Russell Twyce

Human 2.0 – I Say as I Do

The philosophy that Human 1.0 has enshrined is ‘Do as I say’ and that is too often accompanied by the rider ‘not as I do’. The Human 1.0 political and social structure is far too full of both the ‘do as I say’ and the ‘not as I do’. Human 2.0 can easily solve that by acknowledging the problem and taking the steps to fully remedy it.

The entire body of criminal law, tax law and highway law revolves around the ‘do as I say’ principle. Lawmakers presume (erroneously), that they have the authority to tell people what they cannot do and what they must do. Yet the lawmakers and the authority figures suppose that they can do whatever they choose.

Let me give you some examples of ‘do as I say’ and ‘not as I do’.

A president supports laws that forbid using a position of authority to elicit sexual favors then he manipulates a political intern into giving him oral sex in the oval office. ‘Do as I say, not as I do’.

A corporation’s accounting department dutifully reports employee income and remits the money to the government then the CEO fails to pay his fair share by hiding his compensation in stock options and the corporation shirks its obligation by seeking tax concessions and loop holes. ‘Do as I say, not as I do’.

A police car races through a red traffic light with his official flashers on then the officer switches off his lights and wheels into a coffee shop. ‘Do as I say, not as I do’.

Are these enough examples? I could provide countless more. The system is rife with examples because the system provides the opportunities for abuses. So what is the sane solution? What is the easy remedy?

Human 2.0 fixes problems at source. If we can make a system that resists abuses, instead of condoning and facilitating abuses, then the abuses will have to diminish.

Here is a Human 2.0 maxim – ‘A true solution has to fit the real problem’. [private_Chevron]In the case of the ‘do as I say, not as I do syndrome’, the easy fix involves simply eliminating the authority to enforce the ‘do as I say’ portion. Society can operate fine and in actual fact better, without laws. We don’t want a ‘government’: a ‘public administration’ is all really need.

Human 2.0 does NOT mean people are free to rape, murder and steal with impunity! The Human 2.0 public discipline system is simply based on protecting human rights, as opposed to law, which is founded on an unsustainable power to tell people what they must or mustn’t do. That simple change in the core philosophy completely fixes most of the ills in society.[/private_Chevron]

Example Short Story – Taming the Bully by Russell Twyce

Taming The Bully – From Nicholas Flamel’s Humanity Series

A gray-haired man stands beside a podium listening to a speech proclaiming his heroism, In a few minutes, he will be his nation’s highest award. He knows that while he has earned the medal, some merit belongs to someone he has not seen in many years. As the politician drones on, the uniformed man’s thoughts drift back in time.

The year was 1967 and Canada was celebrating 100 years of nationhood. Every classroom in the elementary school was decorated with the stylized maple leaf comprised of twelve triangles that each represent a Canadian province or territory. The one in the grade five classroom though, dwarfed them all: it was a five foot wooden structure and Derwood Covey was fiercely proud of it.

“My Dad is a carpenter.” Derwood bragged to all his classmates. “None of your dads could have made this so good.”

“With a sheet of plywood, a saw, a hammer, nails and a couple 2×4′s,” Nick Burns contradicted, “I could’ve built it myself.”

“Oh yah?” The larger boy asked threateningly. He stepped forward to confront the much slammer new kid in school. “You’re jealous because you don’t have a father.”

“I had one.” Nickolas stood his ground, though the bully was crowding in. “Like everyone did. So I have nothing to be envious about.”

“Your dad was a runt like you.” Derwood pushed the smaller boy, who staggered backwards and bumped into the centenial symbol. The plywood sculpture toppled over its two by four base and the top triangle of the stylized maple leaf breaks. Derwood screamed. “You’ve ruined it!”

“You shoved me.” Nick said. Then he glanced down at the break. “It can be glued back together.”

You’ll fix it: so it is as good as new.” The larger youngster blusterd. “Or I’ll pound you.”

“Had you asked me nicely, I would’ve done just that. But I never bow to threats.”

“You’ll do as I say or you’ll regret it.”

“I do as I say,” the smaller said defiantly, “and I say as I do.”

“Do you have the guts to say that to me outside after school?”

Back in the present moment, the politician is describing the one event that has brought this medal presentation. The policeman had disobeyed his orders and accepted procedure. Instead of just establishing a secure perimeter, he had gone into the crime scene while the senseless mass killings were in progress and stopped the killing.

The man being honored zones out again to resume his meandering through his memories – where the school ground fight has begun.

The larger Derwood has a longer reach and he throws the first punch. His fist glances off Nick’s cheek. It must have hurt but the smaller pugilist is not slowed by the hit and he closes in to grappling range.

Nick Burns absorbs the flurry of fists that strike his shoulders and the back of his head. He grabs the larger boy about the waist, then plants his feet solidly to lift and throw. The larger boy lands on the lawn with the smaller on top.

Derwood Covey has his wind knocked out from the fall. When he recovers his breath, his opponent is straddled on his chest. A hand is poised at his face, with fingers pointed at his eyes and an elbow cocked for a strike. He blinks as the unavoidable blow comes. Then Derwood feels two knuckles tap on his eyelids. It stings a bit and he opens his now watery eyes, only to see the same hand is ready for a repeat strike.

“The next time I won’t bend my fingers.” Nick hisses in a voice so low that none of the fight’s audience can here. “I’ll come in fingernails first, rip out your eyeballs and you’re next pet will be a seeing eye dog.”

“You’ll go to jail for that.” Derwood says.

“I’m a minor so the sentence will be short. But you’ll be blind for the rest of your life.”

[private_Chevron]“What do you want?”

“Yield to my victory and for one week, you’ll do as I say.”

“Okay.” Derwood had looked into the smaller Nick’s eyes and realized that he was deadly serious.

“On behalf of a grateful nation,” the politicians movement towards the policeman has returned his mind to the present moment, “I present this award.”

The ribbon is pinned to his lapel and the ceremony soon concludes.

“You looked bored up there.” The honored man’s wife chuckled when he returned to his seat at the head table.

“I was reliving the day in grade five when this all started.”

“You decided to join the police force when you were in grade five?”

“I decided that when I was in grade three.” The policeman chuckled. “I was in grade five when I learned how to do the job right.”[/private_Chevron]

“After he had beaten me so completely,” Derwood explained to his wife, “I expected Nick to make me do some embarrassing things like carrying his books or something. That’s what I would’ve done to him. He didn’t demand anything and when I inquired why, he just said ‘I say as I do‘.”

“That seems a bit cryptic.” The wife observed.

“Then during that week, I was watching some of my friends tormenting a science geek. One guy was spraying water from a drinking fountain and two others were forcing him to mop it up with the seat of his pants.”

“Knowing you the way I do,” she guessed, “I’ll bet you stepped in.”

“I just watched and laughed like everyone else. Then Nick stepped up behind me and he whispered:[private_Chevron] ‘What if I had demanded that you belittle yourself like that?’ And for the first time in my life, I identified with the victim.”

His recounting the story to his wife sent the policeman’s mind into the past again.

“There are three of them.” Derwood noted.

“There are two of us and if you count him, we are three.” Nick nodded a head toward the science geek. “But I doubt if this situation will take more than just one hero.”

“That’s quite enough of this!” Derwood Covey announced in a loud voice as he stepped in between the victim and the bullies, who were some of his closest friends. Then he pointed a thumb over his shoulder. “If you want at him, you have to come through me.”

“Was there a battle royal in the grade five hall?” Lisa Covey inquired.

“Not that day. But I did have to physically reconcile with those friends later.” He recalled. “That day I just learned what respect looked like.”

“I didn’t know you liked me.” The skinny science geek had gushed when the bullies were gone.

“I don’t like you.” Derwood had replied. “But you have the right to be whoever you are, without being harassed for it. And today I stood up for that.”

“The expression on the geek’s face that day,” the policeman explained to his wife, “was unlike any I had seen before. He didn’t display the fear or hatred that I was used to. His demeanor was of pure respect and I liked it so much that I became a lifelong junkie for it.”

“And that path took you finally to the ultimate act of heroism and selflessness that you were just honored for.” Lisa smiled. “I’ve always seen that in you.”

“It wasn’t there before grade five. Canada’s 100th birthday was year one for me.”

“What happened to Nicholas Burns?” She asked.

“He disappeared shortly after that. They said Nick ran away from his foster home.” Derwood Covey stood up. “Excuse me, I need to use the washroom.”

The honored policeman stood at the sink and looked at his mirrored reflection. His need for the bathroom’s privacy was mostly that he felt that he was coming close to emotional tears and that didn’t fit very well with his image.

[/private_Chevron]“Congratulations.” Said a man from the doorway.

“Nick Burns!” Derwood exclaims after a shock of recognition. Figuring out who spoke had taken extra effort because his apparent age didn’t match. “You look only half as old as you must be.”

“My years have been kind.” Nicholas Flamel lied. “And I’m proud of how you turned out.”

“Who could’ve known that one incident at the tender age of eleven,” Derwood chuckled, “would have such a profound effect on a life.”

“The ramifications have been on many more lives than just yours.” Nick spoke wryly. “I’ve looked in on you from time to time. Your rare brand of policing has been a positive force in more ways than you know.”

“How is it that you were so wise as you were in grade 5?” Derwood asked a question that he had pondered many time over the years. “And how do you manage to appear so young now?”

“Even back then, I was substantially older and more experienced than I looked.” Nick didn’t tell of the truth: which was of his being over 600 years old, back when Derwood was eleven. Nicholas Flamel had reverse aged himself with his philosopher’s stone, in order to affect certain persons while they were at an impressionable age.

“In grade five, I couldn’t have thanked you as deeply as I can now. The change that you brought in me was profound and it made my life wonderful!” The police officer avowed. “In using my strength and authority only to protect, I garnered nothing but respect from people. Most of my fellow police officers have never been able to understand that. I suppose that is because they didn’t learn it young enough, as you helped me to do.”

“The ‘do as I say’ mentality does nothing but harm, even when it is purportedly being used for the purpose of good.” [private_Chevron]

“I gave up on trying to tell guys what the difference between them and I was. They just seemed unable to understand.”

“Society wrongly teaches bullies that the key to respect is wearing a uniform.”

To be continued – Work In Progress[/private_Chevron]

Human 2.0 is a philosophy that WILL sweep the world. Learn more about it at russelltwyce.com.

I’m Getting REALLY Frustrated with your STUPIDITY!

99.99 percent of people are; self-centered and stupid, blind and stupid, greedy and stupid, apathetic and stupid or just plain stupid and stupid.  By brain to body mass ratio, the dinosaurs had the equivalent of a walnut rattling around in a human skull: that makes a prehistoric dinosaurs seem as a genius compared to most people living today.  Hitting the Earth with a species killing asteroid, like what killed the giant reptiles, is about the kindest thing that God could do.  Otherwise, humanity is seemingly doomed to a slow death of being killed off by stupidity.

Do you have even the slightest clue of what I’m talking about?

Almost all of the worst problems our society faces are EASILY solvable!   Shall I name a few?  How about Terrorism, mass-murder, most crime, drug epidemic, war, police/gang violence and global warming.  All of these and far more are caused by the same simple thing!  And it could be easily and painlessly fixed.  But you are to stupid, self-centered, greedy, and/or apathetic to even try to understand the NEW theory.

Try reading and understanding this: Simple Solution for Society

[private_Chevron]I feel like I’m Paul Atredies in Frank Herbert’s Dune trilogy. I’ve been into the place where the rest are afraid to look, and it is a wonderful place. Society has taught people to automatically shun and fear the word ‘anarchy‘, before actually thinking rationally about it. The form of ‘anarchy’ that exists in Somalia is not good but a phrase that can be associated with ‘anarchy’ is ‘freedom from rule’. I don’t advocate ‘lawlessness’ as in freedom to commit crimes. Instead, I promote using a judicial/police system that is not rooted on our having to be ‘ruled’, in order to have security and justice. And that concept would SOLVE our problems.[/private_Chevron]

A Golden Free Future Awaits – After You Wake Up!

People have called me everything from an anarchist to the anti-Christ.  I don’t care if my position is not understood yet, I’ll continue to state it as loudly and clearly as I’m able to.  I have every right to hold the opinions that I strongly do.

The Authority has NO Authority to be the Authority!

[private_Chevron]I personally do NOT recognize the Government of Canada’s legitimacy as the government of Canada. You might suppose you are free and living in a Democracy, but I state emphatically that you are NEITHER.  The law treats you as if you are owned as a serf and a party dictatorship is NOT democratic.  The ‘Rule-of-Law’ has NO logical right to rule and law is also a very BAD ruler.  Law is guilty of abetting most crime and actually causing some crime.  Changing to a human-rights based system of justice would immediately reduce crime by the amount that law encourages crime – that is probably a 25-50% instant decrease.

Try to think beyond your social programming in favor of law, to see it in its actual fact.  You are enslaved to law.  Law deems itself to have the right to tell you what to do, and to punish you as its slave when you are disobedient.  But examine where the rule-of-law derives the ‘right’ to treat you as a serf – it doesn’t have it – period.  If each citizen as individuals do not posses the ‘right’ to enact laws for others, then the government does NOT have the ‘right’ either, because zero times however many millions, still equals zero.

A human rights based justice system could operate as effectively as law does but without all the many MANY problems inherent and unavoidable with the utterly F*CKED and incorrect theory of law.  And by being based on actual human rights, an alternate justice system WOULD ACTUALLY have the right to operate, as law most certainly does NOT.  But this different criminal justice system would require your waking up and thinking clearly.

No, a Party Dictatorship is NOT a Democratic System

A party system of supposed Democracy only does one thing.  It enables a tiny minority to fabricate a false claim of its commanding a majority.  The sideline problem with a party system of government is that it facilitates and actually encourages political corruption.  The American founding founders were dead set against the party system but had to adopt it when some unscrupulous people banded together into a party. And the rest is a long history of abuse and corruption.  Big money interests don’t need to bribe 50% of a legislature, as they would in a Democracy.  With a party system, only the party leaders need to receive pay-offs.

Do you feel represented by your elected representative?  You shouldn’t because if your elected rep is a member of a political party, then he or she isn’t able to speak their own mind – much less yours.  The party member is basically a sock-puppet for the party leader.  Nazi Party, Fascist Party, Communist Party, Republican Party and Concervative Party.  What is the common theme here?  A party system is no party for real people.  So why don’t we wake up, call the horseshit for what it is, and move on to a bright future of real democracy?

Have I offended you?  Maybe you should comprehend before you decry.

I know that people become incensed when I say that law and the current government are horseshit.  But were you to actually understand my alternate vision, you would see that it DOES make good logical sense and that it points the way to a much better future than the polluted, global-warmed police state where we are currently on a collision course with.  I know that we need police, courts and public administrations what we DON’T need is laws, governments and unrestricted power in the hands of corrupt warmongers.

More and more people are coming to see politics and law as I do.  When enough do understand, then the government and the rule-of-law WILL fall (and good riddance).  Don’t you suppose its a good idea to explore the other available options – before it’s too late?

[/private_Chevron]

Referencing this news story – Torture Memo Trips Up Tories

Frankly, why is Canada involved in the Afghanistan crimes at all? It makes me ashamed to be a Canadian. George Bush, the stupidest and most warmongering of all US presidents, illegally invaded a nation and needed his troops freed up to illegally invade another country. So Canada and other NATO member countries were pressured into taking over there.

[private_Chevron]Think rationally about this for a second. Isn’t a government that tortures just as as bad as the Taliban they replaced? And seemingly, the criminal Canadian government is fully aware of the human rights abuses in Afghanistan, by the criminal government that NATO forces installed and are propping up. Canada is by cooperation, participating in perpetrating atrocity![/private_Chevron]

Control your OWN Financial Future!

[private_Chevron]When are people going to wake up? This news story is the blandly written crap that we’ve come to expect from the mainstream media, but the true facts are still in there. Canada mouths off about the ‘human rights repression’ of a nation like China, but meanwhile the Canadian and other Western governments have been steadily curtailing human rights ever since 911 and the torture chambers in Afghanistan (and Gitmo) are just the visible tip of the heinous iceberg.[/private_Chevron]

I just thought of something that I should insert here.  As a general rule of thumb, whoever the Americans pick to rule a nation is invariably the wrong one to back.  American administrations have about a 100% BAD decision history of installed puppet governments.  These include; the Shah of Iran and his torturous SAVAK, Saddam Hussain, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.  And the list goes on and on from there.

[private_Chevron]Should we not start questioning? And hold criminals like Steven Harper to justice? Before we all find ourselves living in George Orwell’s 1984. The criminal government of Canada does NOT have legitimate authority to sponsor torture and human rights abuses in Afghanistan. If the real truth were to be told, the Canadian ‘authority’ has no actual authority to be the authority here either.[/private_Chevron]

Use Conversational Hypnosis to gain control of your OWN mind

Here is a headline:

“Four Police Officers Gunned Down over their Morning Coffee”

“WHY!”  People wail and ask.  Well hello!  Use some common sense.  The now dead suspect has spent his whole life being treated as an animal.  What do you expect him to be but an animal?  Why did he kill four police officers?  Maybe the clue is in this clipping from the news article?- “They said he was on drugs, and it took four police officers to take him down.”

People, maybe it is time to face up to the common sense truth on the question of ‘why’.  The police of today are thugs.  The police EXCESSIVELY employ violence, they are bullies and they swarm their victims like like cowards.  Four violent cops tackled this person and then manhandled him into chains and a cage.  And then as soon as he was free, he shot and killed four officers.  The four dead likely weren’t the same ones who swarmed and brutalized him, but they wore the same uniforms and were similarly armed to the teeth.

Click to Make Money like a Bandit

[private_Chevron]There IS a reason why crimes and atrocities like this are happening.  For one thing, police ARE bringing it onto themselves and for another, society is creating monsters by treating ALL of us like livestock.  And when we actually dare to think about it, there IS a simple, painless and HUMANE solution.[/private_Chevron]

If you’re interested, ask me.  If not, then watch for more like this in the daily news, because it’s going to get much MUCH worse – until we start to make it better.

Stop Believing the TV propaganda and start using your OWN Brain!

Click Here & Learn HOW you’re being Manipulated

Short Fiction – set in the near future by Russell Twyce

A teacher stands before her class of Junior High School students.  The fashions and hairstyles have changed much over the last ninety years, but the arrangement of desks and the faces flushed with life of the children remains as it is today.  The history teacher is holding a paper for a pop quiz.

“Quiet now.”  She holds up a flat hand to call for silence and attention.  “Now who can tell me what the three main era’s of the previous 2000 years were called?”  She chose one from amid the small wheat field of raised hands.  “Jilvian?”

“The first was the dark ages,” a girl answered, “of which not very much was recorded with full accuracy.”

“Correct.  And who will tell us what period came next? Rodagar?”

“Yes mam.”  A blond boy stood up to answer.  “Then came the age of feudalism and serfdom when people were owned by the land and where the land was owned by the nobles.”

“Very good.”  The teacher smiled.  “What was the third?  Jacqeleze?”

“Industrial Age.”  A timid girl answered quickly.  Then she saw the imploring look on her teacher’s face and expanded on her answer.  “It is also known as the second age of feudalism and serfdom.”

“Thank you.”  The teache said.  “Now can someone tell me the difference between the first and second ages of serfdom?  Barklane?”

[private_Chevron]“In the first, the nobles owned the land and the land owned the people.  In the second, the lawyers, police and politicians owned the law and the law owned the people.”

“That’s close, but you missed something important.”

“Nations owned the land and the people?”

“Yes.”  The teacher nodded.  “In order for it to be considered serfdom, human bondage needs to be involved and that was certainly the case when nations were thought of as all-powerful.  Who can remind us of what other overly powerful entities people had to overthrow before they gained real freedom?”

“The corporations that had been given super-human status.”  A boy answered after the teacher nodded at him.  “They had huge revenues and they bought and sold politicians, lawyers and judges.  I think it should be called the black age of corruption and greed.  How were people stupid enough to abide with it?”[/private_Chevron]

“As we covered in the lesson, populations under the two Nazi regimes were repressed mostly by the harsh police action, economic blackmail and a mass media that pumped out propaganda.  Adstell, will you tell us how the two Nazi regimes differed?”

“The German Nazi government was anti-Semitic and the American Nazi government was pro-Semitic.  And while the German Nazis called themselves Nazi, the American Nazi government used the names Democrat and Republican.”

“Fazette, can you elaborate on why the American Nazi government was not named for what it was?”

“The Americans fought the German Nazis during World War Two and so a stigma was attached to the term.  However, the American Nazis were just as racially intolerant of all non-Americans as the German Nazis were.  The American Nazis were also as violently expansionist.  They felt that their strong economic and technical abilities entitled them to crush ‘inferior’ nations, cultures and people.”

“Well done.”  The teacher beamed.  It seemed like her whole class of students were likely to score well on the formal test.  “So for a final question in this quiz, who will describe what finally ended the Nazism and serfdom to give us the wonderful civilization we enjoy today?  I’ll point and you can each offer an answer.”

[private_Chevron]“People started using rockets to colonize the planets, instead of to deliver bombs.”  Shouted James.

“We finally understood that law was only making lawyers rich.  In return for the slavery to it,  law was only really creating even more crime.”  Answered Elsebeth.

“People demanded true democracy and the party dictatorships were abolished.”  Added Seanne.

“National governments were turned into public administrations.”  Intoned Zaig.

“Justice became based on human rights, instead of on a ruler’s supreme power.”  Said Burgret.

“Excellent!”  The teacher applauded.  “Next week we’ll be starting our next module.  That will cover the history of economics.  We start at the gold standard and finish when the criminal greed practices like the commodity futures market and debt based currency were abolished.  Have a great weekend!”[/private_Chevron]

WHY?

“Because the murderer is a whack job!”

Yes, he is a whack job but that doesn’t answer why.  Every person, crazy or sane, has a reason for their actions.  There are two distinct reasons ‘why’ but they are obviously connected.  [private_Chevron]The first is that the subconscious mind is self-destructive.  (Proof of this self-destructiveness can be witnessed in smokers, compulsive gamblers, suicide, AND in subliminal advertising that features death).

The second is that the murderer wants to make a political / social statement – ‘I don’t want to live in this world and I don’t want my family to have to live in it either’.[/private_Chevron]  The more heinous his crime, the more brightly his blood graffiti message will shine up in the media – “the rule-of-law SUCKS and that is REALLY why I did it!”

“The rule-of-law SUCKS and that is REALLY why he did it?”

Yes.  Odd as it sounds, the rule-of-law is why he killed [private_Chevron]and the law against murder actually enabled him to side-step his good conscience to kill.  Law is slavery.  People get angry when I say that, but it is the truth and you know it.  Law is based on the slavery principle of ‘obey or be punished‘.  There are a lot of flowery quotes and rationalizations around law to assuage a conscious mind and to make you accept the slavery of law as ‘freedom and protection’, when it is neither.  But your subconscious mind certainly knows that law is slavery and that is one big reason why the subconscious mind is self-destructive.

The murderer strikes at the law that he hates with every fiber of his being: he does not see his beloved family standing behind the law.  Then like a bullfighter’s red cape, the law moves away unhurt, and the death blows fall on the victims.  The law did NOT protect the mass-murder’s family: the law made crime targets of them.[/private_Chevron]  The rule-of-law was the co-murderer!

The IS another way!

[private_Chevron]A law operates like this: Killing a person is an act against the state. Killing a person is breaking an edict that belongs to the state. Killing a person is directly disobeying the government. And killers will be PUNISHED, not punished for killing the person but for disobeying the government’s law. Using any of these definitions, a persons level of animosity towards the state or government has to factor into his decision to commit the act.

Non-law operates like this: Killing a person deprives them of their human right to life. Others in society are threatened by a killer who has demonstrated a murderous nature. The justice system WILL take necessary actions to protect people by jailing or other.

Non-law keeps statutes, police, courts and jails fully operational but it eliminates the cancerous parts of law, like slavery and the illogical view that the state is harmed by a crime.[/private_Chevron]

Do you remember Reaganomics?

Or I suppose for the younger audience, I should say, ‘do you remember learning about Reaganomics?’  An unusual theory was presented and then proved – ‘Government revenue could be INCREASED, by LOWERING the tax’.  It seemed strange to many people but it worked.  Now think about the guy who first thought of the idea.  Imagine how he must have had to bash his head against many walls before a few saw what he was talking about.  That is where I am now.

I know how to end terrorism, how to eliminate the spectacular and seemingly pointless mass killings like Columbine, Virginia Tech & Fort Hood, and simultaneously reduce the actual crime rate across the whole spectrum of everyday robberies, rapes, & murders.   And the solution is both simple and painless!  [private_Chevron]In fact, the cure would benefit society in countless ways, it would even solve things like ‘schoolyard bullying’.  It is as easy as Reaganomics was: it just takes a slightly different way of looking at how/why we manage our society.  Courts, police & jails would still operate but even better than they do now.[/private_Chevron]  This might sound Utopian, but like Reaganomics was, it is just logical.

[private_Chevron]The terrorist’s real intended target is the government.  The mass-murder’s real intended target is society as a whole.  Both the terrorist and the mass-murderer are able to strike their targets by hitting ordinary people BECAUSE the law is the direct linkage between government/society and the everyday people.  The mechanism of law, is that the government theoretically takes each crime onto itself.  According to courts, a murderer is really on trial for breaking, or acting against, the government’s law prohibiting murder.

By simply changing the enabling theory of why courts / police / jails are authorized to operate, we could erase the path that links the government to the people.  The government continues to exist and do what it does now (although some terms like ‘governance’ would have to be slightly redefined to fit a new reality.)  But the population target that is currently under the terrorist’s and the mass-murder’s cross-hairs would be effectively removed from the scope’s view.

Law = [Individual or group mad at a government or society] –> [Aims gun at a law] –> [Bullet hits people] –> [Political and /or Anti-Social Agenda IS Satisfied]

Non-Law Justice = [Individual or group mad at a government or society] –> [Nothing Here to shoot at] –> [Nobody Dies] –> [Political/Society Agenda IS NOT Satisfied]

Or

Non-Law Justice = [Individual or group mad at a government or society] –> [Shoots Person or Persons] –> [We try and jail for killing a person or persons and depriving them of their right to life] –> [No Political/Societal Satisfaction]

When a Politically or Socially motivated killer is unable to satisfy political or social agenda by killing people, then he or she will probably NOT kill at all – and terrorism is eradicated with just the stroke of a pen!

I think it is long passed time that we people evaluated at our political reality anyways.  ‘Law’ evolved from the untrue notion that a noble had the right to inflict his word onto the serfs that he owned.  The post magna charta ‘law’ suggests that the law-giver is a concept that is owned by the people, but it still equates to a noble (albiet an elected one) inflicting his word onto the serfs of a different definition.  It need not be this way.  Justice could be rooted on society’s duty to protect human rights, instead of on a noble’s, or a conceptual state entity’s authority – and justice really SHOULD be rooted on human rights.

Almost every existing law statute could be amended to read and function as a non-law.  (And the few that can’t be amended really shouldn’t be used anyways because they obviously DON’T protect human rights).  All of the law apparatus could be easily retooled to non-law with a simple base theory amendment.  And this could be done with absolutely NO DISRUPTION to protective service.[/private_Chevron]

Like Reaganomics, when this revolutionary theory of public justice takes root and is really looked at and understood, it will prove out to be the right solution for the times.

This post is in reply to ‘Catch Me if you Can‘ – Item 1.  “…Rape a 13 Year Old Girl”.

First off, do you completely understand what I think is the crux problem with law?   [private_Chevron]Instead of dealing with the action, as a verb, that one person did to another, law creates an conceptual item that belongs to the government and the court deals ONLY with that.  IE.  The court is NOT trying to decide if the thirteen year old girl was hurt by the defendant’s actions, the judge is ruling on whether the law itself was affected by his actions.  A court of truth (instead of a court of law) COULD deal with the issue without using an illogical presumption that a law existed in the the bed with them and that the law itself was harmed worse than the girl was.[/private_Chevron]

“Was the only thing stopping you the fact that you didn’t want to go to jail?”

The primary ‘deterrent’ to why people refrain from crime is NOT the threatened punishment. [private_Chevron]Generally, people don’t commit rapes, robberies, murders, and assaults because they empathize with the potential victim and their good conscience would strenuously object.  The secondary ‘deterrence‘ of punishment only enters into the equation as a ‘risk factor’ after the criminal has figured out how they will get around their conscience.[/private_Chevron]

How does the criminal side-step his/her conscience to commit the crime?

Psychologists have said that psychopaths / sociopaths have no consciences, but that is absolute bullshit, everyone has a conscience.  [private_Chevron]The psychopath /sociopath simply understands law differently (better?) than you do.  He or she simply assigns the harm they are doing to the conceptual object of the law, instead of on the living person that the crime is harming.  IE: “I’m not violating this 13 year old girl, I’m only breaking one of society’s laws as a subtle political statement, and the law does not feel it because it does not really exist at all – plus I get sex with a 13 year old girl as an added bonus.”  Essentially, a 13 year old girl is raped because the law against rape provides an easy route around the primary crime-fighting human conscience – that is unacceptable and downright wrong.  The rule-of-law is a crime against humanity that facilitates and actually encourages many smaller crimes against humanity.  And the rule-of-law is unnecessary.[/private_Chevron]

Consider the Roman Polanski case in particular now.

Polanski ‘broke a law’ in the US and then escaped to a non-extradition country – where he conceivably posed a threat to young French girls – but the French Justice system could not act because the law was not broken there.[private_Chevron]  But in actual fact, a law does NOT exist at all, so why should we hamstring our public protection by presuming that a law does exist?

A social justice system that is based on protecting human rights, as opposed to law’s only preserving a government’s power to tell people what to do, would have handled the Roman Polanski case differently.  Yes, the 13 year old girl was an American who was raped while in the US – BUT – the whole case is not dependent on upholding American law: it is about protecting other girls from being raped by a known rapist – wherever they are exposed to the rapist.  Had the defendant remained in the US, then American social justice would have handled it, but as he ran to France, the particulars would have been sent to France for the social justice and protection system to action it there.

People wrongly believe that law is intended to protect them and the intense propaganda surrounding law incorrectly says that law is the ONLY way.   In truth, law exists primarily to keep people subservient to a government and the much better way to protect people is with a social justice apparatus that derives its authority to act from the specific reason of protecting human rights – IE the undeniable right not to be the victim of a crime – especially if that crime is preventable.[/private_Chevron]

I say this following line with utter conviction. 

“The END of terrorism, the END of random victim crimes (like Fort Hood, Virginia Tech and MANY others), and the global reduction in the incidents of crimes against people, WILL be found in a very simple reevaluation of how we view social justice.”

The Real Problem is Law – but only criminals know that I read an interesting post today Catch Me if You Can. The undertone of this post is that people, probably not just the post’s author, are frustrated by the effects of law. On the other hand, they believe that law is working for them and so they support law. But law is not a good system. We are all taught and told to ‘obey the law’. Instead we should all be taught and told not to do things that hurt people – and leave this being obedient to an imaginary slave-master out of it.

Judges, lawyers, politicians and police don’t really understand law, [private_Chevron]law is just the weapon they have to use against the people, in order to get what they want – (too often it is just more money). People don’t actually understand the concept of law either: they believe that law is in place to help them, when in true fact, law simply evolved as a way of extending the rule of nobles.[/private_Chevron]

Criminals DO understand what law is, [private_Chevron]at least they do at a subconscious level, law is a tool that makes it easier for them to commit their crimes. Breaking law is also the solitary motivation in many cases, like at Fort Hood, Virginia Tech and others. The illogical theory of law is also the root cause of why terrorism exists. Yes, law IS illogical and if public justice was actually logical, then it would work as well as you just wish that law could work. Public justice should work largely the way that law works, but it would be much better without law’s bad side effects. Namely, law turns ALL crimes into political statements.

The criminal knows at his action is breaking a thing that belongs to the government and that is often why the criminal is committing the criminal act – at the expense of the innocent victim. In other words, the existence of law has placed a crime target on the victim. Then the court is NOT trying to decide on what one person did to another. Instead, the lawyers are arguing on whether or not a law was damaged (or the imaginary king’s word was disobeyed) when one person harmed another. (Try reading the transcripts of a murder trial – word for word: the dead body is only physical evidence of how the law itself was harmed – which is utter BS).[/private_Chevron]

Criminal Law is another of my posts on this subject. I’ll be writing more soon to show how a different system of public justice could prevent specific crimes and how it would better protect people. And to UniquelyJen, the author of the Catch Me if You Can post, would you care to discuss each of the example cases you cited – to find how they each could have and should have played out.