COPYRIGHT(C)2000 OUR-EXISTENCE.NET ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TOP Mail

SEPARATING EACH STATE POWER INTO THE TWO SYSTEMS OF THAT OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THAT OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS


BASIC WORDS

THESE BOOKS

    In this book, 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" is also called "This Book". This book, "EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY", "THE DETAILS OF EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY", "A PSYCHOLOGY OF ANIMALS HAVING MEMORIES", "A PSYCHOLOGY OF ANIMALS HAVING EGOS", "A PSYCHOLOGY OF ANIMALS HAVING HABITS", and "PARTICULAR THINGS AND GENERAL THINGS" are also called "These Books" in this book.

LIBERAL RIGHTS

    An individual's manipulating his or her body, functions, or means on his or her desire can be called an individual's "Freedom". In addition, a piece of freedom which needs to be provided should be protected by a fundamental law like a constitution can be called an individual's "Liberal Right". Today, the freedom of life and body, that of speech and thought, and so on have been provided as the liberal rights which should not be restricted for the sake of anything, and that of private property and contract as those which can be restricted for the sake of the public welfare by constitutions in a lot of states. However, the provisions of them by law and whether or not they are actually protected are different, and the latter is a question. In addition, we need to prevent the restrictions on the liberal rights which can be restricted for the sake of something from reaching those which should not be restricted for the sake of anything.
    Some other individuals or groups' disordering an individual's liberal right can be called the "Violation" of it by them or their Violating it.
    In contrast to violation, some other individuals or groups' preventing an individual's liberal right from being violated can be called the "Protection" of it by them or their Protecting it.

POWERS

    Individuals or groups, their functions, or their means which have the abilities to restrain, disorder, or promote some other individuals or groups, their functions, or their means can be called "Powers".
    The powers which have the abilities to restrain, disorder, promote some other individuals or groups, their functions, or their means physically both in the sense of material things and in the sense of bodies can be called "Armed Forces". Armed forces are included in powers.
    Some powers have the abilities to violate some liberal rights. Armed forces have the abilities to violate some liberal rights directly.
    However, some powers have the abilities not only to violate some liberal rights but also to protect them by preventing some other powers from violating them. Armed forces have the abilities not only to violate them directly but also to protect them directly by preventing some other armed forces from violating them directly. For example, some armed forces have the abilities to protect the liberal right of life and body by restraining violence from violating them.
    Moreover, not only some powers have the abilities to violate or to protect some liberal rights but also some have those to secure some social rights which will be defined later. For example, the administrative power has the ability to promote the individuals' lives and health by improving the social structures and promoting the welfare.
    In addition, not only some powers have the abilities to violate, to protect, or to secure some human rights but also some have those to impair or to preserve some other living things and the nature. For example 1, the administrative power has the ability to destroy the nature by overissuing public enterprises and has that to preserve it by regulating the destruction of it. For example 2, the weapons which an armed force holds and uses 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 be provided should exist and function in order to protect or secure human rights by a fundamental law like a constitution 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, a public power which contains at least the three powers of a legislative power, an administrative power, and a judicial power and none of which is subject to any other powers at least formally 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 within certain borders which it should exploit or preserve in order to protect or secure their human rights can be called a "State", "Nation", or a "Country".
    Each state power contains some armed forces like the police, the military, and so on. The armed forces which a state power involves can be called a "Public Armed Force". Each public armed force has been separated into the two of the police and the military. As for the prosecution, each prosecutor needs to be independent. However. to make the prosecution a new power is an overseparation. As will be explained later, we need to prevent overseparation and to realize only necessary separation. In addition, it is of the judiciary power that the prosecution needs to be independent the most, and it is the judiciary power that needs to be independent of the prosecution the most.Accordingly, the prosecution is contained in the police and in the administrative power in these books.
    Such definitions never mean that the functions of a public armed force, the military, or the police are aggressive ones. The explanation will be omitted as self-evident in these books that their functions need to be restricted to defensive ones both in each state and in the international society.
    Such definitions never mean that a state power is an inseparable body. Each state power is a complex consisting of a lot of things and is separable.

POLITICAL RIGHTS

    The rights for general citizens to affect the law and the systems and functions of state powers 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 rights and to maintain or enlarge and deepen democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law.

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 ability to violate some liberal rights, and the public armed force has the ability to violate them directly. The parts of a state power which has the ability to violate some liberal rights can be called the "Part of a State Power Violating Liberal Rights".
    However, some parts of each state power has the ability to protect some liberal rights by preventing some other powers from violating them, and the public armed force has the ability to protect them directly by preventing some other armed forces from violating them directly. The parts of a state power which has the possibility of protecting some liberal rights can be called the "Part of a State Power Protecting Liberal Rights".
    As is one of the most important, the part of a state power violating liberal rights and the part protecting them are almost the same. For example, just the same police or military can violate them by acting in peace time and functioning to individuals, and can protect them by acting in war time and preventing violence from violating them. Metaphorically, they are two sides of the same coin, or a double-edged sword. Accordingly, the part of a state power violating liberal rights and the part protecting them which are almost the same can be called the "Part of a State Power Violating and Protecting Liberal Rights" or the Part Violating and Protecting Liberal Rights. However, when the words "violating and protecting" are always used, the sentences will be complicated. Accordingly, it is also called the Part of a State Power Protecting Liberal Rights or the Part Protecting Liberal Rights in these books. However, when it is necessary to emphasize that it overlap with 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, each state power had provided crimes and punishments by law, held courts and decide innocent or guilty and punishments when guilty, and administered punishments before the realization of democratic systems and the separation of the three powers. 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 punishments 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.
    However, that is not enough to protect liberal rights actively. Accordingly, human beings have realized liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law mainly for liberal rights to be protected mainly in Western Europe and North America mainly since the seventeenth century .
    Democratic systems are systems where citizens restrain state powers directly. In contrast, the separation of the three powers is a system which separates the state power into those of the legislative power, the administrative power, and the judicial power and which makes them restrain one another.

THE PART OF A STATE POWER SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS

    However, human beings seek not only liberty but also existence and better life and, at least, the minimum life. Simply, life and health is more urgent than freedom. Before social rights were sought, there had been economic inequality, economic contradictions, and so on, and human beings had sought existence and the minimum life.
    However, without liberal rights of speech, political rights, and so on, citizens cannot even claim social rights. After citizens had realized liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, and the separation of the three powers to a degree, they got able to claim the minimum life. In addition, after the beginning of the rapid development of science and technology and the Industrial Revolution had made economic inequality and the contradictions of the capitalistic economy clear, they came to claim the minimum life more 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 contradictions of capitalistic economy, and many individuals are forced to undergo dreadful lives.
    Accordingly, citizens have claimed the rights to live and to work, have provided them by law, have enlarged the financial and human powers in state powers to promote the welfare and have enlarged and strengthened the authorities of state powers to regulate enterprises in themselves and contracts between labor and management.
    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. Accordingly, citizens have made state powers provide children with the minimum education.
    Moreover, the destruction of the nature by the expansion of enterprises and human lives has been clear, and the destruction has disordered human lives and health since the latter half of the twentieth century. Accordingly, 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 life, 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 that have the ability to secure social rights. That parts consist of the authorities to regulate enterprises, those to coordinate 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" or the Part Securing Social Rights.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LIBERAL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ONES

    Liberal rights and social rights are contrastive rights, and the part of a state power violating and protecting liberal rights and that securing social rights are contrastive parts.
    The former part protects the former rights by restraining some other powers from violating the former rights. In contrast, the latter part promotes the existences and functions of citizens like life, health, labor, knowledge, technique, and so on and secure the latter rights by promoting or restraining various things which range from enterprises to labor and management to welfare to education to the nature. In contrast, the former part should restrain only the powers which violate the former rights from start to finish.
    Again, the former part is also a part violating the former rights. In addition. the former part is the strongest of all powers. Accordingly, the following can be said.
    Simply, the former rights are violated when the former part is functioning actively. In contrast, the latter rights are secured when the latter part functions actively. As is extreme, the former rights are protected when the former part is lazy. In contrast, the latter rights are not secured when the latter part is lazy.
    The former part needs to be restrained so that the former rights can be protected. In contrast, the latter part needs to be promoted so that the latter rights can be secured.
    The key to the division is as follows. When 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 the powers which restrain the individual's, seeking such existence and functions is a liberal right. In contrast, when it is hardly possible that 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 a state power' doing something, seeking such existence and functions is a social right. For example, seeking the same life can be either a liberal right or a social right. When an individual's life is about to be violated by some other individuals or groups' violence and is protected by the administrative power's restraining the violence, seeking such a life is a liberal right, more closely, 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 or money, seeking such lives is a social right, more closely, right to live in a narrow sense.

THE RIGHT TO EXIST IN GENERAL

    As was explained in "OUR-EXISTENCE.NET", with the pain of the anxiety and fear about the extinction of living things including the self and its family's death and a lot of pain, the right to abolish and prevent totally destructive means totally and to make living things including human beings exist until the aging or death of the earth or the sun while reducing pain as in general as possible can be called the "Right to Exist in General". It is only in the context of "EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY" that the core of this right can be explained. Please read that book. The way to secure this right will be explained in the context of this book.

DEVIATION OF A STATE POWER FROM SOCIAL RIGHTS

    Some liberal rights needs to be restricted by some parts of a state power so that some social rights can be secured. For example 1, some liberal rights of private property need to be restricted so that public facilities, roads, railways, ports, and so on can be constructed and maintained. For example 2, some liberal rights of contract between labor and management need to be restricted so that working conditions cannot get worse. For example 3, some liberal rights of private property need to be restricted so that the destruction of the nature can be regulated.
    In such situations, some state powers can restrict and violate the liberal rights which do not need to be restricted even for the purposes of securing social rights or for the similar purposes by means of displaying such purposes. Moreover, they can impair political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law, and run wild to autocracy, despotism, or so. Such have been experienced in the twentieth century as autocracy, old communism, totalitarianism, and so on.
    However, we have not 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 latter part, strict liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers and the rule of law 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 existence of the whole of the living things or human beings on the earth, and so on emerges. However, such a kind never functions for the purposes of our existence or the security of the right to exist in general, as was explained in "OUR-EXISTENCE.NET".
    A state power's restricting or violating liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, or the rule of law which do not need to be restricted even for the purposes of securing social rights or for the similar purposes by displaying the pretext of such purposes can be called the "Deviation" of a state power from social rights or the state power's Deviating from social rights.

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 restraint 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 a legislative power, departments, sections, the military, the police, and their units in a administrative power, and courts in a 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 any organizations to any degree. There can be solid or fluid organizations, independent or dependent ones, those which are elected directly or indirectly by the people, those which are not elected, and so on. For example, it is said that the military should be a solid organization dependent on the chief of the administrative power who is a civilian. As for election, it would be ideal that every member of public organizations is elected, but it is impossible. However, as long as the members of the legislative power or the chief of the administrative power is elected directly by the people and as long as they appoint other public officers directly or indirectly, it can be thought that every member of public organizations is formally elected directly or indirectly by the people.
    However, again, it matters to everybody how state powers function, and 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 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 restrain 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 almost 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. Accordingly, 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. Please do not forget that, too.
    As was explained earlier, it is 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 force 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 force is direct and the strongest power violating liberal rights. Moreover, it is direct and the strongest power violating political rights, the democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law, and running wildly to autocracy, despotism, or so. Accordingly, in order to prevent those, it is necessary and possible to a degree that the civil officers in the administrative power, the legislative power, and the judicial power restrain the public armed force. This is the traditional civilian control. In addition, it is necessary and possible to a degree that the public armed force is separated into the two of the police and the military, and that they restrain each other.
    However, some civil officers in the administrative power sometimes control the public armed forces totally, violate liberal rights directly, and indirectly violate political rights, social rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law. Accordingly, it is necessary and possible to a degree that the legislative power and the judicial power restrain the administrative power.
    Though all of the following explanations involve democratic systems and though all of the following possibilities involve "to a degree", because the sentences will get complicated if these words are always used, they will be omitted unless they are very necessary.
    As was explained earlier, human beings have provided crimes and penalties in the law, hold courts, decided innocent or guilty and penalties when guilty, and executed them. Most crimes are private powers' violating liberal rights, and so this process has had the functions protecting liberal rights, too. Moreover, if the separation of the three powers and the rule of law is applied to this process, it has the functions which restrict the functions of state powers to the protection of liberal rights. Accordingly, this process occupy a large part of functions of a state power protecting liberal rights.
    It is necessary and possible that the fundamental law like constitution provides liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law.
    It is necessary and possible that the legislative power, according to the fundamental law, provides the details of liberal rights, provide the violations of them as crimes, and provide punishments when guilty.
    It is necessary and possible that the civil officers in the administrative power, according to the law, restrain the public armed force while controlling them. It is necessary and possible that the administrative power, according to the law, restrains private powers from violating liberal rights and brings suspects to trials. Of course, it is important that what the administrative power bring suspects to are not the administrative power or the legislative power but the judicial power which is independent of the other two powers. It is necessary and possible that the police in the public armed force in the administrative power prevent armed forces from striding in the state and the small ones from invading from the other states or regions, and that the military in the public armed force in the administrative power prevent large ones from invading from the other states or regions.
    It is necessary and possible that the judicial power, according to the law, holds courts, leads trials, and judges innocent or guilty and punishments when guilty.
    It is necessary and possible that the administrative power, according to the law and the decisions by the judicial power, administer the punishments.
    In summary, the functions of a state power protecting liberal rights are as follows.

→The fundamental law like constitution provides liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law.
→The legislative power, according to the fundamental law, provides the details of liberal rights, provides the violations of them as crimes, and provides punishments when guilty.
→The civil officers in the administrative power, according to the law, restrain the public armed force while controlling them.
→The administrative power, according to the law, restrains private powers from violating liberal rights, and brings suspects to trials.
→The judicial power, according to the law, holds courts, leads trials, and judges innocence or guilty and punishments when guilty.
→The administrative power, according to the law and the decisions by the judicial power, administers punishments.
→Again, the public armed force is restrained by civil officers in the administrative power. In addition, they are restrained by the legislative power, and the judicial power. The public armed force is separated into the two of the police and the military, and they restrain each other. The administrative power is restrained by the legislative and judicial powers.
    In such ways, it is necessary and possible that democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law are applied strictly to the part of a state power protecting liberal rights.

DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS AND THE RULE OF LAW

    Through democratic systems, it is possible that the arrogance by the majority is caused. For example, it is possible that the major nation abuse minor ones. Such arrogance can be restrained through equality under the law in the rule of law.
    However, there has been few true arrogance by the majority in the history. Most of those which seems to be such arrogance have been movements forcibly induced by a few persons or groups. In order to prevent such induction, it is necessary and possible that the liberal rights of thought, speech, religion, and so on are protected under the rule of law.
    In order to protect the independence and fairness of the judges in the judicial power, the appointment or election of leading judges like the chief justice of the supreme court should not be affected by political and economical power and money. In order to prevent such affection, not what is itself affected by them but what is far from power and money need to appoint or select those leading judges. There are general citizens as one of those which are far from them. They are far from legal specialty. Spontaneously, they are far from power and money. In this sense, general citizens are suitable to elect those leading judges. After all, though the rule of law seems to be superior to democratic systems, the former is under the latter in this sense.

FUNCTIONS OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS

    Such functions like those where the strict democratic systems, separations of powers, and rule of law need to functions can be called the "Functions of the Rule of Law Protecting Liberal Rights", Functions Protecting Liberal Rights, or Functions of the rule of law of a state power.
    However, in order to protect not only liberal rights but also political rights, democratic systems in themselves, separations of powers in themselves, the rule of law in itself, and the right to exist in general, the strict democratic systems, separations of powers, and rule of law need to function, and they belong to these functions of the rule of law.
    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, strict separations of powers and the rule of law would need to function to him or her. That is, above all, because of the following. Such a philosopher king could not come into being for generations. If he or she governed well but if democratic systems, separations of powers, or the rule of law were violated, his or her successors could easily run wild to autocracy, despotism, and so on. However, there was no evidence that there were any philosopher kings and that they governed well in the human history, and seeming ones were legends, that is, fictions. Accordingly, even in one generation, the strict democratic systems, separations of powers, and rule of law 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, and they need to be independent to a great degree.
    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.
    In such ways, the strict democratic systems, separations of powers, and rule of law have functions protecting themselves. When they loosen themselves, they collapse.
    After all, in order for us to protect liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general, the strict democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law, that is the system of the rule of law securing liberal rights needs to function, and they need to belong to the functions of rule of law protecting liberal rights.

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 abolish and prevent totally destructive means, that is, nuclear weapons and immutable gene means, the law and system for their abolition and prevention are arranged and administrated strictly in each state, in the international society, in the world, and in international or world organizations. The security of the right to live in general 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 and to provide that the state power cooperate with other states and international or world organizations for the total abolition and prevention of them, the legislative power needs to prohibit the material things, technology, trade, and so on which can cause the totally destructive means, the police and prosecution need to investigate and prosecute the public and private powers which can cause them, the judicial power needs to judge them, and punishments need to be administrated. Those which are the targets of the investigations are, above all, the military, the other part of the administrative power, public and private research institutes, public and private enterprises, the trade, collusion, and corruption between them and those of foreign ones.
    Out of them, the police and persecution and the military are restrained by the traditional separation of the three powers and by the traditional civilian control in the functions of the rule of law. The others are restrained by the functions of the rule of law. Moreover, All of them, above all, military-industrial complexes, which have been looked upon as ringleaders, are restrained by the separation of the functions of the rule of law and the functions explained below and by their restraining each other.

THE FUNCTIONS OF A STATE POWER SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS

    In contrast to the functions protecting liberal rights, though it is necessary and possible that the fundamental law like 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 them in the law more closely than the constitution, it cannot provide them as closely as it can provide liberal rights. For example 1, if anybody provided in the law the values of the promotion or restriction for the economy, they would change in a few weeks. For example 2, 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 necessary and possible that such values and the concrete ways are estimated or changed depending on the situations by some specialists, insiders or outsiders, on the basis of science and technology. It is necessary and possible that the administrative power involving such specialists research and carry out the policies for the security of social rights.
    In the functions of a state power securing the social rights, the most necessary and largest ones are the authorities to intervene in and regulate private enterprises, the ability to coordinate labor and management, the financial and human powers to construct and to maintain social structures, those to promote the welfare, those to provide children with minimum education, the authorities to regulate the destruction of the nature, the financial and human power to preserve the nature, and science and technology to research and carry out the policies for those. It is necessary and possible that the administrative power has such functions.
    After all, in the administrative power, the public armed force including the police and the military and the functions controlling them are functions protecting liberal rights, and most of the other functions are functions securing social rights.
    Though the judicial power can point out the responsibility of the administrative power when it fails to secure some social rights, this turns out to be late. In addition, it occupies only a small part of its functions, and most of them are concerned with the protection of liberal rights.
    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 judicial power, but they can do otherwise. While the functions protecting the liberal rights have their own power of the public armed force, the functions securing the social rights have their own power to stop or to propose to stop the services or the permissions which they have provided. For example, when some enterprises do not comply with regulations, the latter can nullify the business license which have been issued to them. Moreover the latter can stop the supplies or permissions of ports, water, gas, electricity, information, and so on which they have provided the enterprises. When some individuals abuse some welfare, the latter can stop all the welfare that they have provided the individuals. Such nullification 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 provided, and they hardly need public armed force or trials.
    Powers to stop or to propose to stop services or permissions are contrastive to 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.
    In summary, the functions of a state power securing social rights is as follows.

→The fundamental law like a constitution provides social rights and the ways to secure them only in outline.
→The legislative power provides social rights and the ways to secure them in the law more closely than the the funcamental law does but less closely than it provides liberal rights.
→In the administrative power, the authorities to regulate enterprises, the ability to coordinate labor and management, the financial and human powers to construct and to maintain social structures, those to promote the welfare, those to provide children with minimum education, the authorities to regulate the destruction of the nature, and the financial and human powers to preserve the nature, and science and technology to research and carry out the policies for those.
→The judicial power points out the responsibility of the administrative power when it fails to secure some social rights, but this turns out to be late.
→In the administrative power, powers to stop or to propose to stop the services or the permission which they have provided.

FUNCTIONS OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS

    In such ways, the administrative power excluding the public armed force and excluding the part controlling it occupies most of the functions securing social rights. It is unnecessary, impossible, and unsuitable to apply the separation of three powers and the rule of law strictly to the functions securing social rights. Flexible science and technology are necessary, possible, and suitable. Moreover, they have their own powers to stop or to propose to stop the services or the permissions and hardly need the public armed force or trials. Those functions can be called the "Functions of the Human Rule Securing Social Rights", Functions Securing Social Rights, or Functions of the Human Rule.

SOCIAL RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS

    In the functions of the human rule securing social rights, separations of powers and the rule of law are not dominant. Then, how about democratic systems?
    If the chief of these functions is appointed or selected by the people with political, economical, or social powers, the social rights of general citizens are hardly secured. Accordingly, the chief of these functions or the organizations appointing him or her need to be elected by general citizens, that is, through universal suffrage.
    One of the causes of the failures of old communism or socialism was that the holders of state powers were not tried through periodic elections, that they did not worked hard by competing with each other, and that they went incompetent.
    General citizens are short of scientific or technical knowledge or skills for the security of social rights. However, in order to prevent holders of powers from going incompetent or corrupted, at least, periodic elections by general citizens are necessary.
    Above all in these functions, it is necessary to prevent its cohesion with and bribery from enterprises. In order to prevent it, democratic systems by general citizens need to function.
    Of course, it is the strict separations of powers and rule of law like the investigation and prosecution by the police and the prosecution, the trial by the judicial power, and the impeachment by the legislative power that need to function to such adhesion. The illegal or unconstitutional functions by the part of a state power securing social rights are never overlooked because it is the functions of the human rule. For this very reason, the functions of the rule of law and those of the human rule need to be separated and they need to restrain each other.
    However, again, while the ways to protect liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separation of powers, and the rule of law are closely provide by the law, those to secure social rights are not, and most of them are entrusted to the officers of the administrative power.
    In addition, the democratic systems which need to function for the security of social rights are basically different from those which need to function for the protection of liberal ones. Also in mental functions of general citizens electing representatives, it is necessary and possible that while those for the latter are constrained by philosophy of law to a degree, those for the former are more constrained not by it than by citizens' emotions for daily life. Simply, daily emotions can decide the security of social rights. More simply, the chief of these functions who cannot satisfy citizens' eating drives should be removed.
    It is true that there can be some harms, above all, in the international society, of flattering the people like seeking only the national interest. Nonetheless, it is better than autocracy, despotism, and so on. In addition, the international society or organizations need to respond the flattering the people in each state and to flatter the people in the world. It is sometimes the second best way for the functions of the human rule securing social rights to flatter the people. Nonetheless, it is so only in these functions. It should not be so in the above functions of the rule of law protecting liberal rights. For this very reason, the separation of these two systems of function need to be sought.
    In those ways, it is necessary and possible that not strict but human democratic systems function to the 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 itself and cooperate with public and private research institutes and enterprises. However, in order to secure the right to exist in general, that is, to abolish and prevent totally destructive means, that is, nuclear weapons and immutable gene means, they need to be restrained by the functions of the rule of law. However, it is not limited to the functions of the human rule or to the research, development, and so on of totally destructive means but to all human beings and groups and to all unconstitutional and illegal acts.
    However, the functions of the human rule has already enforced various regulations to promote citizens' health, to protect workers' and children's rights, and to preserve the nature, and so on. In order to secure the right to exist in general, these functions can enforce regulations as strictly as or more strictly than to secure social rights. In addition, they have their own power to stop or to propose to stop the services or the permissions which it has provided as a last resort.
    Moreover, the functions of the human rule can cooperate with those of the rule of law in order to secure the right to exist in general. For example, the former can get more rich and useful information concerning destructive means than the latter can, and the former can provide or share such information.
    Moreover, when the functions of the rule of law goes unable to function because of running wildly, corruption, and so on, those of the human rule can restrain them with their own power. For example, when the military run wild, it can stop the information and the social structure which it has provided for it.
    As for the collusion and corruption between public organizations and enterprises, above all, the military-industrial complex, the functions of the human rule can get more information than those of the rule of law. In order to restrain such collusion, it is necessary and possible that the former function while cooperating with the latter or while being independent of the latter.
    When the functions of the human rule fail to function in such a way, it is necessary and possible that those of the rule of law alert it.

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, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general, are functions where strict democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law need to function, and has the final power of using the public armed force. The latter are functions to secure social rights, are functions where the administrative power need to be dominant, and have the final power of stopping or proposing stopping the services or the permissions which it has provided.
    Can we give those functions divided into two groups to some organizations?     The strict democratic systems, separation of the three posers, and rule of law need to function in the functions protecting liberal rights, and giving these function to one organization impairs that separation. In addition, also in the functions securing social rights, a loose separation of the three powers needs to function, and we cannot give these functions to one organization. However, we can give the former not to an organization but to a system including three powers separated strictly. In addition, we can give the latter to another system including three powers separated loosely. 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", 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.
    The former is a system to protect liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general, is a system in which strict democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law need to function, and has the final power of using the public armed force.
    The latter is a system to secure social rights, is a system in which the administrative power need to be dominant, and has the final power of stopping or proposing stopping the services or the permissions which it has provided.
    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 a few points will be explained. Separating each state power into those two systems and making a split between them prevent the harms of the system of the human rule like the deviation from the social rights, which was explained earlier, running wildly by the majority, flattering the people, manipulation of public opinion, and so on from infiltrating the system of the rule of law. Of course, the unconstitutional and illegal behaviors like the running wildly to autocracy, despotism, and so on, the collusion and corruption with enterprises, the research, development, and so on of totally destructive means by the system of the human rule can be restrained by that of the rule of law in the same way as those by other organizations or individual can be. Those by the system of the rule of law and its parts like the police, the military, the organizations supervising them, and so on can be restrained by the traditional strict democratic systems, separation of the three powers, and rule of law in this system. Moreover, they can be restrained by the special power of that of the human rule.

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 "systems" but "organizations" which are more concrete and detailed are separated?
    The separability of the three powers of the legislative power, administrative power, and judicial power has already been demonstrated. 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 becomes an organization protecting liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general, and the other becomes an organization 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 force are incorporated into the system of the rule of law and that most of the others into that of the human rule.
    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 remain things protecting the rule of law in the traditional way and that a part of them become things securing social rights in a new way.

SEPARATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER INTO THE TWO 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 parts of human lives occupy much of the discussion and decision about budgets. It is necessary and possible that the legislative power discuss and decide such budgets. As was explained earlier, though the administrative power should be dominant in the system of the human rule, this never means that the legislative power is needless in it.
    Many states adopt bicameral systems in the modern world. However, because the two houses have gotten similar, most of the systems do not function. It is necessary and possible that one of the two houses in such a bicameral system becomes an organization having the functions of protecting liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law, and the right to exist in general and that the other becomes an organization having the functions of securing social rights. In addition, it is necessary and possible that the former constitutes the system of the rule of law as a legislative power and that the latter constitutes that of the human rule as another legislative power. In a state where there are a "Upper House" or so and a "Lower House" or so, it is necessary and possible that the upper develops into the former and that the lower develops into the latter. It seems that they are developing so in some state.
    When the legislative power is separated into the two houses of
(1) the house which has the functions of protecting liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general and which composes the system of the rule of law
and
(2) the house which has the functions of securing social rights and which composes the system of the human rule,
(1) can be called the House of the Rule of Law Protecting Liberal Rights, the House Protecting Liberal Rights, the House of Rule of Law, and (2) can be called the House of the Human Rule, the House Securing Social Rights, the House of the Human Rule. The details will be explained below.
    It is necessary and possible that the fundamental law like constitution provides that the main purpose of (1) be the protection of liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general and that that of (2) be the security of social rights. In addition, it is necessary and possible that it provides the following.
    As for the legislation concerning the protection of the liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general, it is necessary and possible that (1) is given priority. As for the legislation concerning the security of social rights, it is necessary and possible that (2) is given priority. As for the former, it is necessary and possible that (1) decides earlier, and that (1)'s decision becomes law when (2) decides differently and when the (1) decides, for example, with more than two-thirds again. As for the latter, it is necessary and possible that (2) decides earlier, and that (2)'s decision becomes law when (1) decides differently and when (2) decides, for example, with more than two-thirds again.
    The distinction between the legislation concerning the protection of liberal rights, political rights, and so on and that concerning the security of social rights is clear. For example, the legislation concerning the election of (2) is that concerning political rights and democratic systems, and so (1) needs to be given priority concerning it. It is not that (2) needs to be given priority concerning that concerning that of (1) in return. (1) needs to given priority concerning that concerning that of (1), too. That distinction needs to be not vague but strict in such a way. Most of the members of the two houses can understand such a strict distinction. If it were not strict but vague, they could not understand it. When the majority of one house pretend not to understand it, it is necessary and possible that the other house rejects, for example, by more than two-thirds and invalidate such legislation. When both of the houses pretend not to, it is necessary and possible that, for example, more than one-fifth of a house appeal to the judicial power and that it invalidates such legislation.
    It is probable that one of the two houses legislates against its own purpose or the other's purpose. Above all, it is the worst that (1) legislates against liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, or so. In such cases, it is necessary and possible that (2) invalidates such legislation, for example, with more than two-thirds. When both of the houses do that, it is necessary and possible that the judicial power invalidates such legislation in the same way as was exemplified above.
    As for the discussion and decision of budgets, it is necessary and possible that each system has its own budget. It is necessary and possible that the budget of each system is discussed and decided preferentially by each house in such a way as was explained above. For example 1, when (1) judges that the budget of the system of the human rule decided by (2) is too large for (1) to protect the people's liberal rights, (1) can once reject the budget decided by the latter. For example 2, when (2) reduce the budget of its own system with the expectation that reducing tax will grow the economy and when (1) does not do it, (2) can once reject the budget decided by (1). Then, it is hard for budgets to go too large.
    As for electoral systems for (2), because human democratic systems need to function, political parties, large districts, proportional representation, and comparatively a lot of representatives are necessary and possible. In contrast, for (1), because strict democratic systems need to function, no political parties, small districts, no proportional representation, and comparatively a few representatives are necessary and possible. As was explained above, it is (1) that discuss and decide such electoral systems. Though it is difficult to exclude political parties completely, more independents need to be elected and it is possible to a degree.
    Anyway, by separating the legislative power into the two houses of (1) and (2), the general electors distinguish the candidates suitable for each house and elect them. Simply, the strict are suitable for (1), and the flexible are suitable for (2).
    Above all, as for the published policies, that is, manifests in elections, when they are separated, each of the policies protecting liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, and so on and those securing social rights can 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 necessary and possible that the police and the military, that is, the public armed force is belong to the system of the rule of law and is controlled by strict democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law. In addition, it is necessary and possible that each of the chiefs of the police and the military is appointed and changed preferentially in such a way as was explained in the above section by the house protecting liberal rights. In addition, it is necessary and possible that each committee in the house protecting liberal rights decide or propose the selection and change of each chief and each important policy and improvement. More concretely, it is necessary and possible that the committee in the house protecting liberal rights whose purpose is to protect the liberal rights of the citizens in the state decide the selection and change of the chief of the police and its important policy and improvement and propose them to the plenary session of that house. In addition, it is necessary and possible that the committee in the house protecting liberal rights whose purpose is national defense decide the selection and change of the chief of the military and its important policy and improvement and propose them to the plenary session of that house.
    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 aggressive war and running wildly by the military, the police, or civilians more than in a traditional way.
    In addition, from the beginning, it was wrong that a president or a prime minister holds the whole of the administrative power including them, which is a huge power. By separating it into the two of the police and military and the other part, we can prevent them from running wild.
    Nonetheless, we should prevent the collusion by the police and the military which have already been separated. Above all, the police should investigate and prosecute unconstitutional and illegal behaviors by the military in the same way as with those by the other public officers and general citizens. Above all, the collusion here needs to be prevented. In order to prevent their collusion, it is necessary and possible that no privilege is allowed to either of them, that neither concurrent posts nor private meetings are allowed to the committees supervising them, which were explained earlier, their chiefs and higher officers, and that the fundamental law like constitution provides them.
    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. The department to secure workers' right, that to provide children with minimum education, that to promote general citizen's health, that to promote the other welfare, that to intervene in the market economy and to coordinate it, that to construct and maintain social structures, and that to regulate the destruction of the nature and to preserve it are incorporated into this system. That of finance and tax and that of diplomacy cannot be incorporated only into this system, and their separation will be explained later.
    When we look over it in such a way, we find that the budget of this system occupies the majority of the whole national budget and that it consumes the majority of the whole tax.
    It seems that the policies by the administrative power is all linked and that they should be arranged synthetically. For example, whether or not its state or nation goes to war affects its economy including its munitions industry and its employment. 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 that it brings good effect. Such linkage needs to be broken, and the police and the military need to be laid under the strict system of the rule of law.
    In contrast, all the policies for the security of social rights need to be linked and arranged synthetically. For example, the increase of public works can decrease national unemployment rate. However, the overissue of them can destroy the nature and harm citizens' health. Accordingly, not only the quantity but also the quality of public works needs to be studied. This is an example of the research of synthetic policies.
    In addition, as was explained earlier, such organizations have the power of stopping or proposing stopping the services or the permissions which they have provided. Though they have to appeal to the judicial power as a last resort, they do not need it in a lot of cases.
    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 below can be entrusted to an individual or a group who has an excellent ability to make such a synthetic policy. In addition, such an individual or a group can be elected directly by general citizens or can be appointed by the house securing social rights in the legislative power preferentially in such a way as was explained in the above section. In addition, such organizations as secure social rights and such an individual or a group who is entrusted with those organizations can be even 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.

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, and against natural disaster are incorporated into the part of the administrative power in the system of the human rule securing social rights. Though the police and the military need to have a part of those functions, it is the part in the system securing social rights that should lead those functions. Few will claim that it is unconstitutional for the police or the military to have a part of those functions after the request by the leaders.
    In the peaceful part of the administrative power, the organizations promoting recreation, tourism, culture, sport, and so on are incorporated into the part of the administrative power in the system securing social rights. There is no problem, for example, in the accompaniment of them by some bands of the police or the military. That is because such accompaniment cannot be looked upon as their administration.
    The department of finance and tax and that of diplomacy, cannot be separated in such a easy way.

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 alloted to the two according to its kind and that each system collects, manages, and invests 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 rigid and which should be so, cannot manage money. If it did it, its rigidity would get dirty. It should be invoked with its clean rigidity when tax evasion or the injustice by its own or by the system of the human rule breaks out.
    Accordingly, it is necessary and possible that the department of finance and tax and that for banknotes' issue are incorporated into the part of the administrative power of system of the human rule securing social rights and are under the chief of that part. Though the money of the system of the rule of law is managed by that of the human rule, it is necessary and possible.
    Here we find the following two points.
    First, the public armed force 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 money and force 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 provided but also its own power of managing the money of that of the rule of law.
    As the result of those, the system of the human rule gains power. Though those heterogeneous powers cannot be compared, its power would be equal to that of the system of the rule of law. With such increased power, the system of the human rule could prevent that of the rule of law from running wild deviating from the constitution and law and could prevent the public armed force from running wild for itself or from being abused by others. If it stopped that money, for example, the police and the military in the latter would be weekend because they could not pay their officers' salary.
    However, it does not happen that its power goes too intense to keep balance of power. That is because the public armed force 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

    Concerning the department of diplomacy, to get straight to the point, it is necessary and possible 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 needs to have its own administrative organization of diplomacy. That is, it is necessary and possible that the department of diplomacy is separated into the part of the administrative power in the system of the rule of law and the other part of it in that of the human rule. The functions of the former are those concerning the national defense, the collective security, and the disarmament including the total abolition and prevention of totally destructive means, and so they are the protection of the liberal rights, political rights, separations of powers, rule of law, and right to exist in general at least of the citizens in the state or nation while functioning in the international society, the world, and the international or world organizations. In contrast, the functions of the latter are the growth or stability of the national economy by means of the liberation or regulation of trade and by means of the involvement in or independence of international economic systems and the promotion of health, welfare, education, and culture by means of international cooperation or independence, and so on, and so they are the security of the social rights of the common human beings while functioning in the common places.
    Here we find the following three points.
    First, the functions protecting liberal rights, democratic systems, separation of powers, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general and those securing social rights are distinguished in those 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 is 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 an conventional president or prime minister. This concentration and his or her desire for power and money are the main cause of aggressive wars, expansions of armaments including the research, development, and hold of totally destructive means, and economic disparity in the international society. This concentration and his or her little specialization are the main cause of economic instability and unemployment in it.
    Accordingly, 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 becomes possible in the following way.
    The committee concerning diplomacy in the house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights in the legislative power can administrate the part of diplomacy of its system. In addition, when one representative needs to attend some conferences or meetings, the chief of that committee can do it. In addition, as for the matters where the resolution of the legislative power is necessary like ratification of treaties, after that committee resolve, its plenary session 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 other members', the former 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 it 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 the 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 house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and its committees are very heavy like the committee controlling the police and that controlling the military. We had better assign such heavy responsibilities 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 frightening that an individual abuse such responsibilities and run wild to autocracy or despotism, to war, to expansion of armaments. Irresponsibility is better than abuse of responsibility. For example, it is often better for states or nations that we give up the responsibility of national defense and run away and hide ourselves than that we defend seeming states or nations actively with seeming responsibility.
    In contrast, the part of diplomacy of the human rule securing social rights can be entrusted to the chief of the part of administrative power of the human rule. It is in this position that the technical and synthetic policies of that chief are tried.
    In conferences where they can debate and decide on things concerning both the system of the rule of law and that of the human rule, it is necessary and possible that both of the representatives of those two systems attend them. In this case and when the resolution is concerned with one of those two systems, it is necessary and possible that the representative concerning it votes. In this case and when the resolution is concerned with both of those two systems and when one or more of the two representatives is against it, it is necessary and possible that the vote against it is cast.

DISSOLUTION OF CONVENTIONAL PRESIDENTS OR PRIME MINISTERS

    As was explained in the above sections, it is necessary and possible that the police and the military are supervised respectively by the committees in the house protecting liberal rights and that the strict democratic systems, separation of the three powers, and rule of law function to them. In addition, it is necessary and possible that the other part of the administrative power including the whole of the department of finance and tax and a part of that of diplomacy is managed by an individual or a group which is elected directly or indirectly by general citizens. That is, it is necessary and possible that each conventional president or prime minister 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, the department of finance and tax, and that of diplomacy. The dissolution of it can reduce aggressive war, its running wildly to autocracy, despotism, and so on, and the research, development, and hold of totally destructive means.
    The individual or group who manages the part of the administrative power excluding the whole of the police and the military and a part of the department of diplomacy, who is distinguished from the conventional chief who had all the administrative power, 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 the part of the Administrative Power Securing Social Rights.
    Such a chief can either be elected by the citizens of each state or nation or be appointed by the house of the human rule securing social rights in the legislative power which was explained earlier preferentially in such a way as was explained earlier.

SEPARATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE POWER INTO THE TWO PARTS OF THE SYSTEM OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND OF THAT OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS

    On those grounds, it is necessary and possible that the administrative power of each state or nation is 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:
(Being controlled by each of the committees in the house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights in the legislative power), the police, the military, and a part of the department of diplomacy
(2) The part of the administrative power of the system of the human rule securing social rights
(Being elected by the citizens of each state or nation or being appointed by the house of the human rule securing social rights in the legislative power preferentially in such a way as was explained above), (2) the chief of the part of the administrative power of the human rule securing social rights→the other part of the administrative power including the other part of the department of diplomacy

JUDICIAL POWER

    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 remain things protecting the rule of law in the traditional way and that a part of them become things securing social rights in a new way.
    However, because the judicial power in itself, each court, and each judge in it have already gotten independent of others to a great degree, such a separation may be unnecessary.
    However, the appointment of the supreme court's judges by conventional 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 house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights in the legislative power, which was explained earlier, appoints them than when conventional presidents or prime ministers do. Whoever appoints them, such influence and impairment is caused. However, it will be the least when the house of the rule of law appoints them preferentially in the same way as was explained earlier. For example, it is necessary and possible that the committee concerning the composition of the judicial power in the house of the rule of law proposes the appointment of judges, that its plenary session appoint them, and that when the house of the human rule appoints them differently, the former appoints them finally with more than two thirds.
    Only when that problem who appoints them is resolved, the judicial power do not have to be separated, do it?
    In addition, also in trials concerning the security of social rights, the judicial powers should judge under the rule of law. Most of the trials concerning it are those concerning the violations of the obligations of the administrative power. If such trials were not based on the law, the officials of the administrative powers could not do their jobs. In addition, such trials should not be affected by the administrative power.
    On those grounds, it is necessary and possible that the judicial power is in the system of the rule of law and that it is independent even in it.
    If a part of the judicial power needs to be intervened by some others, its traditional part protecting liberal rights, political rights, separations of powers, and the rule of law should not be intervened by any others. In order to prevent such intervention as is limited to the former from reaching the latter, we needs to separate the judicial power into the two part of that of the rule of law and that of the human rule, and to make a split between them. However, it cannot be that the judicial power needs to be intervened by anybody for sake of the security of social rights.

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, it is necessary and possible that each state power is separated in the following way.

The system
of the rule of law
protecting liberal rights
The system
of the human rule
securing social rights
The legislative powerThe house
of the rule of law
protecting liberal rights
The house
of the human rule
securing social rights
The administrative powerThe police,
the military,
and a part
of the department of diplomacy
The other part
of the administrative power
including the other part
of the department of diplomacy,
and the chief
of this part
The judicial powerThe judicail power-

THE NECESSITY OF THE SEPARATION OF EACH STATE POWER INTO THE TWO SYSTEMS OF THE THAT OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THAT OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS

POSSIBILITY AND NECESSITY

    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 to do so? Though some pieces of this necessity has already been explained sporadically, it will be summed up in the following sections.

PREVENTING THE DISORDERS WHICH THE SYSTEM OF THE HUMAN RULE TENDS TO FALL INTO FROM INFILTRATING THAT OF THE RULE OF LAW

    The system of the human rule tends to fall into disorders like autocracy, despotism, totalitarianism, deviation from social rights, collusion and corruption with enterprises, formation of military-industrial complexes, flattering the people, the majority's running wildly, manipulation of public opinion, and so on. By separating each state power into those two systems of that of the rule of law and that of the human rule and by making the split between them clear, we can prevent those disorders which the latter tends to fall into from infiltrating the former. Though conventional presidents or prime ministers were the main cause of those disorders, they are dissolved under this separation. The chief of the part of the administrative power of the human rule securing social rights caused under this separation does not have any authority over the system of the rule of law. He or she does not have any authority over the police or the military. He or she does not have any authority to appoint the judges of the supreme court.
    With its own strict democratic systems, separations of powers, and rule of law which remain intact in such a way, the system of the rule of law can function to its own disorders, those which the system of the human rule tend to fall into, and those of general citizens.
    When the system of the rule of law runs wildly violating the constitution and the law deviating from the very rule of law, the system of the human rule can restrain it with its own power explained earlier. If I did not told, the system of the human rule would and could restrain it. This is also a product by this separation.
    Though the following four problems are included in those disorder which the system of the human rule tends to fall into, because they are important, they will be explained in the following four special sections.

PREVENTION OF DEVIATION OF A STATE POWER FROM SOCIAL RIGHTS

    As was explained earlier, it is possible that, by displaying such purposes as the security of social rights and the existence of all of the living things or human beings, the chief or his or her colleagues of the administrative power control the public armed force totally, restrict and violate the liberal rights which do not need to be restricted even for such purposes, impair political rights, democratic systems, separation of powers, and the rule of law, and run wild to autocracy, despotism, or so. This is the deviation of a state power from social rights. Such were not new happenings but experienced in the twentieth century as autocracy, old communism, totalitarianism, and so on.
    In addition, from now on, it is possible that a kind of totalitarianism for the purposes of preserving the nature, securing the existence of living things, and so on emerges. Such never function for the purposes of our existence and the security of the right to exist in general, as was explained in "OUR-EXISTENCE.NET".
    In order to prevent such deviation of a state power from social rights, it is necessary and possible that the state power in each state 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, that the split between them is made clear, and that the house, the police, and the judicial power in the former restrain the chief and his or her colleagues of the latter.

CORRESPONDING TO THE FUTURE COMMUNISM OR SOCIALISM

    We have not resolved class struggle, economic inequality, the contradictions of the capitalist economy, and so on yet. Above all, the dissatisfaction at economic inequality can burst out anywhere anytime, and it is natural to do so. It is an illusion that communism or socialism ended in the twentieth century, and they can revive from now on. In addition, their version which emphasizing the preservation of the nature or the existence of living things or human beings can emerge. In addition, some parts of them which are revised are necessary.
    However, even if they are necessary, they are so only in the system of the human rule securing social rights, and they are not only unnecessary but also unfit in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights.
    The main cause of the failure of the old communism or socialism was that they impaired liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law. Above all, because the leaders of the communist party did not undergo the trial of elections and free speech, they went incompetent and could not made wise economic plans.
    Even if some revised parts of communism or socialism are necessary, liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separation of powers, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general need to be protected. For this purpose, each state power need to be separated into the system protecting them and the system securing social rights, and we need to prevent the latter from infiltrating or impairing the former.

PREVENTION OF THE COLLUSION AND CORRUPTION WITH ENTERPRISES

    The collusion and corruption with enterprises can occur more in the system securing social rights than in that protecting liberal rights. That is because the former is in the position to regulate or permit enterprises, and because they offer bribes to escape regulation and to get permission. When those two systems are separated, it is harder for enterprises to reach the latter, and it is easier for the latter to investigate and prosecute the former and enterprises and to prevent such collusion and corruption.

RESTRAINT ON MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

    The words "military-industrial complex" designate not only the complex of the military and enterprises literally but also that of them and politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, technologists, and so on in these books.
    The military-industrial complexes in that sense in a lot of states have prompted general military expansion and the research, development, and hold of totally destructive means. That is because, even if they are left alone, enterprises seek profit, the military, politicians, and bureaucrats seek powers, and scientists and technologists seek authority and honor. It can be said that their complexes reached a peak in nuclear weapons. In addition, they are reaching another peak in manipulations of genes.
    This separation incorporates the military into the system of the rule of law and incorporate the others in such a complex into the system of the human rule or put them into the place near it, it isolates the military which is the center of the complex far from the others, and it dissolves the literal military-industrial complex.
    The military is restrained in the system of the rule of law by the strict democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law. In conventional systems, the system of the human rule could control the military through or by conventional presidents or prime ministers. This separation make it impossible. This make the strict democratic systems, separations of powers, and rule of law more and more intact and strict. With those more and more intact and strict, the system of the rule of law can function to the system of human rule, enterprises, and research institutes and dissolve the military-industrial complex in a broad sense.

THE RULE OF LAW OVER THE POLICE AND THE MILITARY

    This separation incorporates the police and the military into the system of the rule of law, and the system restrains them with the strict democratic systems, separations of powers, and rule of law.
    Moreover, this separation dissolve conventional presidents or prime ministers and make it impossible for the system of the human rule to intervene the former system. This makes the democratic systems, separations of powers, and rule of law intact and stricter. With those intact and stricter, the former system restrain the police and the military more strictly. This prevents them from running wildly for themselves or from being abused for others.

DOUBLE CIVILIAN CONTROL OVER THE PUBLIC ARMED FORCE

    The public armed force of the police and the military can be restrained with the the strict democratic systems, separations of powers, and rule of law in the system of the rule of law. However, it is a single civilian control.
    In contrast to single one, it is necessary and possible that each state power is separated into that system and the system of the human rule securing the social rights, and that not only the former but also the latter restrain the public armed forces with its own power to stop or to propose to stop services or permissions which it has provided and the money which it has managed. For example, even if the police or the military run wild by themselves or by others, the latter can weaken them by stopping the supply of money, electricity, gas, water, communication net, information, and so on. Though the public armed force may endeavor to hold the facilities supplying them, the very increase of such endeavor makes it hard for the public armed forces to run wild.
    In addition, it is necessary and possible that such different powers as the powers of traditional democratic systems, the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law and the power to stop or to propose to stop services, permissions, or money do not interrupt each other and restrain the public power efficiently.
    Moreover, it is necessary and possible that each state power is separated into those two systems, and that one of the two restrain the other from abusing the public armed force and from running wildly.
    Those are a "Double" Civilian Control over the Public Armed Force. That is, it includes not only the restraint on the public armed force by those two systems but also the mutual restraint by those two.

DISSOLUTION OF THE CONCENTRATION OF POWERS ON CONVENTIONAL PRESIDENTS OR PRIME MINISTERS

    Again, from the beginning, it was wrong that all the administrative power including the public force, that is, the police and the military and the department of diplomacy was concentrated on the chief like the president or the prime minister. This concentration can be corrected by the incorporation of the police, the military, and a part of the department of diplomacy into the system of the rule of law and by that the other part of the administrative power into that of the human rule and by the former's being administered by the committees in the house of the rule of law and the latter's being administered by the individual or group directly or indirectly elected by general citizens, that is, the chief of the part of the administrative power of the human rule. This dissolution of conventional presidents or prime ministers can reduce the aggressive wars, the chief's running wild to autocracy, despotism, and so on, and the research, development, and hold of totally destructive means, and so on which were lead by them.

PREVENTING WAR FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST

    In the conventional systems, the authority to go to war was concentrated on conventional presidents and prime ministers. In contrast, in this separation, that authority, if any, is in the house of the rule of law in the legislative power. Nobody in the system of the human rule has that authority. In addition, if the former system has any of that authority, it is on the basis of the international law and is limited to the national defense. It makes no sense to this system in seeking the national interest, not to mention in going to war for it.
    Of course, the system of the human rule exists for the security of social rights, and carrying out the diplomacy for the national interest is one of its obligations. However, in this separation, this system does not have any control over the military or any authority to go to war, to defend the state or nation, or to carry out the diplomacy concerning them. This prevent war for the national interest to a great degree.

PREVENTING THE SYSTEM OF THE RULE OF LAW FROM RUNNING WILD

    It is next to impossible that the public armed force or the civilians in the system of the rule of law run wild because they are under the strict democratic systems, separation of powers, and rule of law. If they run wild, the system of the human rule needs to restrain them with its own power to stop or to propose to stop the services or permissions which it has provided and the money which it has managed. This becomes possible when each state power is separated 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, separating a state power too much decreases its efficiency and increases public cost and tax. Above all, the overseparated 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, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general, the strict democratic systems, separations of powers, and rule of law in themselves need to function. It is so in the system of the rule of law.
    In contrast, they do not need to function strictly in the system of the human rule. Far from that, it is possible that the part of the administrative power of the system of the human rule become one unified organization. Such a thing as can become one organization was overseparated and decreased public clearness and efficiency and increased public cost and tax.

MAKING THE POINT FOR CONSTRUCTION, DISSOLUTION, ENLARGEMENT, REDUCTION, PROMOTION, AND RESTRAINT CLEAR

    In a state or nation 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 or nation where social rights have not been much secured yet, they need to enlarge and prompt the system of the human rule. In a state or nation 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.
    In some political parties and business communities in some states or nations, the excessive expansion of the administration, the increase of public cost and tax, too many regulations against the economy by the government, and so on are criticized, and some movements for "small governments" are deep-rooted. In addition, in them and in some economic schools, the tendency to making much of the "market economy" is deep-rooted. The main cause of the increase of public cost and tax is the extreme expansion of the system securing social rights. If it is necessary to reduce that system, in order to do it effectively, the state power needs to be separated into the system protecting liberal rights and the system securing social rights.
    However, the increase of the cost for the military is one of the course of the increase of public cost and tax. However, the security of social rights and the security in a narrow sense need to be argued and dealt with in distinct ways. Also in order to do that, the state power need to be separated into the system protecting liberal rights and the system securing social rights.
    In such ways, when each state power is separated into the two systems of the system 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 argument 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 said. Those can be said 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 that the right person is elected in the right place gets larger.

TOTAL ABOLITION AND PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTIVE MEANS ADVANCED BY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INCLUDING TOTALLY DESTRUCTIVE MEANS

    What lead the research, development, and hold of nuclear weapons by superpowers after the World War Ⅱ is what is called "industrial-military complexes", actually, the complex of the system of the rule of law including the military, that of the human rule, some public and private enterprises and research institutes. When such complexes are dissolved, it gets hard to research and develop any destructive means advanced by science and technology including totally destructive means of nuclear weapons and immutable gene means.
    When each state power is separated into those two systems, first, it gets hard for the two systems to collude with each other. Second, the strict investigation and prosecution by the police and the prosecution in the system of the rule of law make it hard for the military, the system of the human rule, and public and private enterprises and research institutes to research and develop them and make it hard for the system of the human rule and the others to collude with each other. This overlaps with the prevention of collusion and corruption with enterprises explained earlier. The separation of each state power into those two systems and the dissolution of those complexes in those ways make it hard to a great degree for anybody to research and develop destructive means advanced by science and technology including totally destructive means.

References

EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY

DETAILS OF EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY



Mail TOP COPYRIGHT(C)2000 OUR-EXISTENCE.NET ALL RIGHTS RESERVED