Posted in philosophy | 3 Comments »
Very often, in fiction, institutions of societal judgment, institutions which shape the future and help to define the past — our own history — are portrayed in a favorable light, shown to impartially facilitate the victory of truth over falsehood, of bravery over cowardice, of mercy over vengeance and of reason over brute impulse.
Would that such images reflected reality.
For every “revolutionary” decision handed down by Courts Supreme and by Tribunals Most High — which merely reflect and elucidate, rather than alter or discover, the fundamental nature of that which ought be justice — those same bodies deliver a torrent of support and endorsement for the present system and for that pile of unjust historical deadweight called “precedent” but which, in the words of Kevin Carson, might better be called “the subsidy of history”.
These august incarnations of unquestionable, unaccountable power are dressed up in the finest of robes, placed on the highest of perches and set above all other men, so that they may — to the half-blind, numbed, unthinking bulk of humanity — discover truth, lay blame where it belongs and issue a judgment most holy, and one which contributes positively to the betterment of humankind.
In reality these Holiests of Holies sit not in service of truth over falsehood but in service, rather, to whatever they can get away with to appease and gratify those who own and dominate not only the judges themselves but also the entire society which pretends to or actually does submit to their judgment. And they arrogate unto themselves the power to kill, not in the service of law or truth or virtue, but to the service of those who employ them, as tools, and do so as they have for generation after generation, century after century. The power to kill, on a whim. The power to kill, especially, when a litigant’s ideas threaten the very basis of their own unaccountable, comfortable, profitable and entirely traditional, family-values-right-down-to-that-time-my-gangster-uncle-murdered-a-hobo-who-dirtied-his-shoe-and-ain’t-that-just-the-way-it-is-and-by-god-we-gotta-get-together-and-protect-ourselves foundational power ethic, their perception of and re(ta)l(i)ation to reality.
The statist dreams that the judges will be the best of society in that they are selected and trained by the best of society’s methods. But when the judgement over what those methods ought to be and how those (s)elections ought be carried out is left up to a bunch of people who are highly skilled only in becoming elected officials and playing the statist system to the maximum advantage — rather than to those who must all directly pay the costs and suffer the problems of the system but yet remain able to change it quickly and directly since they are part of it — well, what do you expect? They do not serve truth or justice or virtue over all other things. When they serve those concepts at all, they do so only if — and, often, because — our masters have agreed to stop trying to kill us if we disagree.