In my view, the properties of cybernetic systems, as described in previous chapters, are all of a general nature. In the evolution of living organisms, technical systems, and societies we will be able to find analogies. Given similar evolutionary criteria, these systems will undergo comparable evolutionary steps. I would even like to maintain that, from this viewpoint, a differentiation between individuals and societies is not justified. The nature of a society´s cohesiveness is the exchange of information. This information exchange with its control functions constitutes the core of society, totally independent of whether the sub-units are capable of autonomous motion or not. Likewise, it is completely negligible what information carriers are being used. It all depends upon the information, upon the conditions being conveyed to the system. The selective criterion corresponding to the properties becomes the governing principle. It determines the nature of the system.
For reasons mentioned in the previous chapter, a group or society will sooner or later find itself in the dilemma of having to adjust its control mechanisms as soon as passive evolution does not meet the requirements any longer. A new quality comes into play here because this system consists of elements which represent, at an individual level, already a highly developed system far advanced on the path of evolving consciousness, thus conceiving the society as part of its environment and as starting point for action. With animal societies, this problem is not so pronounced because individuals at a lower evolutionary level are more closely integrated into the society via signal systems (chemical signals, establishment of rites).
The progressive buildup of the organization collides with the fact that individuals at a high evolutionary level will attempt to actively influence their environment. Each individual tries to establish the most beneficial living conditions possible. This holds good for groups within society as well. If such groups or individuals take over control functions the result will be a preferential treatment of these entities and a disadvantage for or even a damage to the rest of society. Here we have the reasons for exploitation and suppression in human society.
Consequently, if the society is not supposed to become subject to the arbitrariness of individuals and/or groups, it must be enabled to evolve its own control mechanism independent from individual or group interests. The most important question for a society will always be: what source does the society draw on for its evolutionary criterion?
As the society is supposed to be, according to my understanding, a facility for the benefit of all members and not the instrument of individual or group interests, each member must be given the same opportunity to co-determine the direction of its evolution. Only in this way can internal frictions be held at a minimum, and the evolution won't be heading up a blind alley due to a false determination of the criterion. Establishing that part of the criterion which the society itself has to set is the important task, and individuals or groups must be deprived of taking hold of it.
Resolving this question inevitably leads us to structures and balances of power. Meanwhile it should have become sufficiently clear that control and adjustment functions must never fall into the same hands; this would result in a total short-circuit of the two basic functions of a society.
If legislative and executive powers collapse into one another the state is totalitarian. It does not just turn into an inhuman apparatus of suppression, but it also has forfeited its adaptability. The power structures must guarantee that the evolutionary criterion will be determined, in any case, by the institution appointed by law to do so. This institution must not have any farther-reaching authority.
Now let's take a look at the problem of what source to draw on for the evolutionary criterion. Up to the inception of human society, nature has been setting the evolutionary criterion, and it will continue to do so. However, with increasing conscious awareness on the part of the system, the proportion of self-determination will increase as well.
Sensible self-determination can only exist in the sense of further alignment between system and environment. Information will increasingly flow from the system to the environment. The system will adapt the environment to itself on an increasingly larger scale. Conflicts between states have their causes and origins in these basic system properties. Sensible parts of the evolutionary criterion could have the following objectives:
An evolutionary criterion of its own always contains parts of the original criterion. Of course, it will be superimposed by system-subjective parts. Religious notions will be able to play a role here. Only the evolutionary criterion of the environment can hold extreme tendencies in check here. With society´s increasing autonomy and independence, the power of one's own evolutionary criterion over the environment and other societies grows.
As the society represents a considerable part of the individual´s environment it is sensible to establish conditions for a societal evolution which are determined by individuals. Thus, conflicts between individual and society would be minimized. At a higher level, the society´s criterion will take care of the well-being of individuals. This prevents that individuals turn into elements of the society, and that the society takes on "a life of its own" at the individuals´ cost. Spirit and purpose of the societal integration is preserved.
Therefore, the individuals have to establish a part of the criterion under which a society evolves. Then the emerging self-determined criterion will contain these conditions later on and thus represent the individual at a higher level when dealing with the environment and/or other societies. In addition, the individual is only the concretion of its evolutionary criterion. Consequently, the continuity in evolution is preserved - something which certainly is a requirement for society´s further existence. A society usurped by a false evolutionary criterion, in this sense, is running the risk of failing over increasing internal or external tensions/frictions.
We might perhaps never succeed in completely grasping and/or verbally expressing the criterion for such a large system as a society because it represents an enormous complex of conditions and objectives. Certainly, societies are conceivable, the essential objective of which is too annihilate or suppress others, be it for a fear of existence, for religious motives, some sort of conviction, mission, or similar reasons.
At this time, the hitherto existing mode of electing a government represents the most workable solution; however, it might not at all be sufficient in the future. All a voter can do is to vote with yes/no or choosing this or that particular party. From that point onward, however, a government is relatively free in its decisions.
The amount of information such an election is yielding is very little. Certainly, the political parties are forced to adjust to the requests of the citizens. In most cases though, election pledges are the end of the flagpole. A more certain and informative statement can be found in the basic political tendency a party is pursuing. It should be striven for the goal to provide the citizen with more decision opportunities; however, this would force him at the same time to grasp and ponder more intensely over the events, the course of which he is supposed to determine. We won't be able to escape this fact in the future. Advantages and disadvantages of individual decisions have to be made clear and transparent to the citizen as a decision-making aid. Particular heed has to be paid to a potential endangerment of the decision-making process. A principal borderline in gaining control information for the society shows up here. Whether new sources can be explored in the farther future, without turning the individual into a tightly bound part of the society without rights, has to remain an open issue for now.
The citizen should be able to express his objectives with regard to several individual problems. If one wants to arrive at a decision, several varieties of solutions could be chosen, and the citizen must be informed of the relevant advantages and disadvantages. He also must be informed of potential errors in the assessment of advantages and disadvantages. Consequently, the citizen does not choose a program but gives guidelines for the formulation of one or several programs which are then to be decided upon. All in all, it is about gaining more information for control and regulation of the society. It is all about objectives.
The society has to be safeguarded against assaults on the flows of information by all means. In particular, an adulteration of the evolutionary criterion must be prevented. Groups and/or individuals must be barred from utilizing or blocking these vitally important lifelines of society. The possibility to falsify, adulterate, or suppress news communications is always the beginning of the end of a free society. If groups within society control flows of information, they have a crucial power factor in their hands. Therefore, a push in this direction is always an assault on the freedom of the entire society. The ensuing dishonest argument, "to protect the society from unpleasant things," is only too well known. This kind of safeguard, however, can lead to a loss of existing protection mechanisms.
Furthermore, the society is deprived of the opportunity to build up and train protection mechanisms. Even if we assume that all measures are being taken in good faith we have to admit that they accomplish the opposite of what they were supposed to. Potential enemies of a societal cohesion can be identified by their activities of suppressing and falsifying flows of information. Any kind of censorship has to be strictly rejected, even if it is only directed against a seemingly insignificant minority and allegedly taking place for the benefit of the people.
It is also part of a flexible system to be able to react to unexpected, unpredictable danger situations. Before a dangerous situation becomes a threat to the existence of a society there should be an opportunity to take unusual measures, even if these measures themselves constitute a danger to the society so that they would not come into consideration in the normal case. Following the considerations of the previous chapter, it should be emphasized once more that a timely and comprehensive regulation of emergency laws is vitally important for the existence of a society. In most cases, missing, insufficient, and careless emergency laws are being used for coming into power. For these reasons, Rousseau´s considerations on the subject of dictatorships seem to me more topical than ever. Some basic demands shall be maintained and supported here. There must never be a "short-circuit" of basic functions of a society. The identification of an evolutionary criterion must be strictly separated from all executive functions. Only a concentration of power can release the full force of a society in a focused way. The time flow must be predetermined. There must be a time limit. A clean separation of all functions and a clear, generally understandable legislation must be in existence. This also means that, for the time emergency laws are in effect, no laws for the usual tax structure can be enacted, not per referendum either. The exact point at which emergency laws come into effect must be clearly predetermined.
A study of the evolution of control mechanisms in societies should be an important task of social sciences. The central problem is the separation of adaption and control. An amalgamation of these two basic functions results in all the disadvantages previously listed. As a higher-level society is forced to adopt more and more adaptive functions into the control system so as to be able to actively implement them and increase its evolutionary speed, it must also guarantee that new control functions are derived from the right criterion. Otherwise it won't be viable for a longer time because no sensible adaption takes place any longer. It is the environment of groups and individuals which are far advanced in the conscious realization of their system/environment relationships.
The study of control and regulation processes is an important task for society. The effects of certain laws have to be recognized as early as possible, and they have to be predictable.
In the large-scale industry it is customary to test newly developed processes in pilot installations. I consider it sensible to resolve some societal questions in the same way. However, only some limited concrete questions are supposed to be answered with this. There is no reason for wild experiments. In this case, the freedom of the individual must not be restricted, either. There is no reason, either, for sociological experiments with millions of people on the basis of some shaky haphazard theory. For example, the effects of subsidies and taxes could be tested to a certain degree. Subsidies can only be sensible when they don't serve to prevent natural courses of events but rather serve to accelerate the tuning process of natural courses of events. A short-term support of processes starting autonomously can be sensible if this reduces society´s overall effort to solve a certain task.
Pilot testing can certainly supply useful information if it is exclusively used with the intent to gain information for control and regulation of the society.
If a peaceful coexistence of many peoples and a right to self-determination of their existential conditions is supposed to be upheld in the future, then a necessary step is to join the states existing at that particular time into a community of states. In the following, four essential reasons for this shall be presented. Certainly, this pooling of states to a new community is the inception of a new system. The intent is also to limit the sovereignty of states. The objective is not to create a new instrument of suppression. Previous efforts to form a supranational organization were not very successful. This was mostly due to missing executive powers. The relevant states were not interested in it, either. Such an organization can only assume genuine protective functions if belligerent acts lead to respective consequences.
The necessity to resolve some problems at a supranational level has to come to the fore. First, the prevention of wars should be addressed as a task. This is also the only reason why executive powers are required, and these powers shall be wielded exclusively for this purpose.
In order to prevent abuse it is certainly better if these executive powers do not exist in the form of an institution but rather as a mutually supportive group of states turning against an aggressor. This will be explained in more detail in a later section. This approach guarantees that executive powers only come into being if they are actually needed. An idle institution wielding such power would just try to take on "a life of its own" which could result in reprisals against states within the community as well as outside of it.
There are several other functions which can only be fulfilled by a supranational community. If we consider Earth´s raw material reserves and the increasing pollution of the biosphere, it follows that supranational control mechanisms become imperative. An effective use of natural resources is in the interest of all states. Therefore, adjusting individual states to these general interests will be necessary in the future. The payment of certain taxes into a mutual fund represents one criterion most states would adapt to. In this way, a sensible tax could be levied on the mining of raw materials and the emission of pollutants into air and water. This taxation would promote efficient the use of natural resources and minimize emission of pollutants. It is reasonable for these general demands to be passed on from an individual state level to the next higher level. This procedure is the sole guarantor that general demands a system is to meet can be found again in special system functions, cleanly fragmentized into sub-tasks at each level. All funds are to be used exclusively for environmental research and mutual environmental preservation projects. It is reasonable to keep a balance of receipts and expenditures for a given problem, because only then will a new regulation create the desired effect. An amalgamation of cash flows undermines regulatory mechanisms and adulterates flows of information. Mounting problems have to be met with increased additional efforts at the point of origin. Only in this way can the optimization of the overall system work out successfully.
Furthermore, there are generally accepted human rights which have to be anchored at a supranational level in a reasonable manner. Enforcing these human rights is in the interest of all of humanity. That is why they belong to this level. Problems arise around the enforcement in all member states. In any case, enforcing these regulations amounts to a restriction of the sovereignty of individual member states and thus has to be reduced to an absolutely required minimum. People and ethnic groups must have the opportunity to turn to and address such a supranational institution.
At this time, enforcement of these measures is only possible by publishing transgressions in all member states. Crimes have to be made known to the world public in its entirety. Torture, prosecution based upon political and religious motives, are to be outlawed and denounced worldwide. A free flow of information is of fundamental importance in this case as well.
A free choice of citizenship must be guaranteed as an additional base right. It can only be realized via international agreements. This aims at increasing evolutionary group pressure upon member states failing to follow the agreements so as to enforce basic human rights and to raise the standard of living.
The member states have to adapt to the criterion which contains, amongst other things, the following general requirements:
Undoubtedly for society, the most damaging part in the dispute is war. With regard to this phenomenon, we are still sort of helpless. The only aspect enabling us to correctly judge these events is to arrive at an understanding of the evolutionary history of battles and conflicts.
The competition between systems does not always have to end in physical conflict, as nature teaches us. Partitioning of territories and habitats shows that there are possibilities to do without physical battle.
The reason for this is that fights for ranks, status, and territory can also have damaging effects on a species, despite their selective effects. Thus, the problem has already been worked on in the past. Nature has found solutions as well.
These solutions show that the connection existing between the individual systems, the biological species, becomes the focal point of inception for a new system. The inception of a new system, the superimposition of sub-systems with a new hierarchy level, is the key to the solution of the problem. The new level stores information about power structures, ranks, hierarchies, and other rules for coexistence. Simple memory storage is being replaced by build-up of a theory in this case as well. In the case of a social union, the laws are also primarily there for regulating the wherewithals of coexistence. Consequently, they inevitably fix power structures as well.
This informational amalgamation is also needed for the existing states. With the current organizational level of armies and evolutionary status of weapon systems, mankind cannot afford to engage in battle in traditional ways. Certainly, evolution will also take analogous paths in this case. It is not certain, however, whether this evolution will lead to the required results fast enough if it isn't deliberately accelerated.
A community of states to be striven for must introduce and establish functions regulating conflicts arising in a different way. These functions, though, must offer a higher level of security, compared to other tasks. They have to be protected against interventions of individual elements, and they have to possess a certain level of autonomy in the case of catastrophes; without these features, it is impossible to arrive at the security level required.
In the course of atomic armament, an interesting effect began to show up which most certainly acts as a preventive mechanism with respect to wars: deterrence by means of counterstrike capacities. This effect could have already been observed during World War II. Fact is that large amounts of chemical weapons were in existence. However, they were only used in situations in which there was no danger of a counterstrike with the same weapons, that is, the risk was accordingly small or calculable.
The higher risk thus can deter a potential aggressor. The currently stable situation is based upon the deterrent effect of ABC weapons. The only states who still would be able to attack each other in uncontrolled ways are those without nuclear weapons. As soon as one of the belligerent states is in the possession of nuclear weapons, a use of these is to be feared only in times of heavy distress and hardship. This has to do with the political risk the government is taking with this measure. Undoubtedly, the military risk can be seen as the highest one. On the other hand, it also creates the highest level of security.
A future system must achieve this security limit as well. Contrary to widespread notions, it is not reasonable to oppose the existence of weapons or the development of modern weapon systems in general. There can only be one sensible objective for the future: to prevent war as such!
It is not the weapons that are accountable for the current situation but war itself. Weapons exist because war is possible, not vice versa. Some people consistently confuse cause with effect. However, weapons are only the result of a normal confrontation of systems in competition. Those who oppose weapons in general are merely scratching the surface and curing symptoms.
Certainly, society engages in large efforts for the military. We have to understand, though, that weapons fulfill a certain function even when they are not being used. Their high price is the prize of higher-level security.
Undoubtedly, there is an enormously excessive potential of ABC weapons at this time. Even a large-scale disarmament would not really jeopardize the stability.
However, this is still no answer to the question of further evolution. People who consider weapons as the main evil believe that they can create a peaceful future via complete disarmament. The equation "no weapons = no war", however, is completely wrong. It merely means a temporary backslide into times when murder was committed with wooden clubs.
The primary point is always to prevent war by resolving its cause, the conflict between states, with other ways and means. There is no doubt that ABC weapons can be abolished, and the adherence to the abolishment agreement can be ascertained with suitable controls. What we can´t do, however, is to erase our knowledge of these weapons from the face of Earth! At the outset, a conflict arising much more easily in this case would be carried out in conventional ways or, in case of abolishment of conventional weapons, with the aid of knives and wooden clubs. However, the next thing that happens is that the regressed evolution of weapons and weapons systems is caught up upon at lightning speed. The new game which is then being played is: who will first be in possession of the bomb? Fissionable material, chemical production plants, suitable pathogenic germs, etc. will still be in existence.
Primitive chemical weapons can be produced easily and inexpensively. Then, after a few weeks, what takes place is exactly that which originally was supposed to be prevented. The inhibition threshold sinks to a drastic low, and there is even an imperative to immediately make use of the weapons because the enemy might forestall one's own efforts!
There is nothing such as prevention of nuclear war alone. There is only a general prevention of war. Consequently, I feel the warning is justified not to abolish stability along with the abolition of weaponry! Now let us take a look at potential solution approaches.
In the future, these states will have to do without a portion of their sovereignty, in the interest of a community of states!
A situation must be created in which an attack of one state on another seems to bear a risk so high that it cannot be calculated. The following points would contribute to this situation:
A superordinate organization must be created, with arms at its disposal. Another option would be an alliance of states opposing an aggressor. In both cases, the organization or alliance must enter into a state of war against this aggressive state as soon as it engages in military activities outside of its territory, unless one can find a better decision criterion for warlike acts. This alliance shall not be bound by anything else than its mutual response to an aggressor. Anything else beyond this purpose could lead to new methods of suppression or dependencies, and therefore is to be rejected.
Once a superordinate organization has been created it must exist independent from the interests of individual states. It is supposed to represent the interests of mankind with respect to these individual states. Consequently, its officials, authorities, and programs must be determined by the population and not by individual states. It is not supposed to be adapted to state interests, but rather the population itself has to set the criterion. The independence from interests of individual states must be safeguarded against. For the purpose of funding such a system, a sensible solution would be the participation of all states, proportional to their respective military budget. The circumstances under which this organization or alliance is to become active for that purpose must be clearly predefined. Any decision required to be able to respond delays action. How often did it happen that states could not respond to bold aggression because the decision-making process required delayed or blocked the final decision?
For this reason, the decision criterion "territory transgression" is well-suited to respond to aggressive acts between states. As there have been cases recently in which war was often waged without direct participation of a state, better decision criteria have to be found.
The prevention of mental and moral preparatory actions for the purpose of waging war is of major significance. In the current situation, we can witness a battle between governments and populaces. In dealing with other states, governments have to secure the willing cooperation of the population. The current self-reliance of governments resulting from the fact that the population does not predetermine thoughts and actions of the government is the actual cause for ideologically based attacks on the part of the government against the own population. The population must be prepared for war, patriotic feelings must be instigated, so as to function according to the purposes of the government. It is hard for the population to succeed in exerting a mental influence upon the government. The government has all instruments of power at its disposal to indoctrinate the population and abuse it for its objectives. Because, it is indeed an abuse in any case when the objectives of the population are not being pursued. Certainly, resentments against geographically neighboring peoples are dormant in nearly every people; however, these are being utilized for the purpose of agitation. It is this conscious agitation only which creates an atmosphere rendering it possible to drive the people to war with enthusiasm. With respect to this question, population and government represent opposing systems, clearly recognizable in the exchange of disinformation.
The so-called education to patriotism is, just like any kind of ideological or religious indoctrination, a crime. The exploitation of children's learning aptitude in particular - always justified with "education" - is a criminal act, because the only objective of this "education" is to maim the children, by nature best equipped with everything needed to adapt to the circumstances awaiting them, according to the doubtful intents of the system. There is only one kind of education with honest purposes: to slowly expose children and juveniles to the circumstances awaiting them later on. Only then, their adaptability and learning aptitude is not being fooled around with.
It is not until we learn that the source of free mental evolvement lies in prudent self-restraint, that these evil phenomena like nationalist agitation to war, religious wars, and fanaticism, will eventually subside.
Crimes are being committed under the cloak of education; this is what we need to comprehend. By nature, each living organism is well equipped to adapt to the circumstances awaiting it. There is no need for indoctrination. Adaption to the conditions a society imposes upon its members works best without any interference.
Just like the individual within society has to dispense with a part of its freedom, so does the state have to dispense with a part of its sovereignty in a future supranational community. When the individual waives a certain portion of its rights to freedom it opens up new possibilities for itself. For instance, society offers security, exchange of goods and commodities, and division of labor. If freedom is restricted only where it is absolutely necessary, the advantages for the individual are immense.
This restriction can only pursue the purpose to avert damage of other individuals and society as such. The individual´s free space overall usable must be significantly wider in society. In the future, a restriction of the sovereignty of individual states will be unavoidable. It should be clear from the beginning that governments do not have an interest in such a state of affairs. As it is usually the case that one people is not supposed to exert an influence on the type of government of its neighbors, the protective function of a superordinate community at a transnational level is in the native interests of all peoples. In an intact society, the population sets the criterion for the state apparatus and is able to express its will internationally. If a certain individual state structure within a community of states should fail, the burden has to be carried by the own population and not by the community. In addition, the community of states has to assume responsibility functions for the purpose of maintaining basic human rights and responding to questions of ecology. These functions have to be separated from the pure war-prevention function, though, because the latter needs its independence so as to stay reliable. The precise point when common action is called for must be clearly predetermined.
The initiative for demanding a community of states must originate from the people. They must demand a subordination of their governments under such a community. It follows that it is sensible to have levels of communication between peoples existing independently of states and protected against their interference.
In the following, it shall be tried to further clarify the fundamental considerations with respect to flexibility and adaptability in the previous chapters with a concrete example.
In my view, the relay of information to subsequent generations seems to be well suited for this purpose.
To that degree, the multitude of problems arising in the current educational system shall be hinted at briefly:
In my view, actual solutions can only be found if a transition towards a more flexible and adaptable educational system takes place. The evolvement of the individual must be understood as an adaptive process. The filter the individuals are passing through must not be designed in a way so as to homogenize heterogeneous individuals. Society needs many different talents.
A good educational system should aim at promoting the talents of all individuals instead of "equalizing" them. However, this can only be realized in a system specifically responding to the individual case, offering it an optimum program. A large number of specialized educations would certainly be very costly and intricate; it would require a decision at an early stage, and would thus not be sensible, either.
The combination possibilities of training courses could be used so as to raise the adaptability of a certain education to different demands. Practice has shown that a large number of people is working in an interdisciplinary manner. However, these should not undergo different kinds of education but rather vary the contents of that education, according to the inclinations and demands of a future employer, so as to arrive at a form of education as effective as possible - something the current system does not permit at this time.
Furthermore, it is extremely important to maintain the possibility to catch up on or complement missing education without problems at a later point so as to make allowances for the increasing evolutionary speed in science and technology. The individual should be bestowed with the freedom offered by such a system as early as possible so as to get used to finding its own course of education early on, and to be able to assess the opportunities offered.
The entirety of educational opportunities could be subdivided into a sensible, large number of curricula, with free access for everybody as a matter of principle. This is the only way to achieve the degree of flexibility required. For example, the following advantages over the current mode of education would be the result:
The following two points could be potential disadvantages of this approach:
New media such as video, cable TV, and computers could act as remedies in this regard.
The central question within each society is the question of power, the reliable codification of the results of power struggles. It is not sufficient to merely anchor these results in legislation if the laws arrived at in this way cannot be enforced with the pressure required. The possibility of a backslide into physical violence must always be anticipated and faced.
Meanwhile, it should have become clear how a system comes into existence, originating from single elements exchanging information. It was also pointed out how filtering imparts system properties to single elements, bestowing the system with high stability which can lead all the way to self-actualization and thus autonomization.
The general and fundamental property of a system to shape the environment according to its own objectives can also be found again in every system monitoring a society, if that system is advanced enough so as to engage in action. As such, it does not matter whether it concerns a group or an individual person. Society must ensure that its control mechanisms do not "take on a life of their own" or even acquiring the power to enslave it.
Although the cybernetic aspects have been presented adequately, a short summary of the major points shall follow.
Legislative and executive functions must never collapse into one single system. Ideology and religion are to be strictly separated from all state-run functions. In the final analysis, laws are to be conceived and enacted by the population.
However, there are some additional reasons for concern. The executive forces will always be dependent upon the decisions of human beings. How can we safeguard ourselves against encroachments by police and armed forces?
Concentration of power in a highly developed system is always dangerous. In particular, if the power is concentrated in the hands of a few or in strict hierarchically organized groups, the environment is at stake. Who can watch over their mental disposition? Isn't it so that, in the final analysis, we would need "an executive power for executive powers"?
The executive power has to restrict itself exclusively to its relevant tasks. It would be best if executive functions would only exist if they are needed.
In organizing an army, it is certainly possible to keep the portion of permanently based forces at a low level. If it is really for defense purposes, a setup according to the Swiss militia role model would certainly be a good solution.
As this can only be realized in rare cases, the individual's responsibility gains in significance. The selection of people for these functions eventually determines their character.
Society must pay much attention to this particular selection. That selection must not be taken over by intrasystem forces only which would then lead to a complete - but undesired - autonomization. Society's demands have to be included in the criterion.
In a functioning society, a self-contained apparatus is certainly not of any danger. But the more desolate the social situation becomes the stronger is the urge to attempt governance on one's own - something which naturally results in backlash and reprisals.
Consequently, every society should establish an executive force only to the degree it is absolutely necessary. At each level within the apparatus, personal responsibility must exist for the relationship towards society. It must be impossible to enforce an assault upon society by command. The refusal of commands of that nature thus is in the interest of every citizen. The realization that governance with executive ways and means cannot be successful has to stand up to such attempts.
Society must prevent that its executive power takes on "a life of its own" beyond its control. It is the society which has to set the evolutionary criterion for such powers. Independent control functions are always advantageous.