Sultan Knish
A lawless society is a depressing place to live because it's a place
completely without law. And while going lawless might be appealing, we
aren't talking about an end to laws requiring you to wear bicycle
helmets or drink small sodas. Not even laws ordering you to pay recycle,
pay taxes and join up during a war. These are laws, but they're also
ordinances, commands and compulsions. They are not really any different
from your parents telling you to wash behind your ears or a mugger
ordering you to give him your money. They might be right or wrong, but
they aren't law.
Law exists apart from what a group of people at any given time want you
to do. That is why the aged nature of the United States Constitution is a
strength. The farther away we travel from 1788, the less that the
foibles and frailties of the Framers affect us. The transitory human
things fall away leaving only the essence of law.
A Bill of Rights drafted today would look very different than it did
back then. Not only would there be no Second Amendment, but most of the
others would read dramatically different. There would be few severe
restrictions on government power. Nor would there be unlimited Freedom
of Speech. The entire thing would run a few thousand pages and would be
filled with all sorts of escape clauses, which when added together would
render the whole thing meaningless.
Take for example the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which includes
dozens of new rights, such as the right of asylum, the right to
environmental protection and consumer protection, and the right to
social security, in addition to the more basic rights familiar to
Americans, but it comes with a simple addendum.
"Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be
provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and
freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may
be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of
general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the
rights and freedoms of others."
Which is to say there is freedom of speech, only until a compelling
argument can be made why banning someone's freedom of speech will help
protect the general interests of the European Union or the rights of
others to have environmental protection and social security.
That is the essence of a lawless society, which is to say that there are
oodles and oodles of law, but it's merely a complicated way for those
in power to enforce their will on others. If you want to force people to
do something, all you need to do is study enough clauses, lay out your
reasoning and it's done.
It's law in the same sense that a mugger putting a gun to your head is
law. He has a gun and he makes the laws. The laws don't apply to him.
They don't apply in any larger universal fashion. The mugger can choose
to suspend any laws at his whim, because he has a gun.
The United States has drifted into lawlessness, into laws that are the
guns of government. Want to force everyone to buy health insurance? Pass
a law. Ignore any questions of legality because legality doesn't
matter. If people come out to protest, send out your SEIU thugs to beat
them. If you lose your Senate majority, use Reconciliation to pass it.
If the Supreme Court threatens to investigate the Constitutionality of
the law, threaten the Court.
The only thing separating tactics like these from the mugger on the
corner is public interest. Which is to say that the government is
playing Robin Hood. It isn't mugging you because it likes the smell of
money, but because it wants to help those less fortunate. Robin Hood was
rebelling against the illegal authority of the Sheriff of Nottingham.
And our government is rebelling against the authority of... the people
and the law.
The government is the outlaw, doing what it likes because it must resist
all the "powerful interests", the most powerful of them being the
Middle Class. The Revolution becomes permanent, with the Reds in power
constantly rebelling against the bourgeois capitalists by raising taxes
and outlawing soda. Every year, the outlaws swing out of the trees, rob
the merchants and ride back to Washington D.C. for a glorious feast over
the stolen goods, which they may in some small way share with a few
peasants, to secure their support.
This farce can take place under the guise of law, but it represents a
lawless society. Law limits power. It limits the power of individuals,
institutions and governments. But in a lawless society no limitation on
power applies if the power is being applied for the sake of the higher
ideals which the society can be said to represent. If those higher
ideals involve helping the poor, then every institution can act like
Robin Hood. And it's perfectly legal, because there is no law.
In a lawless society, law is a function of emotion. The one who screams
the loudest gets his way if he can influence enough people to believe
that he has a case. Laws get made from a sense of "rightness" that is
entirely a function of emotion. Everyone operates in the egotistical "I
feel" mode, sharing and feeling their mutual pain, and passing laws to
outlaw anyone from hurting anyone else... unless it is in the interest
of preventing pain.
Rights become entirely positive and empathy based. Negative rights
become associated with selfishness. Everyone has the right to a thousand
benefits, but no one has the right to opt out. Everyone is free to
speak their mind, so long as it is an expression of need, rather than a
demand to be left alone.
Empathy makes for very bad law, because it isn't law at all. It's a
subjective response to the suffering of others. And often those who
excel at marketing their suffering aren't suffering at all, while those
who are genuinely suffering remain silent. Empathy-based law commodifies
pain, but it's empty of justice.
A lawless society is one where those who manipulate empathy gain power.
Where temporary outrage substitutes for policy. A video that stirs anger
and goes viral matters more than law. Everyone is a muckraker, and
everything is a muck of competing narratives because everyone is a
victim and everyone is dirty at the same time.
There is no law and so every case, every incident is political, because
law is made on an ad hoc basis. One side projects grief, the other side
charges cynicism. The side that manipulates the emotions of the crowd
most deftly, wins. Every politician is an actor, every debate is a
performance and every victory is a chance to gather more spoils.
The idea that there should be one law for all, rather than one law for
the sufferers and another for those who aren't suffering, is alien to a
society where empathy trumps law. Rather than making it easier for the
rich and poor to compete, the rich hobble the middle-class for the
benefit of the poor. Rather than outlawing racial discrimination, it's
reversed so that it favors those discriminated against. Rather than
doing the right thing, the left does the Robin Hood thing, leaping from
the tree, looting the society, and writing songs about its own dashing
courage.
The government-media complex acts out the empathy narrative. Its
reporting has nothing to do with the facts, but everything to do with
emotion. A law is bad when it protects the privilege of the opposition,
but good when it protects their privilege. The powers of the Senate, the
Executive and the Supreme Court are good when they serve their ends,
but bad when they serve the ends of their enemy. The blame always goes
to one side, the side blocking their agenda.
A society that lives by law can have laws that mean something, but in a
lawless society, a law only matters so long as it serves the purpose of
those in power. When it doesn't, then it's ignored or tossed aside.
Last week we witnessed Obama playing Robin Hood by casting aside
immigration law and transparency to the jubilant cheers of the media,
whose fondest wish is for politicians to play Robin Hood, cut all the
Gordian Knots and just carry out their agenda without regard for the
law. That is what they wanted, that is what they got. But a lawless
society cuts both ways and takes the system out of the protection of the
law.
Law is impartial. It states absolute principles that apply regardless of
faction and position. But in a lawless society, there is no law, only
power. The left has ushered in a lawless society, but we will all have
to live with the consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment