Progression in a Society

As a society we expect our leaders to uphold our rights, to protect us, lead us and defend for us; whether that defense is between common people, corporations, families, or other nations. In those rights we have also set a standard to rely on them which has begun to set the standards for failure. Maybe not as a nation or a ruling country but as a society and a individual. By allowing those things we also allow for the roles of judgement, persecution and classification. Throughout time civilizations seek a sense of responsibility within each self or each other. To find a sort of progress, a system of what could work best for all; that though is the illusion. Within this form that responsibility is often set upon by a few entitled of that we call our leaders. Why is it then these few individuals oppress verses lead, to allow what little if any true progress to take effect or even begin? Why is it they find the value in failure rewarding the loss's over the gain? They set the example of “might makes right”, while allowing the masses to observe small acts deemed privileges or freedoms for that cost. Though those freedoms are typically earned at a price or earned through a systematic process often fooling the individual, distracting them from a real free choice manipulation of control.The freedom of choice often falls short of a guideline, rules and accommodations to such are not free but they are a distraction. You are free to choose in that you may follow the rules, or be oppressed and controlled by the consequences set upon by the people we deemed "leaders". Those consequences most often are not set upon by the society but by the leaders and the ones who benefit by the consequences. 

So no matter the form of government, no matter the figurehead that is in charge it is set to fail. Every source of government has always ruled with one leader and many advisers in the hopes to achieve a greater sense of perception and understanding to rule a nation. In this adversary sets the fail, because the leader biasely chooses his advisers subconsciously who not necessarily enforce the same beliefs as his own, but share similar thought processes. They in turn think alike though the ideas are different the outcome is consistent it is a predictable aspect. To each of those advisers is another group of advisers, to advise the adviser and thus a cycle is continuous down to every link of society. To change this failing infrastructure there has to be a change in the labeling of individuals and the powers they uphold. A perception of equality between government and people in such that they are both. Though this has also been tried it created such labeling as if to sort out the confusion, make things easy. When the individual is allowed to be individual that individual is exposed to new perceptions and different ways of understanding or resolving new ideas it sets a standard for progress. When leaders and adversaries label themselves and the role they fulfill, they set limits based on those entitlements setting a role for a mass society to conform to and model; but in mass society there is extreme amounts of expression or individuality. So the issue then becomes how to individualize the individual; only that infringes on the moral rights of man creating an argument for right vs.wrong. We see this happen within all forms of government all classes of society. We as humans have a deep desire to find identity and by allowing ourselves to characterize and label the role we play it gives us that false sense of identity. We provide limitations on those roles in hopes of creating an equality. Though limitations don’t know the bounds of equality they define what those bounds are based on a human experience and perception. It is not a logical form of evolvement but an emotional one. Within that form gives leaders the ability to judge or condemn setting again a limitation on the individual or the evolution of a society driven by fear and insecurities. It allows for an easier change in the role of control. So what is the answer to this age old dilemma? How can a society set its self to a form of progress without annihilating the masses? For this progress to occur it needs the individual, it needs the mass's; destroying those societies through elimination or dominance only furthers the destruction of progress. The end result is then often failure with immense suffering on both the individual and it's ruling power. To restart the same systematic cycle of events. we build up to tear down, costing us far more as a race then a society.