EX@SEPARATING EACH STATE POWER INTO THE TWO SYSTEMS

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 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. However, 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.
    However, 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.
    However, without liberal rights of speech, political rights, and so on, citizens cannot even claim minimum lives. After citizens had realized liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law to a degree, they 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.
    However, 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 inequalities 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 promote the welfare and enlarging and strengthening the authorities to secure the minimum lives and 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 educated equally 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 human lives and health has been disordered. 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, health, the minimum lives, labor, education, and so on can be called "Social Rights." State powers' maintaining or promoting them can be called state powers' "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 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 this sense, this part is passive and limiting. 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. In order to do that, this part needs to promote or restrain various things which range from enterprises to labor and management to welfare to education to the nature. In this sense, this part is active and limitless.
    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. Concretely speaking, 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 lives are in danger because of the shortage of food and water and are saved by the administrative power's supplying them, seeking such lives is a social right, more closely, right to live in a narrow sense.

RESTRICTION OF 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. However, 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 contained 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.
    However, 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, speech, and so on is not restricted. Simply, they can say anything or nothing in all the processes of interrogations, trials, and so on.
    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. However, 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 from or toward private powers or general citizens but that from and toward 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 and economic and social authorities might have smaller priority than general citizens have. In contrast, as for the chief of the administrative powers, the chiefs of the departments in it, the members of the legislative power, politicians seeking those positions, the executives of bureaucracy, 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 abuse their powers under the pretext of the prevention of defamation and invasion of privacy. On those grounds, it is necessary that the freedom of speech and expression is completely free from and toward them and that it be clearly provided in the constitution.
    In addition, it is necessary that the speech and expression by general citizens about the policies, ordinances, and actual functions of the administrative power including the military and the police, the customary law, the written law, the constitution, the international law, the functions of the legislative power, the functions of the judicial power, the functions of municipalities, and political systems in general are completely free, that no restriction or violation be imposed on the freedom of speech and expression about them, and that it be clearly provided in the constitution. For example, the criticism against not only despotism but also democracy need to be completely free. Such a criticism is necessary for democracy to develop. However, if it were not for that necessity, the freedom of speech about political powers and their holders would be a liberal right which should not be violated for anything.

RESTRICTION OF 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.

THE LIBERAL RIGHTS WHICH DO NOT NEED TO BE RESTRICTED FOR THE SAKE OF ANYTHING

    In this place, we had better confirm and summarize the liberal rights which do not need to be restricted for the sake of any right or anything including liberal rights or social rights. They are the following.

The freedom of life
The freedom of pure mental functions like thinkings and emotions, for example, that of thought and belief
The freedom of speech and expression concerning the chief of the administrative power, the chiefs of the departments in it, the members of the legislative power, politicians seeking those positions, the executives of bureaucracy, and the judges of the judicial power and the policies, ordinances and actual functions of the administrative power including the military and the police, the customary law, the written law, the constitution, the international law, the functions of the legislative power, the functions of the judicial power, the functions of municipalities, and political systems in general.
    The other liberal rights is conditional ones, and they are restricted under certain conditions.
    Those which do not need to be restricted for the sake of anything and those which need to be restricted under certain conditions and those conditions need to be provided in the constitution. Moreover, their details are legislated by the legislative power and identified by the judicial power in particular cases. In such a way, as far as liberal rights are concerned, it is necessary that everything is strict and that no vagueness be admitted.

THE RIGHT TO EXIST IN GENERAL

As was explained in "EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY," the right based on the desire and purpose to totally abolish and prevent totally destructive means and to reduce the pain 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 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.

DEVIATION OF A STATE POWER FROM SOCIAL RIGHTS

    As was explained earlier, some parts of some liberal rights cannot help being restricted for the sake of the protection of some liberal rights and the security of some social rights under certain conditions. In such situations, some state powers can restrict and violate the liberal rights which do not need to be restricted for the sake of anything or obscure the conditions under which some parts of liberal rights are restricted by means of showing some purposes like the security of social rights, the public welfare, the preservation of the nature, or the like. Moreover, they can 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 from now on, and some parts of them are necessary. However, 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.
    In addition, from now on, it is possible that a kind of totalitarianism displaying the pretext of the preservation of the nature, the maintenance of the appropriate population, the maintenance of human lives and health in such tight situations, the existence of the whole of the living things or human beings on the earth, and so on emerges. However, as was explained in "EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY," such a kind of totalitarianism never functions even for the purposes of our existence or the security of the existence of living things including human beings, and autocracy, despotism, totalitarianism, and so on need to be eliminated for the sake of anything.
    That a state power restricts or violates liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, or 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.

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. It 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 criticized.
    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, 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, in order, while reserving the environment, effectively using resources, and maintaining the appropriate population, 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. 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 technology will be and the higher the cost of medical care will be. Here it is possible that only the rich like the holders of political and economic powers and a few superior technologist can enjoy sophisticated medical care. That is, it is possible that while they live long in good health, general citizens do not. Citizens cannot help being furious about that.
    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. However, 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. However, 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 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 force 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 of what were 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 the law, 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 the law, 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 the law, prevent the chief or the civil, police, or military officers of the administrative power from abusing the public armed forces.
    It is possible and necessary that the judicial power, according to the constitution and the law, 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 the law 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 the 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. However, at least in each state, of all the powers, the 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, and that that gigantic power is separated into the 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 of the administrative power and those of the police and the military enforce those provisions, that the police investigate, (arrest), and interrogate, and prosecute the suspects of the deviation from those provisions 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. However, 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 is the function 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 some minor injustice by subordinates, never overlook any major 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

    However, 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 possible and necessary that the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law function, that the public armed forces checked by those strict systems functions, and that the processes of trials in those strict systems function. 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 have the functions protecting themselves.
    From the beginning, those rights and systems can be violated directly by violating the liberal rights, above all, the freedom of life and body and that of thought and speech, of civilian officers of the three powers, the press, the internet administrators, and general citizens. In a lot of cases, they are violated by the threat to violate the freedom of life and body. Therefore, like liberal rights are, they are often violated by armed forces, above all, by the public armed force, and they are often violated by the civil officers controlling and abusing them, too. Therefore in order for those rights and systems to be protected, it is possible and necessary that the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law check the public armed forces and the civil officers who can abuse it.
    However, in order for them to be protected, the liberal rights of the civil officers of the three powers also needs to be prevented from being violated by some private or public violence from an inner or outer part of the state. All that can directly prevent the liberal rights of those civil officers from being violated by that violence is, all the same, the public force. Therefore in order for them to be protected, the public armed forces is checked, again, by the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law need to function.
    In addition, in order for those rights and systems to be protected, the unconstitutional legislation by the legislative power, the illegal and unconstitutional behaviors of the public officers including the chief of the administrative power and the members of the legislative power and the illegal and unconstitutional behaviors in their elections need to be fairly and strictly tried in the process of trials. For the sake of such trials, the judicial power needs to be independent to a great degree, and, again, the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law need to function.
    In such a way, the functions protecting liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems in themselves, the separation of the three powers in itself, and the rule of law in itself overlap largely. Democratic systems, the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law can be called "Democratic and Separative Systems," and the functions of a state power protecting those rights and systems which overlap in a large part 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 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 sought the functions protecting liberal rights and democratic and separative systems.

SOME EXAMPLES

    For example 1, if a man or woman like a "philosopher king" as was explained in "The Republic" by Platon came into being and if he or she got great public support, the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law would need to function to him or her. That is, above all, because such philosopher kings could not go on to exist and function for generations. If the first had governed well, his or her successors could easily run wildly to autocracy, despotism, or the like without those strict systems. However, there was no evidence that there were any philosopher kings and that they governed well in the human history, and seeming ones were only legends, that is, fictions. Therefore, even in one generation, those strict systems should not be impaired.
    For example 2, in order for democratic systems to function, fair elections need to be carried out, the police need to investigate unfair ones, and the judiciary power needs to judge them. However, in order for them to do so, they should not collude with particular candidates or parties, they need to be independent to a great degree, and the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law need to function.
    For example 3, in order for democratic systems to function, the judiciary power needs to review the electoral systems' changes which are favorable for the majority party as unconstitutional, and in order for it to do so, it needs to be independent to a great degree, and the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law need to function.
    In such a way, those strict systems have the functions protecting themselves, and if they loosen themselves, they collapse.

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 of the administrative power, public and private research institutes, large enterprises including multinational ones, and their collusion and corruption in the state and in the international society, above all, what is called military-industrial complexes.
Out of them, private organizations and the collusion and corruption of private and public ones can be restrained mainly by the traditional police and prosecution and by the separation of the three powers. Moreover, public organizations 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.
    More 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, 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 and 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 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, political rights, and so on.

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, and so on 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.
    Powers to stop or to propose to stop services or permissions are contrastive to the armed forces. While the latter are powers when they function or propose to function, the former are powers when they stop functioning or propose to stop functioning.
    Moreover, those powers are effective against public powers including state powers. Above all when the public armed forces or the civil officers controlling it behave themselves unconstitutionally or illegally, those powers are effective to restrain these behaviors. For example, when the military or the civil officers controlling it 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 on 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.
    One of the causes of the failure of old communism or socialism was that the planner of the economics were absorbed in struggle for power with the inner or outer part of the party and that they could not concentrate on the planning of economics or that those who are fit for not that planning but that struggle became the planner. There is struggle not only with the outer part but also the inner part 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 economics, and that those who are fit for the 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. However, 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.
    However, the competition concerning the contents of the policy for the security of social rights and the ability of planning it is necessary. Otherwise, the planners will be incompetent. When the above cause of the failure of communism or socialism is sought deeper, the following is found. That cause was that the planner of the economy struggled for powers with the competence of struggling for powers and that they did not compete concerning the contents of the plans for the economics and the competence of planning them. In elections, the candidates cannot help proposing the policy for the security of social rights and showing their own competence for it. Therefore 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' cohesion 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 cohesion 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, excluding such unconstitutional or illegal behaviors, the administrator of the functions securing social rights need to be competent and flexible. In addition, again, while the ways to protect liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separation of powers, and the rule of law can be closely provided by the law, the ways to secure social rights cannot, and most of them cannot help being entrusted to the public officers of the administrative power. The democratic systems which need to function in the functions securing social rights are different from those which need to function in those protecting liberal rights, political rights and so on. 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 more able to make and carry out flexible policies in the situations on the basis of science and technology than they need to be fair. However, can general citizens find out such abilities or policies? However, 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, this can lead to governments' manipulating public opinion, flattering the people, seeking the national interest excessively in the international society, and so on. However, they are not as bad as autocracy, despotism, and so on. Mental manipulation is not so 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 those ways, it is possible and necessary that not strict but "human" democratic systems function to the functions securing social rights.

FUNCTIONS OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS

In such 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, and the process of trial which are moderate, and the powers to stop or to propose 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 of the human rule need to research and develop science and technology for themselves and cooperate with public and private research institutes and enterprises. However, 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 doing it. Such development and cooperation need to be banned by the constitution and law, and in order for them to be observed, the functions of the tule of law need to be restrained by the functions of the rule of law. From the beginning, it is true not only of the functions of the human rule or of the research, development, and so on of totally destructive means but also of all unconstitutional and illegal behaviors of all human beings and groups.
    However, it is the military or the civilian officers controlling them in the functions of the rule of law 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 of the human rule 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 of the human rule can restrain the development and production of weapons including totally destructive means by stopping providing those who try to develop and produce them with the science and technology and the resources necessary for them. This is included in the functions of the human rule's own powers to stop or propose to stop services and permissions which they have been providing.
    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 a complex will be the propulsion for the development and production of super-biological weapons from now on. Out of such a complex, the functions of the human rule contain (5) and manage (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 against violence, crimes, and so on is a function of the rule of law protecting liberal rights, reducing pain by promoting human lives and health is a function of the human rule securing social rights. In addition, the functions of the human rule contain the functions 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 of the human rule securing social rights have the functions 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 of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and the functions of the human rule 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 such 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, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law are functions where the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law 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 system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law are unnecessary, impossible, and unsuitable, where the the flexible administrative power is necessary, possible, and suitable, and where human democratic system 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 of the rule of law protecting liberal rights, the strict separation of the three powers needs to function, and allotting them to one organization impairs that separation. Therefore we cannot allot them to one organization. In addition, also in the functions of the human rule 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 of the rule of law not to an organization but to a system including the three powers strictly separated. In addition, we can allot the functions of the human rule to another system including the three powers loosely separated. The former system can be looked upon as a strict one, and the latter as a loose one. 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, or System Protecting Liberal Rights (of a State Power). The latter system can be called the "System of the Human Rule Securing Social Rights," System of the Human Rule, or System Securing Social Rights (of a State Power).
    The system of the rule of law is a system to protect liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law is a system where the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law are necessary, possible, and suitable, and has the final power of using the public armed forces. The system of the human rule is a system to secure social rights is a system where the strict democratic system, separation of the three powers, and rule of law are unnecessary, impossible, and unsuitable, where the flexible administrative power is necessary, possible, and suitable, and where human democratic systems are necessary, possible, and suitable, and has the final power to stop or propose to stop the services or the permissions which it has been providing.
    The necessity of the separation of each state power into those two systems of that of the rule of law and that of the human rule 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 undesirable tendencies which the system of the human rule tend to fall into like the deviation from the social rights which was explained earlier, the majority's arrogance, politicians' collusion and corruption with private enterprises, flattering the people, and seeking the national interest excessively in the international society from infiltrating the system of the rule of law.
    The most grave in the deviation from social rights is the following. More and more from now on, the environment is aggravated, the resources are exhausted, the population of the world is increased, and the economy and citizens' lives are tightened. In those situations, it is the most important part of the security of social rights to preserve the environment, to make use of resources effectively, maintain the adequate population, to stabilize the economy, and to maintain civilians' minimum lives. It is very hard and requires the planning and carrying out of synthetic policies. In this situation, it is possible that the totalitarianism which display the pretext of the existence of human beings looms out, violate liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law and run wildly to autocracy, despotism, and so on. Such totalitarianism, autocracy, despotism, and so on prefer their interest and cannot plan or carry out any appropriate policies. In addition, the planner in them do not compete one another or brush up themselves and cannot plan any appropriate policies. Therefore they do not function even for the security of social rights or the existence of human beings or living things. In contrast, when the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and that of the human rule securing social rights are separated, the following is possible. In the former system, all including the public armed forces and the civilian officers controlling it 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. The public armed forces, which is the strongest power in order to run wildly to autocracy, despotism, or the like, is in the former system, and the latter system cannot use it. The public armed forces and the civilian officers are restrained by the strict democratic system, separation of the three powers, and rule of law in the former system. Moreover, not only this but also the following is done. The latter 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, the existence of human beings, or the like.

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 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 need to cooperate with the former system in that relief and prevention. In such a case, few will criticize that the military or the police cooperate with the former system according to its leadership and request. For example 2, in the culture or sports festival hosted or sponsored by the system securing social rights, few will criticize that the band of the military or the police accompany or that the air force perform air show. Rather, most will hail them, won't they?
    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.

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 that not "functions" or "systems" but "organizations" which are more concrete and detailed can be separated?
    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 separability 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.
    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, the 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.

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 or those of 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. Of course, the legislative power is necessary in the system of the rule of law.
    Many states adopt bicameral systems in the modern world. However, a lot of them do not function. That is because the two houses in each of them are very similar. 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 the strict democratic system, the strict separation of three powers, and the strict rule of law and that the latter house constitutes the system of the human rule as another legislative power and exists and functions in the human democratic system 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), and the latter can be called the (Legislative) House (of the Human Rule) (Securing Social Rights).
    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 the former, and that the lower house develops into the latter. We found now that they have already developed so partially 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 former house is the protection of liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law and that it provides the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law where the former should exist and function. It is possible and necessary that the constitution provides that the purpose of the latter house is the security of social rights, that it provides the human democratic system where the latter 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 the latter 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 the former house is given priority. As for the legislation concerning the security of social rights, it is possible and necessary that the constitution provides that the latter 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 the former house decides earlier and that the former's decision becomes law when the latter house decides differently and when the the former decides, for example, with more than two-thirds again. As for the legislation concerning social rights, it is possible and necessary that the constitution provides that the latter house decides earlier, and that the latter's decision becomes law when the former house decides differently and when the latter house decides, for example, with more than two-thirds again.
    However, 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 are 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, it will be made clear later that they are separable though intermingled. There are few things which are inseparable though intermingled. 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 former 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 the system of the rule of law or that of the human rule or the legislative power, the administrative one, or the judicial one or whether they are military officers or civil ones or bosses or subordinates. Above all, if the illegal or unconstitutional behavior is the corruption of the chief of the administrative power in the system of the human rule, it is possible and necessary that the former 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 the former house is given priority. As for the legislation concerning the election of the members of the former house, it is possible and necessary. Even as for that of the latter 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 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 the former 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 the latter house is given priority concerning the ratification of the treaties concerning international or world economy, labor, communication, culture, education, and health and the preservation of the global environment and global resources, and that the former 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 the former house is given priority concerning the maintenance cost of the military, the police, the judicial power, the legislative power excluding the latter house and that the latter 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 do not need to 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 the house protecting liberal rights is able to nullify any legislation or administration concerning the restriction of liberal rights, even if the house securing social rights decides earlier and that the constitution provides it.
    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 among 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 does not need to be provided by the constitution.
    As was explained above, the former should be given priority concerning the legislation concerning election. To and for the latter house, because human democratic systems need to function, political parties, large districts, proportional representation, and comparatively a lot of representatives are possible and necessary. In contrast, to and for the former house, because strict democratic systems need to function, no parties, small districts, no proportional representation, and comparatively a few representatives are possible and necessary. However, it is difficult to exclude political parties completely, but it is possible and necessary that a lot of independents are elected.
    Anyway, by separating the legislative power into the two houses of the house of the rule of law and that of the human rule, the general electors can distinguish the candidates suitable for each house and elect them. Simply, the strict are suitable for the former house, and the flexible are suitable for the latter 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 ones.
    As for the public cost and tax, because the legislative power is separated into only two houses, the separation does not cause the increase of the public cost and tax when compared with traditional bicameral systems.

SEPARATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE POWER

    It is possible and necessary that the police and the military, that is, the public armed forces belongs to the system of the rule of law and is controlled by the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law. In addition, it is possible and necessary that the chiefs of the police and the military is respectively 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. In addition, it is possible and necessary that the committee in the legislative house protecting liberal rights 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 that 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 the legislative house protecting liberal rights 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 and 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. 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 part of the administrative power of the system of human rule 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. Whether or not the state or nation goes to war affects its economy and employment, above all, 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. In addition, it seems that expansion of armaments affects its economy and employment, too. However, it prompts the formation of 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 on the other needs to be broken. In order for it to be possible, it is possible and necessary that the military and the police belong to the system of the rule of law, that the other departments of the administrative power belong to that of the human rule, and that they are separated.
    In contrast, all the policies and administrations for the security of social rights need to be linked and arranged synthetically. For example, the increase of public enterprises can decrease unemployment. However, the overissue of public enterprises can destroy the nature, harm citizens' health, and lead to a tax increase. How to arrange various kinds of public enterprises? This is an example of the research of synthetic policies.
    In addition, as was explained earlier, the departments having the functions securing social rights have the power to stop or to propose to stop the services or the permissions which they have been providing. Though they have to appeal to the judicial power and request the help by the police as a last resort, they do not need it in a lot of cases.
    It is possible and necessary that such organizations excluding the police and the military and excluding the department of the finance and the tax and that of diplomacy, which will be explained later, are entrusted to some experts who can make the policy of those organizations synthetically. 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 in the legislative power preferentially in such a way as was explained in the above section. In addition, even it is possible that such departments as secure social rights and such experts or the individuals or groups who can control such experts become one organization in unity. From the beginning, the overseparation of the administrative power has caused its excessive expansion, reduced its efficiency, and increased the public cost. Though it may sound extreme, we can change such overseparated departments of the administrative power into one organization, can't we?

SEEMINGLY INSEPARABLE ORGANIZATIONS

    Seeming inseparable but easily separable organizations will be separated in this section. The organizations having the functions against fire, for rescue, for emergency medical care, against the spread of infectious diseases, and for the measures to deal with natural disasters are incorporated into the part of the administrative power in the system of the human rule securing social rights. The police or the military sometimes need to cooperate with those organizations, but it is no more than cooperation and not their duty.
    In addition, for example, in order to prevent infectious diseases from spreading, it is sometimes necessary for citizens' behaviors 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 human rights for other persons 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 within the jurisdiction of some departments of the administrative power in the system securing social rights. As for those who do not comply with it, the police cannot help restricting their behaviors. However, it is possible and necessary that such behaviors of the police are under requirement and control of the system securing social rights. It is possible and necessary that those are provided by the constitution and law. Anyway, the liberal rights like the freedom of speech concerning political powers, political systems, policies, and so on which cannot be restricted for the sake of any human rights or anything, as was explained earlier, are not restricted. The criticism of those policies are necessary in the very kind of crisis.
    In the peaceful part of the administrative power, the public organizations promoting recreation, tourism, culture, sport, and so on are incorporated into the part of the administrative power in the system securing social rights. It is probable that their festivals are accompanied by some bands of the police or the military, but it is no more than cooperation or voluntary and not their duty. In addition, few will claim that it is unconstitutional or illegal
    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 tax, it is not impossible that it is also separated into those two systems. For example, it is possible that the tax is divided into two groups and alloted to the two system according to its kind 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 a highly economic technique and fall into the very sphere of the system of the human rule securing social rights. The system of the rule of law, which is strict and which should be so, cannot manage money well. In addition, if it did it, its strictness would be sullied. It should function with its clean strictness in any case when unconstitutional and illegal behaviors are caused in its own system, by the system of the human rule, or by private groups or individuals.
    Therefore it is possible and necessary that the department of finance and tax and that for banknotes' issue be incorporated into the system of the human rule securing social rights. Then, though the money of the system of the rule of law is managed by that of the human rule, 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. The system of the rule of law can do it, too.
    Here we find the following two points.
    First, the public armed forces is controlled by the system of the rule of law, the public money is managed by that of the human rule, and there is a separation between armed forces and money here.
    Second, the system of the human rule 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 that of the rule of law which it has been keeping and managing. For example, when the military or the civil officers controlling it in the system of the rule of law run wildly to the expansion of armaments or a war while violating the constitution, the law, and the international law, the system of the human rule 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 the result of those, the system of the human rule gains power. Though those heterogeneous powers cannot be simply compared, its power increased would be not much inferior to that of the system of the rule of law. 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 the system of the human rule, too, and because the former takes charge of the lives of the officers of the latter 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 each of the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and that of the human rule securing social rights have its own administrative organization of diplomacy. That is, it is possible and necessary that the department of diplomacy is separated into a part of the administrative power in the system of the rule of law and another part of it in that of the human rule. The functions of the former part are the protection of the liberal rights, political rights, separations of powers, and the rule of law at least of the citizens of each state while functioning in the international society. More concretely, the functions of the former part are the international negotiations concerning the national defense, the collective security, and the disarmament including the total abolition and prevention of totally destructive means. In contrast, the functions of the latter part are the security of social rights at least of the citizens of each state while functioning in the international society. More concretely, the functions of the latter part are the international negotiations concerning the growth or stability of the national or world economy, the promotion of health, welfare, education, culture at least of the citizens of each state, the regulation of the destruction of the national or global environment, and the preservation and effective use of natural resources in each state, the international society or the world, and international or world organizations.
    Here we find the following three points.
    First, the functions protecting liberal rights, democratic systems, separation of powers, and the rule of law and those securing social rights are distinguished also in the functions of diplomacy. This distinction of functions is developed into the separation of organizations of diplomacy.
    Second, this distinction can be found not only in the diplomacy of each state but also in the international society, the world, and the international or world organizations. 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 little specialization are the main cause of economic instability and disparity in the international society. In contrast, by separating the functions and organization of diplomacy into those in the system of the rule of law and those in the human rule, we can prevent those disasters and make two organizations each consisting of the chiefs and diplomats having the specialty suitable for each system.
    Therefore the diplomatic department of the administrative power needs to be separated into the two parts of that of the rule of law and that of the human rule. Moreover, that separation is possible in the following way.
    The legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights can constitutes its own organization and committee for its own diplomacy, and that committee can oversee that organization. In addition, when some representatives need to attend some international conferences or meetings, the chief of the committee or the organization or those who are nominated from the committee or the organization by the committee can attend them. In addition, as for the matters where the resolution of the legislative power is necessary like ratification of treaties, after that committee resolve, the plenary session of the legislative house of the rule of law 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 are often more proper than others.
    When we look over 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 this legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights 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 the legislative house of the rule of law respectively controlling the police and the military.
    In contrast, the functions of diplomacy of the system of the human rule securing social rights can be entrusted to the chief of the part of the administrative power of the system of the human rule and an organization consisting diplomats specialized in economy, welfare, culture, education, preservation of the nature, and so on. 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 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 and that of the human rule is possible and necessary. Therefore it is possible and necessary that international meetings and negotiations be separated into the two systems, and that each of the representatives of the two systems in each state attend each of them.
    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, the two can cast that vote. In this case and when the two disagree, they can abstain from the vote.
    While those processes are repeated, international or world organizations, too, will be able to be separated into the two systems.

DISSOLUTION OF TRADITIONAL PRESIDENTS OR PRIME MINISTERS

    As was explained in the above sections, it is possible and necessary that the functions of the police and the military and the part of diplomacy concerning national defense, collective security, disarmament, and so on are supervised respectively by the committees in the legislative house protecting liberal rights and that the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law function to those armed forces and those committees in the system of the rule of law. In addition, it is possible and necessary that the other part of the administrative power including the whole of finance and tax and the other part of diplomacy are managed by some experts which is elected directly or indirectly by general citizens in the system of the human rule securing social rights. That is, it is possible and necessary that traditional presidents or prime ministers who held at least the whole of the administrative power is dissolved.
    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 department of diplomacy. The dissolution of the president or prime minister can prevent him or her from going to aggressive war, abusing the public armed forces, leading the research, development, and hold of totally destructive means, and so on to a considerable degree.
    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 part of diplomacy concerning national defense, collective security, disarmament, and so on 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 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 and that of the human rule securing social rights.
However, their separation is not necessarily the same as that of a state. For example, in a federation, it is possible that the military are contained in the system of the rule of law of the federation, that the police are contained in the system of the rule of law of each state, that the legislation and adminstration concerning the economy are contained in the system of the human rule of the federation, and that the legislation and administration concerning cultural education are contained in the system of the human rule of each state.

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 righs 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 of a state power or a municipality.
    Here locally cultural education will matter, above all, in a multiethnic country or federation. This separation into those two systems never hinder municipalities or states from providing children with locally cultural education. It is possible and necessary that a part of the system of the human rule securing social rights 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:
the committees in the legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights supervising the following respectively.
The police, the military, and the part 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:
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, 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 the legislative house of the rule of law proposes the nomination of judges, that its plenary session nominates them, and that when the legislative house of the human rule 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 law provide the details of social rights and 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 law. That is, the latter cannot help reading those unwritten details between the lines of the constitutions and law. Though the latter 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. As is true of not only social rights but also all rights, it is the essence of the separation of the three powers and the rule of law 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, is in the system of the rule of law, and is independent in it, that each court is independent. and that each judge is independent.

NOMINAL CHIEF OF A STATE

Practically, the "chief of the state" is unnecessary, but it is sometimes necessary formally and nominally, for example, in national or international festivals or ceremonies. When necessary, the chairman of the house of the rule of law in the legislative power is 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 can attend them.

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 power	The house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights	The house of the human rule securing social rights
The administrative power	The police The military The part of the department 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 power	The judicial power

THE NECESSITY OR 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

POSSIBILITY AND NECESSITY OR MERIT

In the above ways, it is possible to separate 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. Then, is it necessary or useful? Though most pieces of this necessity or merit has already been explained sporadically, it will be summed up in the following sections.

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 freedom of speech and democratic systems, the planners of policies or their candidates cannot criticize one another and compete with one another and cannot be criticized by general citizens and selected through elections, the policies are not polished and became inadequate.
    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 struggle for power, 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 struggle, not those who have the ability for such planning but those who have the ability and means for such struggle become the planners, and adequate 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.
    Those were main cause of the failure of old communism or socialism. If those causes had been removed, they might have endured till the twentieth-first century. 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]

    From now on more and more, the environment will deteriorate, natural resources will be depleted, and the world population will go on growing and is reaching that which can be narrowly maintained on the earth. Even in those situations, citizens have to maintain the minimum lives. In order to prevent the deterioration of the environment, to preserve natural resources and use them effectively, and to restrain the growth of the world population on the one hand and to stabilize the economy and to maintain the minimum lives of general citizens on the other hand, public powers need to plan synthetic policies and implement them effectively. Such planning and implementation is also included in the security of social rights. Above all in those situations, there can be some pieces of deviation from social rights explained earlier. It is the fiercest of those pieces 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, slaughter, war, and so on.
    Such synthetic policies as were explained above is hard or impossible to plan and implement whether they are made by human experience and intellect or by artificial intelligence or by their cooperation.
    In those situations, some failures and disasters much more dreadful than those caused by old communism or socialism explained earlier can be caused.

[PREVENTING THE DEVIATION FROM SOCIAL RIGHTS]

    Again, state powers' showing off the pretext like the security of the existence of the whole of human beings or living things, violating liberal rights, democratic systems, and so on, and running wildly to autocracy, totalitarianism, and so on can be called the "Deviation from Social Rights." That deviation not only devastates liberal rights, democratic systems, and so on but also does not function for the security of social rights, the preservation of the nature, or the security of the existence of human beings or living things.
    When 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, the latter system can discuss and polish, more than when there is no such separation, the synthetic policies for the security of social rights with strict liberal rights protected by the former system and with its own human democratci systems. On the other hand, the public armed forces like the military and the police which are the direct and strongest means with which somebody or something runs wildly to autocracy, totalitarianim, or so are in the former system, and so the latter system does not have any armed forces and cannot run wildly to them. The former is only allowed to protect liberal rights, democratic systems, and so on and cannot show off the pretext of the security of social rights, the existence of human beings or living things. The latter system is allowed to secure social rights and cannot do anything with public armed forces. In such a way, the public armed forces like the military and the police, which is direct and the strongest means to run to autocracy, war, and so on is in the former system, and the latter system does not have it and cannot run wildly to them in the one hand. On the other hand, the former system is only permitted to protect liberal rights, democratic systems, and so on, and is not permitted to show off the purpose or pretext of securing social rights, the existence of human beings or living things, or the like. In such a way, separating each state power into those two systems prevent the deviation from social rights. It is not that social rights may be sacrificed for the sake of liberal rights, but that liberal rights also need to be protected in order for social rights to be secured, and that each state power need to be separated into those two systems for the sake of both the protection of liberal rights and the security of social rights.
    If each state power had been separated into those two systems in the first half of the twentieth century, the conflict between capitalism the Cold War and the fierce expansion of arms including nuclear weapons would have been prevented. The public officers of the former system in each country would have protected liberal rights, democratic systems, and so on plainly and steadily while hearing loud and showy disputes in and around the latter 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. However, from now on, more dreadful and disastrous doctrines, causes, autocracy, or totalitarianism may loom up. It is better that we soon separate each state power into those two systems.

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 system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law that need to function in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights. 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. However, at the same time, the system of human rule 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 on. Those are the disorders which the system of human rule tend to fall into. By separating 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 and by making the chasm between them deeper, we can prevent those disorders which the latter 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 and by the incorporation of the other part of the administrative power into that of the human rule and by the former's being respectively administered by the committees in the legislative house of the rule of law and the latter's being administered by the chief of the part of the administrative power of the human rule. This dissolution can prevent aggressive wars, state powers' running wildly to autocracy, despotism, and so on, and the research, development, and hold of totally destructive means, and so on which were lead by them to a considerable degree.

[THE DISSOLUTION OF WHAT IS CALLED MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX]

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 come 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. 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 pieceful science and technology, and those complexes. (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 dissolved with (5) wedged into them.
When each state power is separated into the two of L system and S system, S system can reject the request by the military or the civilian officers controlling it, which belong to L system, to cooperate for the development and production of totally destructive means or massively destructive means. This is because those means so not function for the security of social rights or the protection of liberal rights. On the other hand, S system can comply with the request to cooperate for those of selective destructive means or defensive means.

[PREVENTING THE WAR FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST]

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 in the system of the rule of law. In addition, that war is limited to that for the protection of the liberal rights and political ones of the citizens of the state and its democratic systems, separations of powers, and rule of law, 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 has the authority to go to war. In contrast, the authority to seek the national interest, if it is anywhere, is in the system of the human rule. 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 military-industrial complexes, and so on gathered together, this separation can prevent wars in general to a considerable degree.

DOUBLE CIVILIAN CONTROL OVER THE PUBLIC ARMED FORCES

  The public armed forces like the military and the police has been and will be the direct and strongest power to violate liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law and to run wildly to autocracy, totalitarianism, and so on. It is the most critical point for the restraint of powers.
    The public armed forces like 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.
    In addition, when 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 the social rights, the possibility become almost naught that the latter system cooperate with the unconstitutional or illegal activities of the whole or part of the former system.
    Moreover, against the public armed forces running wildly or their abusers, it is possible for the latter 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, the latter system can weaken them by stopping the supply of money, electricity, gas, water, communication network, information, and so on. 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 the former system to hold those facilities managed by the latter system.
    Concerning such powers as stop services or so and their implementation, 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 very heterogeneous. Such heterogeneous powers do not interrupt each other and can restrain the public armed force and the civilians controlling them efficiently without interfering 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.
    However, in order for us to protect liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law, the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law need to function in the system of the rule of law, 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. Again, a synthetic policy need to be planed and implemented efficiently in this system. Far from preventing over-separation, it is possible that the part of the administrative power of the system of the human rule 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 state 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, 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. In a state where the system of the human rule has been enlarged too much and where the tax is too heavy, they need to reduce that system.
    The main cause of the increase of public cost and tax is the extreme expansion of the part of the administrative power of the system securing social rights. It is necessary that that part is not only reduced but also unified as much as possible.
    However, the increase of the cost for the military and the formation of what is called military-industrial complexes are one of the course of the increase of public cost and tax. However, the security of social rights on the one hand and national 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 that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and that of the human rule securing social rights, the point for construction, dissolution, enlargement, reduction, promotion, restraint, and disputes 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. In contrast, it is flexible persons that are fit for those in that of the human rule securing social rights. The upper the classes are, the more those can be true. Those can be true the most when the classes 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 not such fitness but the abilities and means to win elections acquire powers. However, election is better than struggle for power. Moreover, when each state power is separated into those two systems, the possibility gets larger that the right person is elected in the right place.
    In addition, candidates propose some policies as campaign pledges. On the one hand, as was explained earlier, though the system of the human rule securing social rights needs to plan and carry out a synthetic policy which preserve the nature, maintain the appropriate population, stabilize the economy, and secure the minimum lives of citizens, the candidates for this system tend to show off such policies as bring the abundant lives of citizens and flatter the people. On the other hand, though the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights only needs to protect liberal rights, democratic systems, and so on plainly and steadily, the candidates for this system tend to show off such policies as strengthen crime deterrence and national defense, and so on. Without this separation of powers, therefore without the separation of elections, those two kinds of policies tend to be synthesized, which should not be synthesized, to become those like the war for the national interest, the expansion of what is called military-industrial complexes, and to instigate the people. When each state power is separated in those two systems, at least such policies as should not be synthesized is prevented from instigating people.

PREVENTING THE COLLUSION AND CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC POWERS AND ECONOMIC POWERS

    As for what is called military-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 of 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 than in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights. That is because the former system is in the position to regulate or permit the functions of most economic powers.
    Whether or not state powers are 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. The organizationally further the targets are, the easier they can investigate and prosecute them. When 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, the police and the prosecution are in the former system, the departments which tend to collude with economic powers are in the latter system, the former can easily investigate and prosecute the latter, and this separation can prevent the collusion and corruption of political powers and economic powers to a considerable degree.

ABOLISHING AND PREVENTING TOTALLY DESTRUCTIVE MEANS AND SECURING THE RIGHT TO EXIST IN GENERAL

    Though the following overlaps with what were explained above, lastly, the critical point of the necessity and merit of separating each state power into the two system of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and that of the human rule securing social rights in order to abolish and prevent totally destructive means and to secure the right to exist in general will be explained.
    What has lead the research, development, and hold of nuclear weapons by superpowers after the World War Ⅱ is what is called "industrial-military complexes," and from now on, they will more and more lead the development and production of totally destructive means including nuclear weapons. Practically, Each of such complexes is the complex of (1) the military, (2) the civilian officers controlling (1), (3) some economic powers, (4) some scientist and technologist, and (5) the civilian officers administrating (3)(4). Such complexes grows for itself if left alone, and it goes on developing and producing totally destructive means or anything. When such complexes are dissolved, it is hard for anybody or anything to develop or produce sophisticated technological weapons including totally destructive means. When each state power is separated into those two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and that of the human rule securing social rights, (1)(2) are in the former system, (3)(4)(5) are in or around the latter system, such complexes are dissolved. Moreover, without that separation, both (2) and (5) were concurrently occupied by a traditional president or prime minister, and they were the locomotive of such complexes. When each state power is separated into those two systems, traditional presidents or prime ministers, too, are dissolved, that concurrent occupation, too, is dissolved, and such complexes are certain to be dissolved.
    In addition, more and more from now on, natural resources are depleted and the world population go on growing. The most vital for the growing world population is, of course, food resources or biological resources. The struggle for such resources will go fiercer and fiercer, the wars for such resources will occupy most wars. Such wars are also the wars for the national interest explained earlier. Of course, such wars, far from the maintenance of the population, endanger the existence of human beings.
    Acquiring and using such resources or seeking the national interest is a part of the security of social rights. When 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, the authority to acquire resources or to seek the national interest is in the latter system. However, the latter system does not have any armed forces or any authority to go to war. All that the latter system can do is acquire resources peacefully through diplomacy. On the other hand, the former system cannot even show off the pretext or purpose of acquiring resources or seeking the national interest and can defend its country at most when aggression occurs. In such a way, the war for the national interest can be prevented.
    In spite of those measures, if the public armed forces should run wildly or be abused, the double civilian control explained earlier exists and functions. That is, the public armed force is restrained not only in the former system by the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law but also by the latter system's own power to stop or propose to stop the services or permissions which it has been providing and the money which it has been managing, which become clearer and intenser by this separation.
    In those 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 a steady way to totally abolish and prevent totally destructive means and to secure the right to exist in general.

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