Thursday, April 14, 2011

Our common path to democratic revolution

Share |
Justice strikes me as a false economy which it becomes seduced by its own power to change intentions by imposing certain values upon people. This is the legacy of statutory laws, which if we reflect on, do nothing but impose a greater tyranny upon us. Let us reflect on some examples:
1. Social protocol or values. There are laws which restrict the use of certain words of vile language. For instance, the work 'f**k' has been supplanted by asterisks, and we can see the same with 'STFU' (an internet abbreviation for "shut the f**k up"). A vile word which has been vetoed has been substituted with other words which convey the same meaning. What is a society to do? Well, perhaps there never ought to have been such a law. Perhaps respect is something that can't be legitimately be legislated.
2. Accounting rules. There were the good old days when accounting was based on principles. I know because I studied accounting, and I loved the topic in so far as it was underpinned by principles. i.e. Everything seemed to make sense. But because accounting was the basis for taxation, governments have sought to avoid 'principle' in order to extort money from taxpayers. The implication is that companies engaged in breaches of these arbitrary 'unprincipled' statutory laws have developed a plethora of 'loopholes' to avoid the consequences. These loopholes have demanded that government develop new laws resulting in more loopholes. Since companies act 10x faster than the 'tortoise', the implication is that companies are always ahead of the 'statutory game'. What is society to do? Maybe extortion by government (i.e. taxation) was never supposed to be tolerated. Maybe it was illegitimate? Certainly its impractical, as today taxation seems more to be a discretionary 'act of charity' than a corporate requirement.
3. Punitive rules. We have a great many punitive rules for such things as speeding, illegal parking. These rules seem to create more drama and injustice than they are systematically supposed to resolve. Consider that apart from being a point of extortion because governments who enforce the rules also design the city (with inadequate parking space); consider that the government regulations which make people stressed (when they confront arbitrary laws) are also anxious when they are finally caught for speeding, which is often a response to anxiety. The police make the argument 'the law is to teach offenders a lesson'. Its not working because its not an education and they have not resolved the problem; they have added to it. They have created new forms of tyranny which cause society more anxiety and depression. Society today is not more compliant, it is less so. Their solution is to 'increase the fines or even offer prison sentences', which just makes them more angry, and introduces them to other 'offenders' in prison, so they can engage in organised acts of ilicit behaviour because their 'so-called offences' have resulted in them ending up on the wrong side of 'legitimacy'. i.e. Society has criminalised them, marginalising them, and far from 'rehabilitating them', it has ensured they pursue a life of crime in a perpetual state of anger, or it has otherwise quashed their soul. It has turned them into a compliant, repressed, obedient zombie who will live on welfare all the rest of their life. Maybe they will tour schools telling the kids why they should be good...because otherwise they will end up like him. i.e. The sublime message - obey the law. Don't question. Obey.

If this looks like totalitarianism...its not. Its democracy. Its dispersed power. It looks the same because from a point of principle it is the same. But people have dispensed with principles. It is the same because both systems entail coercion. It makes little difference whether a person is persecuted by a single autocrat, an entire society, or abused by their neighbour. They are all - in principle - acts of coercion, which under common law are properly crimes. But under statutory law, the law has no 'spirit', it has no context. It is the letter of the law, and its open to arbitrary interpretation in an arbitrary context of 'other arbitrary statutory law', and selectively so.

Why are people so wedded to such a bad system? The reason is that judges are wedded to this system is because they are wedded to the morally repugnant values of collectivism, post-modernism and moral relativism which underpin it. They have believed and affirmed these values for a lifetime. Are you wondering why they assert immoral ideas....its because it is their frame of reference, and the system gives you no power to change things. The system is self-defeating. It makes the prospect of change so difficult that the system will have to be thwarted. i.e. Democracy was supposed to lead to stability. It did in the 'relatively' short term, however unless we enter a 'Dark Ages', we can expect that at some point there will be a 'break out'. The psychology of the people will reach a point where they will tolerate no more. You can see this in Tunisia. A small incident can precipitate a psychological reaction far greater than the issue which sparked the outcry. i.e. In Tunisia it was a persecuted shop owner. In the US, the LA riots were the result of mistreatment of blacks by LA police, i.e. Rodney King. Several blocks of LA were destroyed. We are waiting for the repressors to reach 'breaking point'....before they reach a point when they are prepared to do whatever it takes to overcome systematic injustice. Riots however are a call for change. The question is - will the new system offer anything better, or just a different form of tyranny. Sadly, Tunisia wants what we have, i.e. A different form of tyranny, but still collectivism. They know no better because of their moral ambivalence. I suggest before we get to that point where we have to make critical decisions...make sure you are on the right side of the reform agenda because you might just be leading us to a darker place. Many reform movements push society towards a more tyrannical regime than previously existed. The reason is that they did not understand the extent to which their values had departed from objectivity.
Andrew Sheldon

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?