’)Menial Opinions
By: L Man
In the United States, there is an apparent abuse of power within our governing system that has been building since its foundation. This abuse was hind-sighted by a lot of our forefathers, as the King of England was based from a line of kings that ran rampant throughout the world, taking advantage of little weaknesses in most of the countries in the world to gain power over them. Once England even occupied an African country so they could use the cotton they produced without having to pay for it. They established occupation in North America, and eventually the severity of their dictation over it bit them back with the American Revolution. The revelation was mostly based from the idea that over the course of civilization, a seat of power becomes vacantly noticed, a person given the seat, and the person coming to abuse the power. A human being in a seat of power governing people they will never know, or even see in their entire lifetime are in a position to have power only over abstract principles that form as the civilization progresses into more organized systems within it. This means that the person in power is acting under a sort of delusion, because they are governing ideas they are only distantly aware of, making these ideas diluted with sequential perspectives that eventually come to the governors attention.
Upon the decision to revolt against England, people were becoming more and more aware that there was an organized government who lived off of the effort people exerted at the expense of potential gain. The people in England who lived off of Government cheese did so at the expense of all the control England had directing towards the luxuries England ended up with and used. The people of what would eventually be the United States were paying a huge portion of their money to England just so they could have more comfortable lives, and when examined, it was seen that the Governments within the North American states could self sustain on luxuries self contained within them, so as to avoid suffering to meet the tax expectations of England.
This state of mind was not a new one, it has happened with many societies within the history of civilizations. Our fore fathers who understood this, attempted at creating a governing system that specifically catered to individual rights so that no tyrant could overwhelmingly dominate a persons potential gain within a society. Thomas Jefferson once said that there should be an armed revolution every 20 years just to counter the corruption that forms in any organized government. The reason these rights were labeled as liberties, and specific freedoms given to individuals pertaining to things such as privacy, free market, rights to obtain and maintain luxuries and products representing market or personal value without interruptions between them, etc., was because any legal enforcement towards a problem within a society has exceptions. Every person that engages in some kind of hindering problem within a society is not a criminal.
Stop for a second and look at where our nation is legally standing. If you hit someone, you have committed assault and the will crash down upon your head. You will have a mark in your legal record that will hurt your credibility for the rest of your life. Imagine you are a judge, you are looking at a case where someone has been assaulted, and you see that the assaulted person themselves has a mark on their record for previously assaulting someone. The judge would suspect the assaulted person of provoking it, because that's the reasonable conclusion to make under those conditions. That the judge has a perspective different from the one had with no assault mark on the persons record is an infringement on the freedom to defend ones self without suspicion of foul play. My argument here, is not directly pertaining to assault, it is an example of infringed rights from any moral judging coming from actions in a persons past that leads to a questioning of the credibility of their basic will.
Have you ever heard someone arguing the point that if everyone had guns, that there would be less crime because of the fear criminals would have of being shot? Do you think if you defended yourself by shooting a person, that from there could move on with your life without being forced into contributing to a legal trial? We see on tv every day cases where shooting guns has taken place, and they happen in places that look frighteningly similar to the places within our own lives. What if I am shot? I would imagine being shot quickly has a person abandoning all sympathy for the shooter. The shooter to them was someone who inflicted physical pain, and that infliction triggers a natural response in a living being to escape the pain, whether it be by retreating, or retaliating. But in this legal system we are in, there is a system of law standing between any conflict such as this you might have. That this legal system exists, makes it more reasonable to memorize the laws and retaliate by direct the law at the person like a sycophant rather than dealing with the situation directly by engaging in your physical and mental reaction to the crime that took place. That we know ahead of time this is the case, people will prepare at the extent of their awareness of potential harm by studying the discrepancies of the law, and in doing so, has the ability to strike with a overwhelmingly powerful force to anyone who breaks a law at their expense. This also makes the person directly aware of all the things they might potentially do to have the law directed at them. This knowing creates a fear of what would happen if they one day found themselves breaking one of these laws, and were brought to responsibility in a manner that they spent so much time figuring out how to use against others. The would always be mentally preparing for what will happen when they engage in any decision that conflicts with the law, whether exerted by them or towards them. In this case that person does not even look at the perpetrator as a living human being anymore, the person only looks to the law. Imagine the death to emotions that could come to someone who made a mistake and were constantly dealing with the responsibility hanging around their neck because of it. Imagine you have an urge, and when you satisfy that urge you break the law, and are sabotaged in any law broken in the future.
Imagine a world where there was no law. Someone hits you for some reason, and you hit them back because of it. You look at the person that hit you, and you show them why you do not hit people, that reason being their is retaliation. You are free to examine the reason the person hit you, and look for ways to avoid engaging in actions that lead to being hit. The hitter is free to examine the retaliation that happened because of their action, and find out whether or not it is worth it to hit people. If they did it for a good reason, they will find the will to exert hitting the person to solve a problem the person caused, if they did it for a bad reason they will wonder if it is worth being hit over something that did not warrant hitting. There are direct personal connections between people in a case like this. Respect comes from these situations, because when you deal with the person you are hurting, or is hurting you, you can examine the situation and see the similarities between both. People could build their lives around how to protect themselves from actions caused against them.
Now imagine this hitting situation where there is law. Both people have to deal with each other through thousands of preconditioned laws, making all their attention on the control they have under those conditions, meaning that they are focused on the law, not on each other. The person who loses in this fight will be looking towards the law when examining what happened, not at the damage they caused to the other person(granted the damage caused can complement the pertaining law, making looking at the law the same as looking to the damage, but it is not always like that). The lack of empathy in these situations condition emotional progression on relationships with the law instead of with the inflicted or inflicting person. Again, imagine all the emotional death that can come from having a legal mistake someone made constantly hanging around their neck.
The point I am trying to make, is that while people are focused on the environment, overweight, abortion, entertainment, money etc., there is a government constantly looming over our heads. Because we ignore them, they expand their control where it is allowed to do so. Our currency is collapsing, our paychecks and spending in general are weighed down with taxes, there are thousands of legal substances we are not allowed to engage in any part of without being punished, direct emotional empathy is dying if it is not already dead, these things are happening because the people who exert them are too stupid to understand the suffering they are causing, because no one stands up to them to show them they are causing problems. These people in power understand you as abstract principles under which their control allows, when what they are empowering is individual living people. What choice do we have under these conditions to form who we are freely when they come between such a large bulk of potential actions we could engage? With such a massive organized system to be aware of, these people with power would only see the abstract principles that take place as problems that happen everywhere, such as environment, overweight, abortion, entertainment, money etc., and we as individuals try to help their decisions through our opinions of them at the expense of the effort we could be putting into building a stable life for ourselves. How can any of us say we are free when there is no place you can occupy in the United States where you are not weighed down with so many restraints?
There is no comfortable way out of the corruption that has built up. Either stand up to the diluted insanity we are governed by, or watch as basic sense and personal empathy crumble.