People often complain about “the government”, with statements like: the government's not doing this or the governments is not doing that or the government should be doing that or something else or something should be done about such-and-such.

In reality, these people are complaining about themselves. Because, collectively, all people of voting age, are, in fact the government. We have what is called representative democracy. Rather then having to vote on every single issue, we elect representatives that make the decisions on our behalf. Those people are called politicians.

When this is pointed out to some people, they often reply, but I didn't vote for them. Referring to the governments that is in power at the time about a decision that they don't like Those people are therefore complaining about the system of representative democracy. When it's pointed out that there are are alternatives to representative democracy, one of which is Direct Democracy, sometimes these people do not want to make the change to such a system. One of the many reasons for this may be that it's nice to have somebody else to blame when things don't work out. When you have somebody else doing things for you and mistakes are made, you can blame them. When you do something yourself and things go wrong you only have yourself to blame.

At some time in human existence someone realized that most people like to be controlled. Those that realise this went ahead and controlled those that wanted to be controlled. I assume this is how Royalty, in the form of kings, queens and the like , came to exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch#History Those that had the control handed it down to their descendants. They had so much control that eventually those that were controlled came to believe that there were some divine power that the Royalty had. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

However ther where always dissidents. But usually there were relatively few of them and they could be easily eliminated. Those dissidents that got away were in fear of retaliation and did not pose much of a threat to the royalty. Perhaps because of the physical distances involved the dissidents of one community could create another community. Because of the desire to have control, royalty or whatever, would engaged in a war with another community .

So was it control thet created wars?

Things evolved until eventually we have the government system that we have today. Quite often the word democracy is used, implying that individuals have some sort of control over their own destiny, or at least that the majority opinion is take into account. But is this, reality?

Most things in life are based on what happened in the past. Even though democracy has replaced full Royal authority (If it has) the basis of our existing democratic system is still entrenched on the ideas of the past. People still like to be controlled. Perhaps because they dont want to make decisions or major decisions?

All laws only work because people have faith in laws. As soon as most people lose faith in any laws those laws are therfore no longer workable. If, for example, a law was passed that everybody had to wear red hats all the time, most people would consider that to be a ridiculous law and therefore not have faith in it. So the law will become useless. People would just ignore it and it would be very hard to police. The possible only exception to that would be martial law where everybody had to abide by the law or suffer the consequence of being executed. Martial law situations usually only lasts for a short period of time or are administrated by an oppressive regime.

The term aggregated faith simply means the faith of all people combined together.

With the exception of some cryptocurrencies most money is regulated by laws. So that money is basically aggravated faith as well. Provided people have faith in money it will continue to be able to used as a means of exchange. When you think of it money isn't real. It's only pieces of paper and metal coins or numbers within a computer. It is only the faith that people have in the laws made by governments that give these items value. Hence money in reality is only aggregated faith.

Economic downturns are examples of where people lose faith and therefore the overall economy either reduces or does not increase as it is expected to.

This is called confidence factors. Business or Consumer Confidence, is a very big part of any economic system.

Therefore economies are aggregated faith?

Whenever the word faith is used it implies religion. So is it that economies and money and government are just a form of religion?

Changing laws change in value

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/10773584

. Are attempts to seperate state from religion. State (Governesses) is religion. as is money. Faith in somthing

When you're born into community have to accept it's laws

most laws started before you're born is that democratic

laws can be changed. Can the system be changed. if so without violence

from a Google search

government: the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office. “the government's economic record”

govern: conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority. “he was incapable of governing the country”

authority: the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. “he had absolute authority over his subordinates”