Ron Toczek said, “‘The politics of governing a body of human beings is made difficult because each human sees HIS own drives and wants differently from any other human and also prioritizes those drives and wants differently from other humans and also thinks that HIS drives, wants and prioritizations are more important than all the other humans living within the same governing sphere.'”
Abraham Maslow created a visual aid in the shape of a pyramid depicting the levels of human needs, psychological and physical. Now, whether his theories should be taken seriously or not in this age I don’t know. But I have noticed text books still introduce students to “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs” in management and marketing segments of business courses.
The point is, when you know all the factors that contribute causally to the weather then the weather can be predicted. Likewise, when you know all the factors that contribute causally to particular human behavior, then the behavior can be predicted. Now when one gets angry at certain predictable behavior, then that too is predictable, because we humans are animals and feel the need to bite back. But we humans are also hypocrites, which Richard Dawkins calls, “inconsistent.” He probably uses the better term.
Ron Toczek said, “‘It appears that a human’s governing sphere can exist in various sizes from some type of small family organization to that of a large empire and some humans seem to be advocating some sort of global governing sphere.'”
Humans cluster into packs/herds/flocks/troops/groups/gangs/congregations for a reason. The behavior is instinctive. But such clustering also necessitates a leader to follow and a pecking order (peer hierarchy).
The world has pretty much always had a “One World Government,” in the sense that throughout history the “known world” was conquered and subjugated to the authority of some individual or central governing body. I see no reason to assume history will not repeat itself. A “one world government” is just as inevitable as hurricane activity is in the future. The masses are ruled because it is in their nature to be ruled.
Ron Toczek said, “‘The drives and wants and prioritizations of individuals are all determined by the emotional state of the individual but with the realization that many of these needs depend upon the cooperation of the other humans, Human beings also have the good fortune to possess a rational faculty which enabled them to compromise their needs for the good of all within a select group.'”
Philosophers are trained to rationalize. They are supposed to be the best rationalizers in the world. However, in many instances they vehemently disagree amongst themselves. I suspect when some individuals “compromise their needs for the good of all within a select group,” the compromise has less to do with a “rational faculty” than Ron Toczek evidently presumes. In fact, the “rationale” could be inventing rhetorical excuses for unconscious processes that led to the compromise–excuses which are functionally smoke screens that conceal the actual causal factors involved. The same can be said about the “rationale” of “‘The disgruntled ones [who] either stayed and mildly complained or left to form a different group.'” (brackets mine)