Dealing with issues can be a pain in the arse, especially when it involves politics. However, there are ways in which some issues can be avoided, and how to essentially destroy them completely (although most of the time people can't help but get involved in other people's business).
So I have come up with a theory which is somewhat similar to Cognitive Behavioural Theory, and I present this theory as the Decision Theory - it may be obvious at first glance and will continue to do so, but I think a lot of people ignore it since it is not really applied in every day life.
Okay, let's start from the beginning and work our way through it.
1. Everyone makes an action, everything you do will always lead to something else.
2. If the action influences other people, people may react to it, or they can choose to ignore it (the red cross)
3. If a reaction is made, sometimes it can be positive - nothing happens. Other times, which is most of the time, people choose to argue the action and it causes debate.
4. Debates are fairly dull verbal battles; sometimes they can be interesting. Sometimes debates can lead to nothing or disagreement and the debate continues, or it can lead to agreement.
5. Agreements; well, we all know what happens here. It leads to another action.
Based on this theory, which may or may not work, if the people decided not to react to the governments actions by ignoring them, then the government will have nothing to do to solve any issues, because in theory the government assumes the people are happy with what's going on.
The problem with the general population and just humans in general is that we are very reaction-sensitive, as in people will react to something negative leading into debate or otherwise. Some debates can be good, others are not. I believe that human corruption is different to actual corruption.
cor·rup·tionWhile human corruption specifically may be a counterpart of corruption, this kind of corruption I believe to be somewhat different. In government, specifically the Republican Tea Party, they will be paid by corporate sponsors to do bad things. But the immorality isn't just the bad thing about this. The fact that these people are corrupt is not just because they want the money, it's the fact that they continue to do so and is thus why Human Corruption is the:
Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
The action of making someone or something morally depraved or the state of being so.
Continuation of pursuing objectives involving bribed person(s) in believing that their sub-objectives will bring them greater rewards.Basically, people who are corrupt and continue to achieve the goals of those who bribed them they believe will be given greater rewards and is the reason why they continue to do so. More corruption equals more cash in the eyes of the corrupted, and that is a very big problem.
The source of any corruption involves actions made by others, so if just few people ignore the source of the corruption, we might actually get somewhere. The fact that people are living through this is corruption in itself, as the corporations feed off the fear of those they govern.
Corruption is essentially fear itself, since you could define people who are corrupted to fear the consequences that they would otherwise have to face if they did not do what "they were told". This decision to be ignorant and foolish is in itself immoral, inhumane and illegal, it is in itself an abuse of power and an abuse of wealth.
Corruption invites war, the only way to prevent such a war is to ignore the source of the corruption completely. Let's say BP is the source of the corruption (never know they might be) and they are the one's sponsoring the corrupted so that they can get their way - i.e. get the oil from the Middle East through no diplomatic act whatsoever. If people stopped purchasing petrol or diesel from BP stations, BP will eventually start losing money. They will no longer be able to sponsor the corrupted and thus the corruption will slowly die.
This fear eventually leads to, of course, the bribed doing bad things for their master - or they get killed. The strange thing is, fear can only govern those that lack courage. If we elected people who had more courage than fear, we would be living in a much safer world. Heroism is greater than the sum of all fear. Just one heroic person could change everything - this has happened time and time again: Mohandas Gandhi, Marie Antoinette, Jeanne d'Arc, Winston Churchill, among so many others.
Of course, this doesn't happen all the time. And in the times when it doesn't, those who are being governed live in doubt and under the delusion of their corrupted leaders.
There is no point fighting a war against the corrupted politicians that are governing you; if you want to win a fight, take it to the bribery itself and not the bribed.