Russell Twyce

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.

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.