“Politics is the world of its own. It’s a bath one steps into, and does not make their mark in it, though instead becomes embraced by a world that controls the bather.”– Modern Romanticism
The term “functional” has its meaning in nothing universal. Flaws are common among functions, making form the ultimate understanding to the flawless, loved figure. For its protection, objective ugliness cannot be given it. Ugliness cannot be given protection, unless we simply care for the staying of flaws, not our love being led into them. For if love, being something so flawless, were to match the flaws of another, they’d too understand the wrongs of themselves. The flawed one would understand that another’s empathy has dug deep, to the imminent point of their arrival into a flawless world they’ve never witnessed.
What is functional, versus what is given form, is for why politics is unchangeable by its very nature within such “form”. Politics is a form, and it is one that embraces the mere “function” of a human. Such means that politics cannot be changed by mere function, making a person unable to control what makes the political world.
Can a person control their own anger, through their own grief? Is it themselves using their anger, as the weapon? Being something so embedded in mentality, it is to be believed that the anger is what controls the person feeling it.
To what is so unchangeable, so embedded in its own continually protected structure, makes up politics in being unable to alter. For a person to believe something out of politics, made for society’s function, can be just as perfect and unchangeable, are always to be wrong. As politics is unchangeable, though comprised of humans, is the same for why it is said God created Man, being still an imperfect Creation. That is, everything out of perfection comes imperfection, making what politics breeds for society to benefit from, a mere flawed creation.
Can one truly believe a politician can create a system that is universally functional? It would be the same to say that life, itself, is universally functional, when it is not. Life would not be universally functional, for people do not behave, nor operate, the same. Count how many people possess all four limbs. Then, count how many people possess only two or three limbs. Then, count how many people possess all four limbs, though two are non-operational. Life, itself, cannot be universally functional. And, if ever were the day to be the case, then our creators would no longer be the perfect source to which allows in, more imperfect beings.