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

    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", "DETAILS OF EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY", "SENSATIONS AND RECOLLECTIONS OF IMAGES ― A PSYCHOLOGY OF ANIMALS HAVING MEMORIES", "EGOS AND THEIR TENDENCIES ― A PSYCHOLOGY OF ANIMALS HAVING EGOS", "FACING TENDENCIES FALLING INTO A VICIOUS CIRCLE ― A PSYCHOLOGY OF ANIMALS HAVING HABITS", and "PARTICULAR THINGS AND GENERAL THINGS" are also called "These Books" in this book.

THE CONSTITUTION OR FUNDAMENTAL LAW

    The law which all the law should be based on in each state, nation, or country can be called the "Constitution", "Fundamental Law", or so. If the representation is not unified, some misunderstandings will be caused. Accordingly, it is called the Constitution in these books.

LIBERAL RIGHTS

    Individuals' causing their intentional functions as they want can be called "Freedom". In addition, the pieces of freedom which need to be admitted in the constitution can be called "Liberal Rights". Today, the freedom of life and body, that of speech and thought, that of private property and contract, and so are provided by the constitution in almost every country, state, or nation. However, only by providing them in the constitution, they cannot be protected or secured actually. From the beginning, in general, in order for the constitution to provide the necessary and not to provide the unnecessary and for such a constitution to be protected, we need to prevent powers from running wild, and in order to do so, such systems as democratic systems and separations of powers, that is, the systems which can check powers need to be arranged. Moreover, the constitution needs to contain the provisions of those systems.
    Some other individuals or groups' hindering some intentional functions contained in an individual's liberal right from being caused can be called the "Violation" of the liberal right by them or their Violating it.
    In contrast to violation, some other individuals or groups' preventing 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 destroy, restrain, or promote some other individuals or groups, their functions, or their means directly or indirectly can be called "Powers". The powers which have the abilities to destroy or restrain them directly and physically can be called "Armed Forces". Armed forces are included in powers. Some powers have the abilities to violate liberal rights. Armed forces have the abilities to violate liberal rights directly and physically.
    However, some powers have the abilities not only to violate liberal rights but also to protect them by restraining some other powers from violating them. Armed forces have the abilities not only to violate them but also to protect them directly and physically by restraining some other powers from violating them. For example, some armed forces have the abilities to protect the liberal right of life and body by restraining violence from violating it.
    Moreover, not only some powers have the abilities to violate or to protect liberal rights but also some others have those to secure social rights which will be defined later. For example, the administrative power has the ability to promote human life and health by improving social structures and promoting the welfare.
    In addition, powers have the abilities not only to violate, to protect, or to secure human rights but also to destroy or to preserve some other living things and the nature. For example 1, the administrative power has the abilities to destroy the nature by overissuing public enterprises and has those to preserve it by regulating its destruction. For example 2, armed forces have the abilities to injure or to kill not only some human beings but also some other living things.

STATE POWERS

    The powers which need to exist and function in order to protect or secure human rights can be called "Public Powers". State powers, legislative ones, administrative ones, judicial ones, local legislative ones, local administrative ones, the police, the military, and so on are public powers. In addition, the armed forces which need to exist and function in order to protect or secure human rights can be called Public Armed Forces. In addition, the complex of public powers which need to contain public armed forces and which b^need to be separated into the three powers of the legislative power, administrative power, and judicial power at least can be called a "State Power". In addition, a state power, the human beings whose human rights it should protect or secure, and the other living things and the nature including the land within certain borders can be called a "State", "Nation", or a "Country".

POLITICAL RIGHTS

    The rights for individuals to affect public powers including state ones and their laws, systems, organizations, and functions directly or indirectly through voting, speech, inspection, lawsuit, and so on can be called "Political Rights" or "Democratic Rights".
    They are also the means to protect or secure general human rights and to maintain or enlarge and deepen democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law.
    Political rights can be looked upon as a component of democratic systems, too. Accordingly, even if the words of political rights are not used, democratic systems contain not only systems but also these rights in these books.

THE PART OF A STATE POWER VIOLATING AND PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS

    More than any other power does, some parts of each state power have the abilities to violate liberal rights, and public armed forces have the abilities to violate them directly and physically. There are some parts of a state power which have the abilities to violate liberal rights. They can be called the "Part of a State Power Violating Liberal Rights".
    However, some parts of each state power have the abilities to protect liberal rights by restraining some other powers from violating them, and public armed forces have the abilities to protect them directly and physically by restraining some other powers from violating them. There are some parts of a state power which have the abilities of protecting liberal rights. They can be called the "Part of a State Power Protecting Liberal Rights".
    As is significant, the part of a state power violating liberal rights and the part protecting them are much the same. For example 1, just the same police or military can violate them by acting in peace time and by functioning to individuals, and can protect them by acting in war time and by restraining violence from violating them. For example 2, the judicial power often protects liberal rights when its independence is secured, and it often violate them when its independence is not secured. Metaphorically, they are two sides of the same coin, or a double-edged sword. Accordingly, the part of a state power violating liberal rights and the part protecting them which are much the same can be called the "Part of a State Power Violating and Protecting Liberal Rights". However, when the words "violating and protecting" are always used, the sentences will be complicated. Accordingly, it is also called the Part of a State Power Protecting Liberal Rights in these books. However, when it is necessary to emphasize that it contains the part violating liberal rights, the words of the Part of a State Power Violating and Protecting Liberal Rights will be used.
    By the way, each state power had provided crimes and punishments by law, held courts and decided innocence or guilt and punishment when guilty, and administered punishment 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 punishment have had the functions of making state powers prevent liberal rights from being violated by private powers to a degree. In addition, to a degree, they have had the functions of binding state powers by law and of restraining them from violating liberal rights. Again, it is to a degree that they have had those functions.
    However, they are not enough to protect liberal rights actively. Accordingly, human beings have realized liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law mainly in order for liberal rights to be protected mainly in Western Europe and North America mainly since the eighteenth century.
    Democratic systems are systems where citizens check state powers relatively directly. In contrast, the separation of the three powers is a system which separates the state power into those of the legislative power, the administrative power, and the judicial power and which makes them check one another.

THE PART OF A STATE POWER SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS

    However, human beings seek not only liberty but also, of course, existence and, at least, the minimum life. Simply, life and health is more urgent than freedom. Before social rights were recognized or sought, there had been economic inequality, economic contradictions, and so on, and human beings had sought the minimum life.
    However, without liberal rights of speech, political rights, and so on, citizens cannot even claim minimum life. After citizens had realized liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, and the separation of the three powers to a degree, they became 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 some contradictions of the capitalistic economy clear, they start claiming the minimum life intensely and clearly.
    However, the individuals and groups with some capital can make full use of it and of the individuals with little capital and store more and more capital on the basis of the freedom of private property and contract. Though enterprises are free to compete, they are also free to compromise, such compromises cause monopoly, the monopoly paralyzes the "invisible hand," and causes depression, unemployment, and so on. In such ways, only by realizing liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, the separation of the three powers, and so on, there are still economic inequalities and some contradictions of capitalistic economy, and many individuals are forced to undergo dreadful life.
    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 their authorities to regulate enterprises in themselves and the relations among them and the authorities to regulate the relations 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, though the time advances, since the latter half of the twentieth century, the destruction of the nature by the expansion of enterprises and human daily lives has been exposed more and more, and human life and health has been disordered. 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 and coordinate enterprises in themselves, the relations among them, and those between labor and management, the financial and human powers to construct and maintain social structures, those to promote the welfare, those to provide children with the minimum education, the authorities to regulate the destruction of the nature, and so on. The parts of a state power which have the ability to secure social rights can be called the "Part of a State Power Securing Social Rights".

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN LIBERAL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ONES

    Liberal rights and social ones are contrastive, and the part of a state power violating and protecting liberal rights and that securing social rights are contrastive.
    The part of a state power protecting liberal rights protects them by restraining some other powers from violating them. If this part restrains any individuals who are not doing any unconstitutional or illegal behaviors, it is a violation of liberal rights by this part. Whether it violates or protects liberal right, this part restrains individuals' bodies, functions, or means. In this sense, this part is passive and limited. In contrast, the functions of the part securing social rights are to promote individuals and groups' bodies, functions, and means, for example, life, health, knowledge, skill, houses, roads, ports, and so on. In order to do that, this part needs to promote or restrain various things which range from enterprises to labor and management to welfare to education to the nature. In this sense, this part is active and extensive.
    Though the following is an extreme representation, liberal rights are violated when the part protecting them is functioning actively. In contrast, the social rights are secured when the part securing them functions actively. Liberal rights are protected when the part protecting them is lazy. In contrast, social rights are not secured when the part securing them is lazy. The part protecting liberal rights needs to be restrained so that those rights can be protected. In contrast, the part securing social rights needs to be promoted so that those rights can be secured.
    The key to the division is as follows. When some of an individual's existence and functions can be restrained by some powers and when the possibility of their being restrained gets smaller by some parts of a state power's restraining those powers which restrain them, the individual's seeking such existence and functions is a liberal right. In contrast, when it is hardly possible that some of an individual or group's existence and functions are maintained or promoted without any powers and when the possibility of their being maintained or promoted gets larger by some parts of a state power' doing something, the individual or group's 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, the freedom of life and body. In contrast, when a family's lives are in danger because of the shortage of food and water and are saved by the administrative power's supplying them, seeking such lives is a social right, more closely, right to live in a narrow sense.

RESTRICTION OF LIBERAL RIGHTS FOR THE PROTECTION OR SECURITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS

    A lot of traditional crimes can also be looked upon as the violation of liberal rights by public and private powers with violence, intimidation, theft, deceit, or so. For example, murder and injury can be looked upon as the violation of the freedom of life and body, and theft and deceit that of the freedom of private property and contract. However, the concept and practice of crime and punishment had been existed for centuries before the beginning of the assertion of liberal rights. In addition, the assertion of liberal rights contained the necessity of warrants, the right to appeal, and so on, but they have not impaired the separation of the three powers or the rule of law but have improved them and made them stricter. In addition, the initial assertion of liberal rights concentrated not on private powers but on state powers. In addition, if democratic systems, the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law are strict, they can check state powers to a great degree, and they prevent state powers from violating liberal rights. Accordingly, as long as those systems are strict, those systems, the concept and practice of crime and punishment, and liberal rights are not contradictory.
    However, it is still probable that the concept of crime and punishment is made vague and expanded by the holders of powers and that citizens' right, above all, liberal rights are violated. Accordingly, we had better redefine crimes as the violation of some human rights by public or private powers. For example, an assault on the president or the prime minister can be looked upon as the violation of their liberal rights, that is, the freedom of life and body, and, as long as they are elected by citizens directly or indirectly, it can be looked upon as the violation of citizens' political rights.
    Then, remaining problems are some conflicts among rights. As for the conflict between the freedom of speech and expression and the education of children, it is that between liberal rights and social rights, and so it will mentioned in the following section.
    As was redefined above, when crimes are defined as the violation of human rights, it can be looked upon as the restriction of the liberal right of the freedom of body for the sake of the protection or security of human rights that the suspected are investigated, arrested, or detained, or go into the process of trials or that those who are convicted are punished. Also here, their freedom of thought, speech, and so on is not restricted. Simply, they can say anything or nothing in all the processes of interrogations, trials, and so on.
    As for the conflict between the freedom of speech and expression and defamation and invasion of privacy, the pride and privacy of general citizens should be more protected from now on than so far, but how about those of politicians, public officers, and economic and social authorities?
    From the beginning, liberal rights, above all, the freedom of speech, began as not that from or toward private powers or general citizens but that from and toward public powers, above all, state powers. From the viewpoint of those days, it is funny that the freedom of speech should head toward general citizens. Accordingly, as far as general citizens are concerned, it is tolerated that the prevention of defamation and protection of privacy have priority over the freedom of speech. In addition, public officers who do not have heavy responsibilities may be dealt with as equally as general citizens are. In contrast, as for the chief of the administrative powers, the chiefs of the departments in it, the members of the legislative power, politicians seeking those positions, the executives of bureaucracy, the judges of the judicial power, their private life and personality need to be taken account in when they are elected, promoted, or dismissed. In addition, they can abuse their powers under the pretext of defamation and invasion of privacy. On those grounds, it is necessary that the freedom of speech and expression be completely free from and toward them and that it be clearly provided in the constitution.
    In addition, it is necessary that the speech and expression by general citizens about the policies, ordinances, and actual functions of the administrative power including the military and the police, the customary law, the written law, the constitution, the international law, the functions of the legislative power, the functions of the judicial power, the functions of municipalities, and political systems in general be completely free, that no restriction or violation be imposed on the freedom of speech and expression, and that it be clearly provided in the constitution. For example, the criticism against not only despotism but also democracy be completely free. Such a criticism is necessary for democracy to develop.

RESTRICTION OF LIBERAL RIGHTS FOR THE SECURITY OF SOCIAL RIGHTS

    In the first half of the twentieth century, for the sake of the security of some social rights like the right to exist in a narrow sense and some rights of laborers, some liberal rights like the freedom of private property and contract were restricted. Moreover, after the last half of the twentieth century, the parts of liberal rights which are restricted for the sake of the security of social rights are expanding. For example 1, the freedom of the expression like adult videos is restricted for the sake of the education of children. For example 2, the freedom of private property and contract is restricted for the sake of the preservation of the nature. For example 3, in order to prevent the spread of some infectious disease, infected persons are sometimes isolated, and their freedom of body is restricted.

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


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

The freedom of life
The freedom of pure mental functions like thinkings and emotions, for example, that of thought and belief
The freedom of speech and expression concerning the chief of the administrative power, the chiefs of the departments in it, the members of the legislative power, politicians seeking those positions, the executives of bureaucracy, and the judges of the judicial power and the policies, ordinances and actual functions of the administrative power including the military and the police, the customary law, the written law, the constitution, the international law, the functions of the legislative power, the functions of the judicial power, the functions of municipalities, and political systems in general.

    The other liberal rights is conditional ones, and they are restricted under certain conditions.
    Those which do not need to be restricted for the sake of anything and those which need to be restricted under certain conditions and those conditions need to be provided in the constitution. Moreover, their details are legislated by the legislative power and identified by the judicial power. In such a way, as far as liberal rights are concerned, it is necessary that everything be strict and that no vagueness be admitted.

THE RIGHT TO EXIST IN GENERAL

    As was explained in "EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY", with the pain of the anxiety and fear about the extinction of living things including the self and its family's death and about there's being 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 also in this book.
    An important finding is explained here. As was explained in the above sections, while some parts of some liberal rights need to be restricted for the sake of the protection of some liberal rights and the security of some social rights, nothing including liberal rights or social rights needs to be restricted for the sake of the security of the right to exist in general. For example, in order to secure that right, nuclear weapons and immutable gene means need to be abolished and prevented, and wars should be prevented, but in order to abolish and prevent them, nothing including liberal rights or social rights needs to be sacrificed.
    As was explained in "EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY", also in order to abolish and prevent totally destructive means totally and to reduce pain as in general as possible, we need to enlarge and deepen liberal rights, social rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law. Accordingly, enlarging and deepening them will occupy most of this book.

DEVIATION OF A STATE POWER FROM SOCIAL RIGHTS

    As was explained earlier, some parts of some liberal rights are restricted for the sake of the protection of some liberal rights and the security of some social rights under certain conditions. In such situations, some state powers can restrict and violate the liberal rights which do not need to be restricted for the sake of anything or cloud the conditions under which some parts of liberal rights are restricted by means of showing some purposes like the security of social rights or the public welfare. Moreover, they can impair liberal rights in general, 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, totalitarianism, old communism, and so on.
    Nonetheless, we have never resolved class struggle, economic inequality, contradictions of capitalist economy, and so on yet. Communism, socialism, and so on can revive from now on, and some parts of them are necessary. However, they are necessary only in the part of a state power securing social rights, and they are not only unnecessary but also unfit in the part protecting liberal rights. Against the latter part, the liberal rights, the political rights, the democratic systems, the separation of the three powers and the rule of law which are strict need to function.
    In addition, from now on, it is possible that a kind of totalitarianism displaying the pretext of the preservation of the nature, the existence of the whole of the living things or human beings on the earth, and so on emerges. However, as was explained in "EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY", such a kind of totalitarianism never functions for the purposes of our existence or the security of the right to exist in general, and autocracy, despotism, totalitarianism, and so on need to be eliminated for the sake of anything.
    That a state power restricts or violates liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, or the rule of law by means of showing the purposes of securing social rights, preserving the nature, securing the existence of the whole of living things or human beings, and so on can be called the "Deviation" of the 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 check and cooperation between them are functions. In addition, the protection of liberal rights and the security of social rights are both functions. In contrast, houses and committees in the legislative power, departments, sections, the military, the police, and their units in the administrative power, and courts in 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 organizations to a 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 to reorganize the latter for the former.
    According to the findings so far, there seems to be a split between the functions of a state power protecting liberal rights and those securing social rights. First, let us distinguish the functions protecting liberal rights and those securing social rights.
    By the way, the separation of the three powers is a separation of a state power where the legislative power, the administrative power, and the judicial power are separated and check one another. Also in each of the three powers, it is necessary to distinguish between the four of the functions and the organizations protecting liberal rights and those securing social rights.

THE FUNCTIONS OF A STATE POWER PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS

    As was explained earlier, the part of a state power violating liberal rights and the part protecting them are much the same. Those which are almost the same can be called the Part of a State Power Violating and Protecting Liberal Rights. However, when the words "violating and protecting" are always used, the sentences will be complicated. 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.
    It is necessary (and possible) that the constitution provide liberal rights and provide the political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and rule of law which are necessary for the sake of the protection of them, provide the separation of the public armed force into the two group of the police and the military, the limitation of their functions to the protection of liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general, and the ways for the civilian officers of the administrative power to control and check them, and provide the way for the legislative power and the judicial power to restrain the administrative power.
    It is necessary (and possible) that the legislative power provide the details of what were provided in the constitution. In addition, it is necessary (and possible) that it provide the violation of liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general as crimes and provide the punishments when guilty.
    It is necessary (and possible to a degree) that the civil officers in the administrative power, according to the constitution and the law, control and restrain the police and the military. It is necessary (and possible to a degree) that the prosecution and the police controlled and restrained by them, according to the constitution and the law, investigate, (arrest), interrogate, and prosecute suspects. It is necessary (and possible to a degree) that the military controlled and restrained by them prevent public or private forces from invading from the other states or regions. Moreover, it is necessary (and possible to a degree) that the legislative power and judicial power, according to the constitution and the law, prevent the chief or the civil, police, or military officers of the administrative power from abusing the public armed forces.
    It is necessary (and possible) that the judicial power, according to the constitution and the law, hold courts, lead trials, and judge innocent or guilty and punishments when guilty.
    It is necessary (and possible) that the administrative power, according to the constitution and the law and the decisions by the judicial power, administer the punishments.
    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 the direct and the strongest power violating liberal rights. Moreover, it sometimes violates not only liberal rights directly but also political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law indirectly, and can run wildly to autocracy, despotism, or so.
    In order to prevent those, it is necessary (and possible to a degree) that the public armed force be separated into, at least, the two group of the police and the military, that the private and public violence in the state and the private violence invading the state be assigned to the former, and that the public or large-scale violence invading the state be assigned to the latter, and then the gigantic power is separated into the two. In addition, it is necessary that the functions of the police be limited to investigation, (arrest), and interrogation of suspects, prevention of crimes, rescue in case of disasters, and prevention of man-made disasters and that those of the military are limited to national defense, collective security, rescue in case of large-scale disasters, and prevention of large-scale man-made disaster. In order for the police and the military to be limited to those functions, it is necessary (and possible) that the constitution provide those functions and that the legislative power provide their details. In addition, it is necessary (and possible to a degree) that the chief of the administrative power and those of the police and the military enforce the provisions, that the police controlled and checked by them investigate, (arrest), and interrogate, and prosecute the suspects in themselves, even if they are bosses or colleagues, of the arrogation of those provisions. In addition, it is necessary (and possible to a degree) that the police investigate, (arrest), and interrogate, and prosecute even the military's arrogation.
    However, some civil officers in the administrative power or some parties of the legislative power sometimes control the public armed forces totally, abuse them, violate liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, and the rule of law and run wild to autocracy, despotism, or so. In order to prevent it, it is necessary (and possible to a degree) that general citizens, through democratic systems, above all, elections, check the chief of the administrative power and the members of the legislative power and that those two powers and the judicial power, in the separation of the three powers and the rule of law, restrain each other.
    As was explained earlier, human beings have provided crimes and penalties in the law, held courts, decided innocent or guilty and penalties when guilty, and administered them. Most crimes are private powers' violating liberal rights, and so this process of trials has had the functions protecting liberal rights, too, to a degree. However, if the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law do not function, that process sometimes rather violate liberal rights. Moreover, the holders of state powers abuse that process in order to violate liberal rights, political rights, and so on and to run wild to autocracy, despotism, or so. For example, they violate the freedom of thought and speech and that of life and body of their opponents while they abuse that process. In order to prevent those, it is necessary (and possible to a degree) that the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law function to the process of trials.
    On those ground, the functions of a state power protecting liberal rights is the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law, the functions of the police and the military checked by those strict systems, and the process of trials in those strict systems. In the functions of a state power protecting liberal rights, it is necessary (and possible to a degree) that the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law function, that the police and the military checked by those strict systems function, and that the process of trials in those strict systems function.

THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS WHICH NEED TO FUNCTION IN THE FUNCTIONS PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS

    I think that it is unnecessary to explain the strict separation of the three powers and the strict rule of law in details, but that it is necessary to explain the strict democratic systems.
    The words of the strict democratic systems mean that there is no injustice in elections, that there is no bribery between public and private organizations, and so on. However, they means the following, too, in these books.
    In the functions protecting liberal rights, the public officers who are entrusted with these functions need to be fair and strict. It is, above all, against authority that they should be so. For example, those who, even if they overlook some minor injustice by subordinates, never overlook any major injustice by superiors are the best public officers. They do not need to have the ability to make complicated and sophisticated policies. The democratic systems in the functions protecting liberal rights need to be those where general citizens can elect public officers who have such fairness and strictness. As for electoral systems, as far as the functions protecting liberal rights are concerned, it is better that single-member constituencies be adopted, that proportional representation not be adopted, and that parties be excluded as strictly as possible. In these books, the words of the strict democratic systems mean those systems where fair and strict public officers can be elected directly and indirectly, too.

FUNCTIONS OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC AND SEPARATIVE SYSTEMS

    However, in order to protect not only liberal rights but also political rights, democratic systems in themselves, the separation of the three powers in itself, the rule of law in itself, and the right to exist in general, it is necessary (and possible to a degree) that the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law function, that the public armed force checked by those strict systems function, and that the process of trials in those strict systems function. The functions protecting liberal rights and those protecting those rights and systems overlap largely. In other words, the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law have the functions protecting themselves.
    From the beginning, those rights and systems can be violated directly by violating the liberal rights, above all, the freedom of life and body and that of thought and speech, of civilian officers of the three powers, the press, the internet administrators, and general citizens. In a lot of cases, they are violated by the threat to violate the freedom of life and body. Accordingly, like liberal rights are, they are often violated by armed forces, above all, by the public armed force, and they are often violated by the civil officers controlling and abusing them, too. Accordingly, in order for those rights and systems to be protected, it is necessary (and possible to a degree) that the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law need to check the public armed force and the civil officers who can abuse it.
    However, in order for them to be protected, the liberal rights of the civil officers of the three powers also needs to be prevented from being violated by some private or public violence from an inner or outer part of the state. All that can directly prevent the liberal rights of those civil officers from being violated by that violence is, all the same, the public force. Accordingly, in order for them to be protected, the public armed force checked, again, by the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law need to function.
    In addition, in order for those rights and systems to be protected, the unconstitutional legislation by the legislative power, the illegal and unconstitutional behaviors of the public officers including the chief of the administrative power and the members of the legislative power and the illegal and unconstitutional behaviors in their elections need to be fairly and strictly tried in the process of trials. For the sake of such trials, the judicial power needs to be independent to a great degree, and, again, the strict democratic systems, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law need to function.
    In addition, as will be explained later, in order for the right to exist in general to be secured, those strict systems need to function, first, in each state.
    In such a way, the functions protecting liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems in themselves, the separation of the three powers in itself, the rule of law in itself, and the right to exist in general overlap largely. The functions of a state power protecting them which overlap largely can be called, with the words of liberal rights, democratic separative systems, or the rule of law representing them, "Functions of the Rule of Law Protecting Liberal Rights and Democratic and Separative Systems", the Functions of the Rule of Law Protecting Liberal Rights, the Functions of the Rule of Law, or the Functions Protecting Liberal Rights. That is, even when the words of the functions protecting liberal rights are used, they means functions protecting them all in these books. Please do not forget this.

SOME EXAMPLES

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

FUNCTIONS OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO EXIST IN GENERAL

    In order to secure the right to exist in general, that is, to abolish and prevent totally destructive means while reducing a lot of pain as in general as possible, the law and system for their abolition and prevention are arranged and administrated strictly in each state, in the international society or world, and in international or world organizations. The 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 by any individual or group in the state and to provide that the state power cooperate with other states and international or world organizations for the total abolition and prevention of them. Second, the legislative power needs to prohibit them as crimes by law and to provide punishments for them. Third, the police and prosecution need to investigate and prosecute them. Fourth, the judicial power needs to judge them. Fifth, the punishments need to be administrated. Those which are the targets of the investigations are, above all, the military, the chief of the administrative power, public and private research institutes, large enterprises including multinational ones, and their collusion and corruption in the state or nation and in the international society, above all, what is called military-industrial complexes.
    Out of them, private organizations and the collusion and corruption of private and public ones can be restrained mainly by the traditional police and prosecution and by the separation of the three powers. Moreover, public organizations can be restrained mainly in the traditional separation of the three powers and the separation explained later.

THE FUNCTIONS OF A STATE POWER SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS

    In contrast to the functions protecting liberal rights, though it is necessary (and possible) that the constitution provide 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 those of liberal rights. For example 1, even if anybody provided in the law the ways and the values of the promotion or restriction for the economy, they would change in a few weeks or months. For example 2, even if anybody provided in the law the concrete ways to promote health, science and technology including medicine would make progress and those ways would change in a few years. It is necessary (and possible) that such values and the concrete ways be estimated or changed depending on the situations by some specialists, whether they are public officers or not, on the basis of science and technology. It is necessary (and possible) that the administrative power involving such specialists research and carry out the policies for the security of social rights.
    Concretely, the functions securing social rights are the proposal to the legislative power of tax and the way to collect, distribute, or manage it, its actual management, the permissions to and regulation of enterprises, the coordination of labor and management, the construction and maintenance of social structures, the promotion of the welfare, the education of children, the regulation of the destruction of the nature, and the science and technology to research and carry out all those functions. It is necessary (and possible) that the administrative power have such functions. After all, excluding the public armed force, the functions controlling and checking it, and the prosecution, most of the administrative power is functions securing social rights.
    Though the judicial power can point out the responsibility of the administrative power when it fails to secure some social rights, it is not an active function for the security of them. In addition, it occupies only a small part of the functions of the judicial power, and most of it are concerned with the protection of liberal rights, political rights, and so on.

POWERS TO STOP OR TO PROPOSE TO STOP THE SERVICES OR PERMISSIONS WHICH THEY HAVE PROVIDED

    However, when some individuals or enterprises do not comply with regulations, how the functions securing social rights can deal with them? They can resort to the traditional means of appealing to the process of trials, but they can do otherwise. While the functions protecting the liberal rights have their own power of the public armed force, 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 or permitted. For example, when some enterprises do not comply with regulations, the functions securing social rights can invalidate the business license which have been issued to them. Moreover, the latter can stop the supplies or permissions of ports, water, gas, electricity, information, and so on which the latter have provided or permitted the former. When some individuals abuse some welfare, they can stop it and some other welfare that they have provided the individuals. Such invalidation or stop is a sufficient sanction and power in the modern society. In such ways, the functions securing social rights have their own power to stop or to propose to stop the services or the permissions which they have provided, and they hardly need public armed force or trials. This power originates from their having been securing social rights in itself.
    Powers to stop or to propose to stop services or permissions are contrastive to 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.

DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS WHICH NEED TO FUNCTION IN THE FUNCTIONS SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS

    Excluding the public armed force, the functions controlling and checking it, and the prosecution, most of the administrative power is functions securing social rights. In the functions securing social rights, not only the strict public armed forces, the strict process of trials, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law do not need to function, but also if they are too strict, they are not appropriate for the security of social rights. Then how about democratic systems.
    If the administrators of the functions securing social rights are appointed or selected by those who have political, economical, or social powers, the social rights of general citizens are hardly secured. Accordingly, the administrators of these functions need to be elected directly or indirectly by general citizens.
    One of the causes of the failure of old communism or socialism was that the planner of the economics were absorbed in struggle for power with the inner or outer part of the party and that they could not concentrate on the planning of economics or that those who are fit for not the planning but the struggle became the planner. There is struggle not only with the outer part but also the inner part of the proletariat. Old communism or socialism did not expect the struggle for power inside the proletariat. Though elections may be a kind of struggle for power and fierce, they are not as fierce as any other kind. Democratic systems are also necessary so that the administrators cannot be absorbed in struggle for power, that they can concentrate on the planning of economics, and that those who are fit for the planning can be selected. However, another of them was that not small part of the gross domestic product was spent for the expansion of armaments in the Cold War. However, the main cause of such expansion was again struggle for power in the bureaucracy inside the party. The elections of holders of powers in democratic systems reduce such struggle for power in general. Accordingly, democratic systems are necessary for all things including the security of social rights.
    General citizens are short of technical knowledge or technique for the security of social rights. However, in order to make the administrators of the functions securing social rights attend to elections and compete with one another, and in order to prevent them from going incompetent, at least, periodic elections by general citizens are necessary.
    Above all in the functions securing social rights, it is necessary to prevent political powers' cohesion with and bribery from economic powers. In order to prevent them, democratic systems by general citizens need to function. Of course, it is the strict separation of the three powers and the strict rule of law that need to function to such cohesion and bribery. From the beginning, the strict separation of the three powers and the strict rule of law need to function against the illegal or unconstitutional by public officers in general.
    However, excluding such unconstitutional or illegal behaviors, the administrator of the functions securing social rights need to be competent and flexible. In addition, again, while the ways to protect liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separation of powers, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general can be closely provided by the law, those to secure social rights cannot, and most of them cannot help being entrusted to the public officers of the administrative power. The democratic systems which need to function in the functions securing social rights are different from those which need to function in those protecting liberal rights, political rights and so on. Though the public officers who are entrusted with the functions securing social rights need to be fair, but it is not enough. They need to be more able to make and carry out flexible policies in the situations on the basis of science and technology than they need to be fair. However, can general citizens find out such abilities or policies?
    However, simply, securing social rights is satisfying the desires of general citizens. It is not bad for citizens to elect the administrators of the functions protecting social rights on their desires.
    However, this can lead to governments' manipulating public opinion, flattering the people, seeking the national interest excessively in the international society, and so on. However, they are not as bad as autocracy, despotism, and so on. Mental manipulation is not so bad as physical manipulation, that is, violence. In addition, as far as the security of social rights is concerned, the international society or organizations need to flatter the people in the world to a degree. It is sometimes the second best way for the functions securing social rights to flatter the people.
    However, it is so only in the functions securing social rights. It should not be so in the functions of the rule of law protecting liberal rights explained earlier. For this very reason, we need to seek the separation of the functions protecting liberal rights and those securing social rights.
    In those ways, it is necessary (and possible) that not strict but "human" democratic systems function to the functions securing social rights.

FUNCTIONS OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS

    In such ways, those parts of administrative power excluding the public armed force, excluding the functions controlling and checking it, and excluding the prosecution, those moderate separation of three powers and rule of law, those flexible science and technology, those powers to stop or to propose to stop the services or the permissions, those human democratic systems are the functions of a state power securing social rights, and they can be called "Functions of the Human Rule Securing Social Rights", Functions Securing Social Rights, or Functions of the Human Rule.

SOCIAL RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO EXIST IN GENERAL

    In order to secure social rights, the functions of the human rule need to research and develop science and technology for themselves and cooperate with public and private research institutes and enterprises. However, in order to secure the right to exist in general, that is, to abolish and prevent totally destructive means, they should not research or develop those means or cooperate with them. Here they need to be restrained by the functions of the rule of law. From the beginning, this restraint 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 unconstitutional and illegal behavior of all human beings and groups.
    However, it is the military or the civilian officers controlling them in the functions of the rule of law that have the largest tendency to order the research and development of weapons including totally destructive means and expansion of armaments. However, it is the departments to promote science and technology and industry in the functions of the human rule that can research and develop them or can lead the complex of the state power, research institute, and enterprises in such research and development. That is, the functions of the human rule contain those functions violating the right to exist in general by the research and development of totally destructive means. In other words, we can say the following. The functions of the human rule can contain the functions securing the right to exist in general by abandoning researching and developing totally destructive means and by abandoning leading that kind of complex and by regulating it. Even if the military or the civil officers controlling them in the functions of the rule of law order the research and development of them, the functions of the human rule can reject it, can abandon such research and development, can abandon leading such a complex, and can regulate it. Moreover, the functions of the human rule can not only reject and abandon those in such ways but also restrain the military or the civil officers controlling them in the functions of the rule of law by their own power to stop or propose to stop services or permissions with which they have provided them. For example, even if the military or those civil officers try to research and develop totally destructive means, if the functions of the human rule, research institutes, and enterprises do not provide science and technology, information, and materials, they cannot develop them.
    In addition, while reducing pain against violence and crimes is a function of the rule of law, reducing pain by promoting human life and health is a function of the human rule. In addition, the functions of the human rule contain the functions to regulate the destruction of the nature and to preserve it. Moreover, they contain the functions to enforce economic sanctions against international violence.
    On those grounds, the functions of the human rule are ones to secure not only social rights but also the right to exist in general. Not only the functions of the rule of law but also those of the human rule are ones to secure the right to exist in general. In addition, in order to secure this right, it is necessary (and possible) that the functions of the rule of law and those of human rule not only sometimes cooperate with but also sometimes restrain each other. The former can restrain the latter with the power of the police, the prosecution, and the process of trials, and the latter can restrain the former by rejecting cooperation and with the power to stop or to propose to stop the services or permissions with which the latter provided the former.

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 the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law are necessary, possible, and suitable, and have the final power of using the public armed force. The latter are functions to secure social rights and the right to exist in general, are functions where the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law are unnecessary, impossible, and unsuitable, where the the flexible administrative power is necessary, possible, and suitable, and where human democratic systems are necessary, possible, and suitable, and have the final power to stop or propose to stop the services or the permissions which they have provided.
    Can we allot those functions divided into two groups to some organizations?
    The strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law need to function in the functions protecting liberal rights, and allotting 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 allot these functions to one organization. However, we can allot the functions of the rule of law not to an organization but to a system including the three powers strictly separated. In addition, we can allot the functions of the human rule to another system including the three powers loosely separated. The former system can be looked upon as a strict one, and the latter as a loose one. Each state power can be separated into such two systems. The former system can be called the "System of the Rule of Law Protecting Liberal Rights", 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 system of the rule of law 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 where the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law are necessary, possible, and suitable, and has the final power of using the public armed force. The system of the human rule is a system to secure social rights and the right to exist in general, is a system where the strict democratic system, separation of the three powers, and rule of law are unnecessary, impossible, and unsuitable, where the flexible administrative power is necessary, possible, and suitable, and where human democratic systems are necessary, possible, and suitable, and has the final power to stop or propose to stop the services or the permissions which it has 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 prevents 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 strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law in this system. Moreover, they can be restrained by the special power of that of the human rule to stop or propose to stop the services and permissions which it has provided.

MUTUAL RESTRAINT AND COOPERATION

    The separability of a state power means not only (1) that the separated can function by themselves to a degree but also that they (2) can restrain each other when and where they need to and (3) can cooperate with each other when and where they need to.
    As for (1)(2), most of this book is occupied with their explanation. As for (3), though it is functions of the system securing social rights to relieve and prevent the damage from great natural disaster, famine, poverty, infection, and so on, it is probable that the military or the police belonging to the system protecting liberal rights need to cooperate with that system in that relief and prevention. In such a case, nobody or nothing hinders the military or the police from cooperating with that system according to the leadership and request of that system. Though it is probable that certain liberal rights need to be restricted under certain conditions, those restrictions and conditions never surpass those defined earlier. Simply, it is the very policies in such crises that we need the freedom of speech, thought, and so on which criticize them. In addition, for example, in the culture festival hosted or sponsored by the system securing social rights, nobody or nothing hinders the band of the military or the police from accompanying or the air force from performing air show.
    On those ground, it is possible that each state power is separated into the two systems of that protecting liberal rights and that securing social rights.

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

SEPARABILITY

    The above chapter showed that each state power can be separated into the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and that of the human rule securing social rights. Then, is it possible that not "functions" or "systems" but "organizations" which are more concrete and detailed can be separated?
    Again, the separability of a state power means not only that the separated can function by themselves to a degree but also that they can restrain each other when and where they need to and that they can cooperate with each other when and where they need to.
    The separability of the three powers of the legislative power, administrative power, and judicial power has already been demonstrated in the history. Moreover, the following are separable in each of the three powers.
    As for the legislative power, in a lot of states, bicameral systems have been adopted, and the legislative power has consisted of two houses. It is possible that one of the two houses in such a bicameral system has the legislative functions of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and the other has the legislative functions of the human rule securing social rights and that they are independent of each other and restrain each other.
    In addition, most of the administrative power in every state has already been separated into some departments. Out of such departments, it is possible that the police and the military, that is, the public armed force and the civilian officers controlling and checking them have the administrative functions of the rule of law protecting liberal rights, and the most of the other departments have the administrative functions of the human rule securing social rights.
    In addition, in the judicial power, courts have already gotten independent of one another. Moreover, in each court, judges have already gotten independent of one another. Out of such courts or judges, It is possible that most of them have the judicial functions of the rule of law protecting liberal rights in the traditional way and that a part of them have the judicial functions of the human rule securing social rights in a new way.

SEPARATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER INTO THE TWO LEGISLATIVE HOUSES OF THAT OF THE RULE OF LAW PROTECTING LIBERAL RIGHTS AND THAT OF THE HUMAN RULE SECURING SOCIAL RIGHTS

    As was explained earlier, though the legislative power cannot and should not provide the details of the social rights or those of the ways to secure them, it can and should provide their outlines. Above all, how to allot financial and human powers to various departments securing human rights occupy much of the discussion and decision about budgets. It is necessary (and possible) that the legislative power discuss and decide such budgets. 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 got similar, a lot of bicameral systems do not function. It is necessary (and possible) that one of the two houses in such a bicameral system have the legislative functions of the rule of law protecting liberal rights, and that the other has the legislative functions of the human rule securing social rights. In addition, it is necessary (and possible) that the former constitute the system of the rule of law as a legislative power and that the former exist and function in the strict democratic system, the strict separation of three powers, and the strict rule of law, and that the latter constitute the system of the human rule as another legislative power and that the later exist and function in the human democratic system and the loose separation of the three powers and the loose rule of law. When such necessity and the possibility are satisfied, the former can be called the (Legislative) House of the Rule of Law Protecting Liberal Rights and Democratic and Separative Systems, the (Legislative) House of the Rule of Law Protecting Liberal Rights, the (Legislative) House of the Rule of Law, the (Legislative) House Protecting Liberal Rights, or so, and the latter can be called the (Legislative) House of the Human Rule Securing Social Rights, the (Legislative) House of the Human Rule, the (Legislative) House Securing Social Rights, or so.
    In a state where there are an "Upper House" or so and a "Lower House" or so, it is necessary (and possible) that the upper develop into the former, and that the lower develop into the latter. They have already developed so partially in some state.
    It is necessary (and possible) that the constitution provide that the purpose of the former 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 it provide the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law where the former should be. It is necessary (and possible) that the constitution provide that the purpose of the latter be the security of social rights and the right to exist in general, that it provide the human democratic systems where the latter should be, and that it provide or not provide the loose separation of the three powers and the loose rule of law where the latter should be. In addition, it is necessary (and possible) that the constitution provide 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 the former be given priority. As for the legislation concerning the security of social rights, it is necessary (and possible) that the latter be given priority. As for the legislation concerning liberal rights, political rights, and so on, it is necessary (and possible) that the former decide earlier, and that the former's decision become law when the latter decides differently and when the the former decides, for example, with more than two-thirds again. As for the legislation concerning social rights, it is necessary (and possible) that the latter decide earlier, and that the latter's decision become law when the former decides differently and when the latter decides, for example, with more than two-thirds again.
    However, there are a few pieces of legislation concerning things where the protection of liberal rights, political rights, and so on and the security of social rights are mixed and are inseparable. For example, there are legislation concerning the whole of the budget and the tax, ratification of comprehensive treaties, appointment of the chief of the comprehensive administrative power and judicial power. It is necessary (and possible) that the two houses have equal authority concerning them. However, we need to look into them more closely. Unexpectedly, there are few things where they are mixed and are inseparable.
    It is necessary (and possible) that the former be given priority concerning the legislation against the violation of liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general and illegal and unconstitutional behaviors by public officers, whether they are in the system of the rule of law or that of the human rule or the legislative power, the administrative one, or the judicial one or they are military officers or civil ones or bosses or subordinates. Even if the illegal or unconstitutional behavior is the corruption of the chief of the administrative power in the system of the human rule, it is necessary (and possible) that the former be given priority.
    It is necessary (and possible) that as for the legislation concerning the election of the members of the legislative power, the former be given priority. Even as for that of the latter, it is necessary (and possible). Moreover, as for not only that of the legislative power but also that of the administrative power and the judicial power, it is necessary (and possible).
    If the legislative power has the initiative of amendments of the constitution, because the constitution is on the basis of the rule of law, it is necessary (and possible) that the former be given priority. Even if the amendment is concerned with social rights or the security of them, it is necessary (and possible).
    If the legislative power has the authority to ratify treaties, it is necessary (and possible) that the latter be given priority concerning the ratification of the treaties of international economics, labor, communication, culture, education, and health and the preservation of the global nature, and that the former be given priority concerning that of collective security, disarmament, and international liberal and political rights. If the treaty comprehends both of them and if its items can be divided, it is necessary and possible that the divided can be alloted among them. If the treaty contains both of them inseparably, it is necessary (and possible) that the two houses have equal authority concerning its ratification.
    As for the legislation concerning the tax, which is inseparable, it is necessary (and possible) that the two houses have equal authority.
    As for the discussion and decision of budgets, it is necessary (and possible) that the budget is divided into the two parts and that each house discuss and decide its own part preferentially in such a way as was explained above. For example, it is necessary (and possible) that the former be given priority concerning the maintenance cost of the military, the police, the judicial power, the legislative power, and so on and that the latter be given priority concerning the maintenance cost of the other departments and the cost for the economy, employment, welfare, education, culture, and so on. At the last stage, it is necessary (and possible) that the totality of the budget be decide with their equal authority.
    As was explained earlier, liberal rights can be divided into those which do not need to be restricted for the sake of any right or anything and those which cannot help being restricted under certain conditions for the sake of the protection or security of human rights, and that division and those conditions need to be clearly provided in the constitution. In this case, we need to prevent the house securing social rights from legislating against those provisions. It is necessary (and possible) that the house protecting liberal rights be able to nullify any legislation or administration concerning the restriction of liberal rights, even if the house securing social rights decides earlier or decides again by the majority of, for example, more than two thirds, and that it be provided in the constitution.
    In the above ways, it is unexpectedly clear which house should be given priority and which priority should be given. Nonetheless, there can be some conflict among houses or members concerning them. In such a case, it is necessary (and possible) that the judicial power decide concerning the conflict through the appeal to it by, for example, one third of the members of either house.
    As was explained above, the former should be given priority concerning the legislation concerning election. As for the details, because human democratic systems need to function, political parties, large districts, proportional representation, and comparatively a lot of representatives are necessary and possible for the latter. In contrast, because strict democratic systems need to function, no political parties, small districts, no proportional representation, and comparatively a few representatives are necessary and possible for the former. Though it is difficult to exclude political parties completely, more independents need to be elected and it is possible.
    Anyway, by separating the legislative power into the two houses of the house of the rule of law and that of the human rule, the general electors distinguish the candidates suitable for each house and elect them. Simply, the strict are suitable for the former, and the flexible are suitable for the latter.
    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 belong to the system of the rule of law and be controlled by the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law. In addition, it is necessary (and possible) that each of the chiefs of the police and the military be appointed and changed preferentially in such a way as was explained in the above section by the legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights. In addition, it is necessary (and possible) that the committee in the legislative house protecting liberal rights whose purpose is to protect the liberal rights of the citizens in the state decide the propositions of the selection and change of the chief of the police and of the law concerning the protection of liberal rights and the organizations and functions of the police and propose them to the plenary session of that house. In addition, it is necessary (and possible) that that committee decide and order important policies concerning the protection of liberal rights and the functions of the police. In addition, it is necessary (and possible) that the committee in the legislative house protecting liberal rights whose purpose is national defense do the counterpart.
    Moreover, it is necessary (and possible) that the police, the military, and those civilians controlling them, that is, the members of those committees be incorporated in the system of the rule of law, and that the running wild of the public armed force in itself and the abuse of them by those civilians be restrained by the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law. That is, that restraint is done in this system.
    In addition, from the beginning, it was wrong that such a strong power as the military or the police was held by an individual like a president or a prime minister. By laying them not under an individual but under such organizations as were explained above, we can prevent the military or the police from running wild and prevent some individuals from abusing them.
    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 group of the police and military and the other part, we can prevent them from running wild and being abused.
    However, we should prevent the collusion by the police and the military which have already been separated. Above all, the police should investigate and prosecute the unconstitutional and illegal behaviors by the military in the same way as those by the other public officers and general citizens. In order to prevent their collusion, it is necessary (and possible) that no privilege be allowed to either of them, and that no concurrent posts be allowed to the committees supervising them, which were explained earlier, and their chiefs and higher officers.
    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 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 the system of the human rule. The separation of the departments of finance and tax and of diplomacy will be explained later.
    When we look over them in such a way, we find that the budget of the administrative power of the system of human rule occupies the majority of the whole national budget and that it consumes the majority of the whole tax.
    It seems that the policies and administrations by the administrative power are all linked and that they should be arranged synthetically. Whether or not the state or nation goes to war affects its economy and employment, above all, its munitions industry. However, such linkage never brings good effect on anything including its own economy and employment in the long run. It is only temporarily, at most, for the first half of the war that it seems to bring good effect. In addition, it seems that expansion of armaments affects its economy and employment, too. However, it prompts the formation of military-industrial complexes, their further expansion, unnecessary conflicts in the international society, and the increase of military costs, and make citizens' daily life tight. It is necessary that such linkage between war and the expansion of armaments and the economy needs to be broken. In order for it to be possible, it is necessary (and possible) that the military and the police belong to the system of the rule of law, that the other departments of the administrative power belong to that of the human rule, and that they be separated.
    In contrast, all the policies and administrations for the security of social rights need to be linked and arranged synthetically. For example, the increase of public 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, the departments having the functions securing social rights have the power to stop or to propose to stop the services or the permissions which they have provided. Though they have to appeal to the judicial power and request the help by the police as a last resort, they do not need it in a lot of cases.
    Such organizations excluding the police and the military and excluding the department of the finance and the tax and that of diplomacy which will be explained later 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 legislative 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, against the spread of infectious diseases, and for the measures to deal with natural disasters are incorporated into some parts of the administrative power in the system of the human rule securing social rights. Though the police and the military sometimes need to support those parts, it is those parts that should lead those functions. Few will claim that it is unconstitutional or illegal for the police or the military to support those parts under their request and lead.
    In addition, for example, in order to prevent infectious diseases from spreading, the restriction of citizens' behaviors is sometimes necessary. There are some conflicts between the liberal right of the freedom of body and the social right of the right to live in a narrow sense. As was explained earlier, in order for human rights for other persons to be protected or secured, some liberal rights cannot help being restricted under some conditions. In such a case, as for the individuals who voluntarily comply with such restriction, they are within the jurisdiction of some parts of the administrative power in the system securing social rights, and as for those who do not comply with it, they cannot help being are within the jurisdiction of the police, as far as that restriction is concerned. Few will claim that that restriction is unconstitutional or illegal. Anyway, the liberal rights like the freedom of speech concerning political powers, political systems, policies, and so on which cannot be restricted for the sake of any human rights or anything, as was explained earlier, are not restricted. The criticism of those policies are necessary in the very kind of crisis.
    In the peaceful part of the administrative power, the public organizations promoting recreation, tourism, culture, sport, and so on are incorporated into some parts of the administrative power in the system securing social rights. Few will claim that, for example, their festivals' being accompanied by some bands of the police or the military is unconstitutional or illegal.
    The department of finance and tax and that of diplomacy, cannot be separated in such an 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. In addition, if it did it, its rigidity would get dirty. It should function with its clean rigidity in any case when unconstitutional and illegal behaviors are caused in its own system, by the system of the human rule, or by private groups or individuals.
    Accordingly, it is necessary (and possible) that the department of finance and tax and that for banknotes' issue be incorporated into some parts of the administrative power in the system of the human rule securing social rights. Then, though the money of the system of the rule of law is managed by that of the human rule, it is necessary and is not impossible. From the beginning, most individuals and public and private groups deposit money in some public or private groups, let them manage it, and withdraw it when necessary. The system of the rule of law can do it, too.
    Here we find the following two points.
    First, the public armed 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 armed 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 keeping and managing the money of that of the rule of law and of not letting it withdraw it when necessary.
    As the result of those, the system of the human rule gains power. Though those heterogeneous powers cannot be compared, its power increased in such a way would be equal to that of the system of the rule of law. With such a power increased, 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

    As for 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 have its own administrative organization of diplomacy. That is, it is necessary (and possible) that the department of diplomacy be 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 the protection of the liberal rights, political rights, separations of powers, the rule of law, and the 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, more concretely, the negotiations concerning the national defense, the collective security, and the disarmament including the total abolition and prevention of totally destructive means. In contrast, the functions of the latter are the security of social rights at least of the citizens in the state or nation while functioning in the international society, the world, and the international or world organizations, more concretely, the negotiations concerning the growth or stability of the national economy, the promotion of health, welfare, education, culture, and the regulation of the destruction of the nature and its preservation.
    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 old 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 in the international society. In addition, this concentration and his or her little specialization are the main cause of economic instability and and disparity in the international society. In contrast, by separating the functions and organization of diplomacy into the system of the rule of law and that of the human rule, we can prevent those disasters and make chiefs, diplomats, and organizations having the specialty suitable for each system.
    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 is possible in the following way.
    The committee concerning diplomacy in the legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights can administrate the part of diplomacy of its system. In addition, when some representatives need to attend some international conferences or meetings, the chief or the nominees 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 those of the other committee's because of the attendance of international conferences or meetings, 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 war, whether or not it can disarm, whether or not it can abolish and prevent totally destructive means. However, from the beginning, the responsibility of this legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and of its committees are very heavy like the committee controlling the police and that controlling the military. We had better assign such heavy responsibility not to individuals like presidents or prime ministers but to organizations. Though it often happens that "everybody's business is nobody's business", it is more dreadful that an individual abuses such responsibility and runs wild to autocracy or despotism, to war, or to expansion of armaments. Such dreadfulness of the abuse of responsibility has often been experienced in the history. Irresponsibility is better than abuse of responsibility. However, that would be the case if everybody's business were nobody's business also in those committees. There is no evidence that committees in legislative powers are more irresponsible than presidents or prime ministers.
    In contrast, the part of diplomacy of the system of the human rule securing social rights can be entrusted to the chief of the part of the administrative power of the system of the human rule and a department consisting diplomats specialized in economy, welfare, culture, education, preservation of the nature, and so on. It is in this position that their abilities to make technical and synthetic policies can be made use of.
    It is not only in each state power but also in the international society or the world or the international or world organizations that the separation of powers into the two systems of that of the rule of law and that of the human rule is necessary and possible. Accordingly, it is necessary (and possible) that international meetings and negotiations be separated into the two systems, and that each of the representatives of the two systems in each state attend each of them.
    Even if there are international organizations, meetings, or negotiations concerning both of the two systems, it is possible that both of the representatives of the two systems attend them. In this case and when the individual resolution is concerned with one of those two systems, the representative concerning it can vote. In this case and when the individual resolution is concerned with both of those two systems, the two can negotiate. In this case and when the two agree on a vote, the two can cast that vote. In this case and when the two disagree, they can abstain from the vote.
    While those processes are repeated, international or world organizations can be separated into the two systems, too.

DISSOLUTION OF OLD PRESIDENTS OR PRIME MINISTERS

    As was explained in the above sections, it is necessary (and possible) that the police and the military and the part of diplomacy concerning national defense be supervised respectively by the committees in the legislative house protecting liberal rights and that the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law function to those armed forces and those committees in the system of the rule of law. In addition, it is necessary (and possible) that the other part of the administrative power including the whole of finance and tax and the other part of diplomacy be managed by an individual or a group which is elected directly or indirectly by general citizens in the system of the human rule securing social rights. That is, it is necessary (and possible) that old presidents or prime ministers who held at least the whole of the administrative power be dissolved.
    Again, from the beginning, it was wrong that we entrusted a president or a prime minister with all the administrative power including the police, the military, and the department of diplomacy. The dissolution of the president or prime minister can prevent him or her from going to aggressive war, abusing the public armed force, leading the research, development, and hold of totally destructive means, and so on to a great degree.
    Distinguished from the old presidents or prime ministers who had all the administrative power, the individual or group who manages the part of the administrative power excluding the whole of the public armed force and excluding the part of diplomacy concerning national defense can be called the Chief of the Part of the Administrative Power of the Human Rule Securing Social Rights, Chief of the Part of the Administrative Power of the Human Rule, or the Chief of the part of the Administrative Power Securing Social Rights.
    Such a chief can either be elected by the citizens of each state or nation or be appointed by the legislative house of the human rule securing social rights which was explained earlier preferentially in such a way as was explained earlier.

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

    On those grounds, it is necessary (and possible) that the administrative power of each state or nation be separated into the following two parts of (1) and (2).

(1) The part of the administrative power of the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights:
The committees in the legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights supervising the following.
The police, the military, and the part of diplomacy concerning national defense.
(2) The part of the administrative power of the system of the human rule securing social rights:
The part of the administrative power excluding (1) and its chief.

JUDICIAL POWER

    In the judicial power, each court has already got independent of the others. Moreover, in a court, each judge has already got independent of the others. Out of such courts or judges, it is possible that most of them remain those protecting liberal rights in the traditional way and that a minor part of them become those securing social rights in a new way.
    However, because the judicial power in itself, each court, and each judge in it have already got independent of the others to a great degree, it can be said that such a separation are unnecessary and that it can be in a traditional way.
    However, the appointment of the supreme court's judges by old presidents or prime ministers makes their tendencies to judge influenced by factionalism, and it impairs the independence of the judicial power.
    Such impairment is lesser when the legislative house of the rule of law protecting liberal rights, which was explained earlier, appoints them preferentially in such a way as was explained earlier than when conventional presidents or prime ministers do it. For example, it is necessary (and possible) that the committee concerning the composition of the judicial power in the legislative house of the rule of law propose the appointment of judges, that its plenary session appoint them, and that when the legislative house of the human rule appoint them differently, the reappointment of the former be final appointment.
    Only when that problem who appoints them is resolved, the judicial power do not have to be separated, do it?
    As was explained earlier, it is impossible and unsuitable that the constitution and law provide the details of social rights and ways to secure them. Those details cannot help being entrusted to the bureaucrats in the administrative power and to the judges in the judicial power. However, those ways to entrust them are different. While the former can be on the basis of human wisdom and science and technology, the latter should be on the basis of the constitution and law. That is, the latter cannot help reading those details which are not described between the lines of the constitutions and law. Though the latter should interpret social rights, welfare, health, happiness, and so on in concrete situations, the latter should do so on the basis of the constitution and law.
    In addition, the lawsuits where citizens accuse the administrative power of its fault or negligence to which they attribute their social rights' insecurity occupy most of those concerning social rights. As is true of not only social rights but also all rights, it is the essence of the separation of the three powers and the rule of law to accuse unconstitutional or illegal behaviors by state powers, and the judicial power needs to be their center.
    On those grounds, it is necessary (and possible) that the judicial power be inseparable, be in the system of the rule of law, and be independent in it, that each court be independent. and that each judge is so.

NOMINAL CHIEF OF A STATE

    Practically, the "chief of the state" is unnecessary, but one chief is sometimes necessary formally or nominally, for example, in national or international festivals or ceremonies. When necessary, the chairman of the legislative house of the rule of law in the legislative power is proper to be it.
    When the chief of the state is unnecessary even formally or nominally, it is necessary (and possible) that the chiefs or chairpersons of the parts, the houses, the committees, departments, or so separated in the above ways attend them. For example, the chief of the committee controlling the military can attend its ceremonies, and the chief of the part of the administrative power of the human rule can attend cultural festivals.

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

    On those grounds explained in the above sections, it is necessary (and possible) that each state power be separated in the following way.

The system
of the rule of law
protecting liberal rights
The system
of the human rule
securing social rights
The legislative 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
The part of the department of diplomacy
dealing with national defense, collective security,
disarmament, and so on
The committees controlling them separately
The other part
of the administrative power
and its chief
The judicial powerThe judicial power

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

POSSIBILITY AND NECESSITY

    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? 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

    As was explained earlier, simply, the security of social rights is to satisfy the daily desires of citizens, and it is human democratic systems that need to function in and are suitable to the system of the human rule of securing social rights. In contrast, it is the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law that need to function in the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights. Through that human democratic systems, the system of human rule tends to fall into flattering the people, the majority's running wild, manipulating public opinion, seeking national interest only, and so on. Moreover, it is probable that some politicians who temporarily gather voters' support through only one enthusiastic election run wild to autocracy, despotism, totalitarianism, 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 trench between them deeper, we can prevent those disorders which the latter tends to fall into from infiltrating the former.
    In addition, though old 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.
    In addition, with its own strict democratic system, separation of the three powers, and rule of law which remain intact under this separation, the system of the rule of law can function to its own disorders, those which the system of the human rule tends to fall into, and those of general citizens.
    In addition, if the system of the rule of law should fall into any disorders, this separation prevent those disorders from infiltrating the system of the human rule.
    Moreover, 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 to stop or propose to stop the services and permissions which it has provided and the money which it has managed. This is also a product of this separation.
    Though the following problems are included in those disorder which the system of the human rule tends to fall into, because they are important, they will be specially explained in the following sections.

PREVENTING THE RESTRICTION OF LIBERAL RIGHTS FOR THE SAKE OF THE SECURITY OF SOCIAL RIGHTS FROM GOING EXCESSIVE OR IMPROPER

    Each time large-scale natural disasters, the spread of infectious diseases, disasters caused by the destruction of the nature, and so on are caused, even we, general citizens, tend to think that liberal rights cannot help being restricted for the sake of the countermeasure against or prevention of them. However, also for the sake of that countermeasure or prevention, liberal rights like freedom of speech, academic freedom, and so on with which governments' policies and actual functions are criticized are necessary. From the beginning, as was explained earlier, liberal rights are divided into those which do not need to be restricted for the sake of anything and those which cannot help being restricted under certain conditions for the sake of the protection or security of human rights, and those liberal rights to criticize governments belong to the former and should not be restricted for the sake of anything. The liberal right to criticize governments is necessary in the very case of crisis.
    Each state power's being separated into the two systems of that protecting liberal rights and that securing social rights prevents the latter from restricting liberal rights wrongly or excessively. Above all, it is possible by the legislative power's being separated into the two houses of that protecting liberal rights and that securing social rights and by the former's nullifying the latter's legislation restricting liberal rights wrongly or excessively.

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, separations 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 or human beings, and so on emerges. Such never function even for the purposes of our existence and the security of the right to exist in general, as was explained in "EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY". The liberal rights to criticize state powers are necessary also for those purposes.
    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 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, that the trench between them be made deeper, that the latter be prevented from abusing the former, above all, the police and the military, and that the legislative 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

    It seems that communism or socialism collapsed in the late twenty century. However, we have not resolved class struggle, economic inequality, the contradictions of the capitalist economy, and so on yet. The dissatisfaction at them can burst out anywhere anytime. Accordingly, communism or socialism can revive from now on. In addition, some versions of old communism or socialism which emphasize the preservation of the nature or the existence of living things or human beings can emerge.
    In addition, the old communism or socialism, which denies liberal rights, democratic systems, and separations of powers, is convenient for mere autocracy or despotism legitimize itself. Moreover, when the communism or socialism incorporates some economic liberation like market economy, it becomes merer autocracy or despotism. It is the actual state of some communist regimes after the cold war.
    However, some parts of communism or socialism which are revised are necessary, above all, in backward countries or regions and those where economic inequality has gone excessive, and those where old systems like large land ownership are remaining or reviving.
    However, even if some parts of communism or socialism revised 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.
    From the beginning, old communism or socialism left it out of the question that there are power struggles also in the proletariat, and its leaders were absorbed in those struggles. As a result, they had little time to work on economic plans. In addition, those who excel at not economic plans but those struggles became leaders. In addition, those who won those struggles acquired unlimited powers, were not criticized for their economic plans and the abilities to make them with the freedom of speech or periodic elections, could not cultivate them, and fell into incompetent. Those who lost those struggles were purged and could not use their abilities. It is true that elections contained in democratic systems tend to be fierce or corrupt and that public opinions tend to be manipulated, but they are much better than direct and unlimited struggles or suppression. Accordingly, the liberal rights and democratic systems are necessary also for or within the system of the human rule.
    Even if some parts of communism or socialism revised are necessary, liberal rights, political rights, democratic systems, separations of powers, the rule of law, and the right to exist in general need to be protected. Also for this purpose, each state power needs to be separated into the two system of that protecting them and that securing social rights, and we need to prevent the latter from infiltrating or impairing the former.

LIBERTY'S CONSISTENCY WITH EQUALITY

Including that with communism or socialism as was explained above, liberty's consistency with equality has been a hard problem and will be a vital one forever. In traditional systems or in the capitalistic or market economy, when economic inequality is excessive, the pursuit of equality can be intense and so that pursuit needs to be satisfied. Here the system of the human rule securing social rights needs to function actively. However, it is so as far as economic equality is concerned. The other kinds of equalities like the equality before the law and the other kinds of rights including liberal rights can and need to be protected or secured by the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights. In such a way, we need to distinguish economic equality from the other kinds of equalities or rights. Here we find that the words of not only rights but also equalities need to be used in the plural form. As far as economic equality is concerned, the system of the human rule securing social rights can and needs to function actively. As for the other kinds of equalities and rights, the system of the rule of law protecting liberal rights can and need to function steadily. When the state power is separated in such a way, even if economic equality is actively realized, the equality before the law and freedom of life, body, and speech of some citizens including the rich is not violated. If this separations had been realized in the twentieth century, we could have prevented at least ten millions from being killed, confined, or exiled.
    Concretely, tax rate can and needs to be determined by the system of the human rule. When economic inequality is severe, it can and needs to intensify progressive taxation. However, this system cannot even crack down on the rich's tax evasion, and, of course, cannot violate their liberal rights. It is the system of the rule of law that crack down on their tax evasion.

PREVENTION OF THE GOVERNMENTS' COLLUSION AND CORRUPTION WITH ENTERPRISES

    Though the collusion and corruption with enterprises in the military in the system of the rule of law as military-industrial complexes are serious, countermeasures against them will explained in the following section.
    Governments' 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. In addition, that is because the latter needs to negotiate with enterprises more frequently and because they are more close to each other and can approach each other more easily.
    When the state power is separated into the two systems of the system of the rule of law and that of the human rule, the former are farther from enterprises and the latter, and more hardly can they approach each other. The further that distance is, the easier the former can investigate and accuse enterprises and the latter.

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 civil officers and public and private research institutes 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.
    Out of the components of such a complex, this separation incorporates the military and the civilian controlling it into the system of the rule of law and incorporate the others into the system of the human rule or put them into the place near it, it isolates the military and the civilians controlling it, which are the center of the complex, far from the others, and it dissolves the military-industrial complex.
    The military and the civilians controlling it are restrained in the system of the rule of law by the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law. In conventional systems, old presidents or prime ministers could control the military. This separation make it impossible.

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 in it, they are restrained by the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law.
    In addition, this separation dissolve old presidents or prime ministers and they cannot abuse the police and the military. In addition, nobody in the system of the human rule cannot abuse them.
    In addition, the committees controlling them are restrained by the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law in the system of the rule of law.
    In such ways, the police and the military are prevented from running wild and being abused.

DOUBLE CIVILIAN CONTROL OVER THE PUBLIC ARMED FORCE

    The public armed force of the police and the military and the civilians controlling them can be restrained by the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law in the system of the rule of law.
    Moreover, it is necessary (and possible) that each state power be separated into the two systems of that of the rule of law and that of the human rule securing the social rights, and that not only the former restrain the public armed force in the above way but also the latter 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. For example, even if the police or the military run wild by themselves or is abused by others, the latter system 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 them to run wild.
    By the way, the power of democratic systems, the separation of the three powers, and the rule of law and the power to stop or to propose to stop services, permissions, or money are very heterogeneous. Such heterogeneous powers do not interrupt each other and can restrain the public armed force and the civilians controlling them efficiently.
    Those are a "Double Civilian Control" over the Public Armed Force.

DISSOLUTION OF THE CONCENTRATION OF POWERS ON OLD 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 this separation and by the incorporation of the police, the military, and a part of diplomacy into the system of the rule of law and by the incorporation of the other part of the administrative power into that of the human rule and by the former's being respectively administered by the committees in the legislative house of the rule of law and the latter's being administered by the chief of the part of the administrative power of the human rule. This dissolution of old 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 conventional systems, the authority to go to war was concentrated on old presidents and prime ministers. They no more exist by this separation.
    In this separation, the authority to go to war, if any, is in the legislative house of the rule of law in the system of the rule of law. Nobody in the system of the human rule has that authority. In contrast, the authority to seek the national interest is in the system of the human rule. The national interest is for the sake of the security of social rights, and carrying out the diplomacy for it is one of the duties of the system of the human rule securing social rights. 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. Simultaneously, seeking the national interest makes no sense for the system of the rule of law, far from going to war for the sake of the national interest. This prevent war for the sake of the national interest to a great degree.
    In addition, if the house of the rule of law in the system of the rule of law has the authority to go to war, it is on the basis of the constitution, law, international law and is checked by the review of unconstitutional legislation by the judicial power in this system. Accordingly, this separation prevent the wars including that for the national interest, excluding defense, to a great degree.

PREVENTING THE SYSTEM OF THE RULE OF LAW FROM RUNNING WILD

    In order to prevent the system of the rule of law, the public armed force, or the civilians controlling them from running wild, they need to be restrained by the strict democratic system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law. In contrast, in and against the system of the human rule, those strict systems are not only unnecessary but also inadequate. By separating the state power into the systems of that of the rule of law and that of the human rule, we can prevent those of the latter which are not strict from infiltrating the former, and we can concentrate on the restriction of the former with those which are strict.
    Simultaneously, the latter can restrain the former 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.

INCREASING THE CLEARNESS OF EACH STATE POWER FOR CITIZENS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ITS EFFICIENCY AND DECREASING PUBLIC COST AND TAX

    Separating a state power too much decreases its clearness for citizens and public officers and cause a confusion in democratic systems and separations of powers. In addition, it decreases the state power's efficiency and increases public cost and tax. Above all, the 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 system, the strict separation of the three powers, and the strict rule of law need to function in the system of the rule of law, and some separations are essential there.
    In contrast, strict separations are not only unnecessary but also inadequate in the system of the human rule. Far from that, it is possible that the part of the administrative power of the system of the human rule becomes one unified organization. Such a thing as can become one organization was overseparated. This separation makes the point of separations clear, prevent overseparation and increases public clearness and efficiency and decreases 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 promote 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.
    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 two systems of that protecting liberal rights and that 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 national defense 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 two systems of that protecting liberal rights and that securing social rights.
    In such ways, when each state power is separated into the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and that of the human rule securing social rights, the point for construction, dissolution, enlargement, reduction, promotion, restraint, and 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 true. Those can be true the most when the classes are such as are elected by the people, for example, the members of the legislative power.
    Though citizens should elect them freely, they are also free to do so on the basis of their fitness. When each state power is separated into those systems, the possibility that the right person is elected in the right place gets larger.

TOTAL ABOLITION AND PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTIVE MEANS 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 politicians, bureaucrats, some public and private enterprises, some scientists and technologists, and public and private research institutes. When such complexes are dissolved, it gets hard to research and develop any sophisticated destructive means including totally destructive means. When each state power is separated into those two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and that of the human rule securing social rights, out of them, the military is controlled by the former, the others are administered by the latter, and so industrial-military complexes are dissolved.
    Moreover, the strict investigation and prosecution by the police and prosecution contained in the system of the rule of law which get stricter by this separation make it hard for the military, the system of the human rule, public and private enterprises, scientist and technologists, and public and private research institutes to research, develop, and hold destructive means including totally destructive means and make their collusion and corruption hard.
    Moreover, if the civilian in the system of the rule of law should try to do it, the system of the human rule can stop the material and human resources and science and technology necessary for the former system to do it. Such stop is included in the system of the human rule' own power explained earlier. If the system of the human rule does not cooperate with them, no individuals or organizations including the system of the rule of law cannot research or develop sophisticated destructive means including totally destructive means and cannot go to war.
    In those ways, the separation of each state power into those two systems make it possible that a steady restraint is imposed on the expansion of armaments including totally destructive means and the tendency to war. Separating each state power into the two systems of that of the rule of law protecting liberal rights and that of the human rule securing social rights is a steady way to abolish and prevent totally destructive means and to secure the right to exist in general.

References

EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY

DETAILS OF EXISTENCE AND LIBERTY


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