Monday, January 24, 2011

The philosophy of lawyers needs rewriting

Share |

Reading this article “Iraq inquiry: we have every right to know why we went to war” by Michael Mansfield, QC in the Sunday Times, it is immediately apparent how naive lawyers are, and how much they need a conceptual grasp of law – call it ‘a philosophy of law’ This is just some of the damage caused by statutory law.

Michael Mansfield wrote ‘Memoirs of a Radical Lawyer’, published by Bloomsbury in Sept 2009. His argument is that

Mansfield asks: “How it was that a sophisticated, multifaceted parliamentary democracy failed to detect, let alone prevent, such a misconceived and costly military adventure? On this, there has been a singular lack of scrutiny and accountability”.

The answer is simply that our democratic, parliamentary system is none of those things. Our democracy is a fraud; a pretence of justice and leadership. The intent of parliament is to quash and placate your conflicts for the greater good of stability, and not to reconcile or resolve your conflicting values. The war was part of that charade. It was not a exactly served their purposes. The public’s needs were never a consideration...neither were facts. The reason for people’s naivety on these issues is that they still possess some romantic notions of democracy, just as their parents held romantic notions about imperialism. People are struggling to recognise that all such follies are forms of collectivism. The contemporary democracy is leading us towards fascism and civil discontent, which stands a good chance of leading to civil war.

Mansfield writes: “The public, servicemen and women and thousands of dead, injured and displaced Iraqi citizens have a right to know, with a full public explanation and protocols for change”.

The reality is that they don’t have rights; they have only the pretence of them. Consider their political rights. What is the value of rights if the law is arbitrary? What is the point of political rights if you have no economic rights? Is it ok that the government can give you notional political rights, but at the same time plunder your wealth? There is no dichotomy between mind and body. If you have no economic rights; a right to retain your wealth; then you have no effective political rights.

It therefore does not surprise me that:

“ ...the Government has already imposed nine protocols for non-disclosure and secrecy”.

People however do not need to know whether there is some concrete evidence to justify war...the process by which all decisions are made is flawed. This system will not achieve’s just that people don’t grasp the nature of our political system. Why seek to persecute the politicians of the day, and then leave the system to exist as it is. Why live another day under such a bad system. The problem is not any person...its an idea. Unless people start thinking like humans – using causation – and not like animals – with correlation – we are simply going to make the same mistake...and fail to reform the system.

“The Iraq inquiry has resumed this week, promising crucial witnesses — Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Lord Goldsmith and possibly Gordon Brown. We have been told repeatedly what it is not: a trial, an inquest, an inquisition, a court, a statutory inquiry”.

There is a question of accountability; but are you going to hold politicians accountable for a system of ideas which they did not invent. Reform will go nowhere if there is any element of blame because the flaw does not lie with any one person; it is systematic and deeply embedded. We were all lied to as children; and our parents were lied to. They were not liars so much as products of their worse nature. Humanity had to discover what it means to be authentic, and it has been a challenge to change the system because we are corrupted to our core by entrenched subjectivism in our core political and educational institutions.

One of the problems is that too many people are going through life without questioning their most basic premises. They are living routines which they did not consciously choose, but which was subtly accepted in their cultural context. We need to challenge our most basic ideas if we are to progress. If a counterparty repudiates our ideas, we need to be open to all possibilities, with intelligibility or rationality and raw experiences as our only standard of value. We cannot allow any assumptions because they are a legacy of that era of collective delusion and self-righteousness.

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple but without it lessons will not be learnt, let alone remembered. This inquiry must ensure with all the means at its disposal that the truth is sought and found”.

What truth? That the existence of weapons of mass destruction was a fabrication? It would not be surprising...but that is not the message...that some ministers’ are flawed...the system is flawed. Irrespective of the reasons; it was moral for Britain to invade Iraq. The problem is the system which sabotages broader decision-making. This is not a crime scene...there is the prospect of a broader revolution in thinking and action. Education, crime, justice, health...these are all pertinent issues sabotaged by our system of government...which sabotages people’s thinking.

Andrew Sheldon

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?