The reality of this universe is that in each moment of our lives, something has to be done, and only one thing can be done. We are in a constant state of decision-making. On an individual level, this doesn't seem to pose much of a problem. We have all become experienced decision-makers simply by existing, and we have little problem, for the most part, making choices that will bring us closer to where we want to be. However, when we look at decision-making on a societal level, things get a little more complicated. There is no longer one individual who can call the shots— at least in our democratic society. Somehow, societal decisions must be made by millions of diverse individuals with completely different visions of the future.

This is where government comes in. In a world where only one action can be taken, and inaction is a form of action, government serves to make the societal decisions. It’s like a machine that takes in every citizen’s current values and beliefs, and runs them through some formula to spit out a reality that it has calculated to be the most morally correct. Government acts as the decision-maker, following some moral formula to evaluate the beliefs of the public and determine the proper path of action.

So, what kind of a statement are we making when we uphold these systems of government that place so much value in public opinion? We are saying that public opinion is what defines morality. We are implicitly saying that the perfect society is a reflection of the populace’s beliefs and values. Therefore, as beliefs are constantly changing, and people are always learning new values, utopia is always changing. There is no single set of laws that defines the perfect society. Rather, the perfect society is defined as having a government that will constantly form new laws to fit the most current values of the populace.

Recognizing this, we are forced to acknowledge something else: if one is unable to fundamentally accept an outcome of their government’s actions, they disagree with the moral formula of the government itself. If the government’s calculated actions sway from their own values, and they cannot accept a society with these differing values, then they disagree with the moral system that their government is founded on.

I’m not saying this kind of disagreement is wrong. I think it is completely valid for someone to disagree with values that are held by the majority of the population; and people should definitely continue to fight for their own values. We are amidst a time where many people seem unable to deal with a future elected by a democratic system. We are entering a period where many will find it difficult to deal with the majority opinion, and perhaps they should, but there is a difference between fighting values that the majority may hold and fighting the moral system that so many democratic governments thrive on.

Never lose this understanding of what government is. It is our society’s decision maker, based on principles that have stood the test of time. It's a machine that takes your input, as well as the input of others, to formulate a plan of action. If you disagree with the values that others are feeding into the system, get out on the streets and stand up for what you believe in. People want to hear what you have to say. The world needs your values. But protesting the system itself is protesting the democratic process. It is protesting the moral framework that our government has stood on for years.