was going on internationally, process it according to domestic and world conditions and take appropriate action with an eye to securing national self-interest with respect to the collective-interest of the world at large. A federal government should apply an appropriately balanced perspective with respect to the international scene based on as objective view as possible, i.e., free of ideological biases. That is, a view to take action not to please a particular set of ideologues but to strike just the right global posture at any given time. One must be able to be a relentless hawk or dedicated dove depending on what is warranted not whether one prefers one to the other on an ongoing basis. Like a black belt in Karate who does not seek to use his powerful skills indiscriminately but would not hesitate to employ them whenever his judgment tells him that such action is clearly necessary. Such a government might say - "We don't favor war and we don't favor peace but we are always prepared to navigate effectively in either environment. We can strive for peace, be conscientious about keeping the peace for prosperity's sake but not because we favor peace categorically anymore than we should strive for war because we favor it categorically." War and peace are the result of various conditions and situations of a complex nature that one does not ever have complete control over. To shape one's worldview in dedication to either war or peace is to deny the realities one is surrounded by. One must strive to be capable of surviving in real world circumstances of whatever kind.

Of course, there will always be individuals and/or groups in any society that will categorically side with one ideological perspective over all others and campaign for their biases in a vociferous manner. But the leaders, those with an eye to govern, should have a studied, developed objectivity that is informed by a realistic overview and able to judge particular situations on their own merits, i.e., not be ideologically biased.

This is not to champion a habitual centrist view. For there are particular instances that may require more conservative measures, whereas others would require a more liberal approach. There are ways of making such objective intelligent judgments and bringing the swings of the pendulum from left to right under reasonable control. With changes in the structure of our institutions herein suggested, we could develop a mind set which seeks to control and manage the arc of the pendulum, so its swings are more moderate for responding to intelligent maneuvers on the part of the body politic aimed at balancing, coordinating and synchronizing social dynamics rather than opportunistically using them. Again, this can only be achieved by a mostly bottom up approach with the microcosm forming the macrocosm. The overall social order, then, radiates out from autonomous localities balancing, coordinating and synchronizing their own social dynamics.