Following Rules

There exists a dilemma in governing. In the age of the Cold War between good ol' American freedom and the Communists, it was commonly expressed that Communism, while a nice ideal, was atrocious in practice. It led to corruption amongst the empowered and laziness within the proletariate. Socialism lost a lot of steam through the Germans, and today we are in the midst of the erosion of faith in unhinged capitalistic greed. It would seem then, that from these examples, there exists no form of government, no philosophy or code of ethics, that is free from corruption and abuse. As stated in previous installments, the ideals behind the Christian church institutions - noble and beautiful as they are - have been overshadowed by the abhorrent acts committed by those in the high command within the institution.

The rules and guidelines set by these philosophies of capitalism, socialism and communism cannot be judged as the impetus which creates corruption, but that corrupt agents acting within the system, abuse and erode the moral fibre which the initial institutors intended. The guidelines are tools to be used, roads to be traversed, for an assumed decent general population to act within to ensure prosperity. Knowing that a system that sets forth a list of rules could be corrupted, the philosophy is always amended by a justice system - another set of rules and philosophies to administer reparations.

However, as we have just learned from the HSBC debacle in which the U.S government chose to not pursue criminal charges against a bank accused of moving funds for terrorist organizations and drug cartels, (instead opting for a superficial, mostly ceremonial fine of a few months profit) the system of justice can be abused as well.

The rules then, are tools to be used. How one uses that tool is open to interpretation. Take a hammer for instance. A hammer can be used to construct something, or it can be used to destroy something. A screwdriver can be used to make something more sturdy, or it can be used to stab someone in the eye. A woodchopper can be used to clear debris from a tree fallen on a road, or can be used to dispose of state's witnesses and other assorted minions from Jackie Chan films.

When a person violates a rule, they are to be punished. The rule would allow an avenging party to commit acts against the guilty party, that they (being ideally, perfectly good citizens) would normally not commit. If I may be perfectly honest, I find rules to be absolutely ridiculous. A good person needs no rules because they will be considerate enough to not allow their actions to negatively effect others. A bad person will not consider rules that will obstruct their means, and use rules in their favor to further exploit other law-abiding citizens. By this logic, rules then are ideally designed to guide those "middle-grounders" who have yet to make up their mind, again ideally, towards a life of goodness and morality. However, those agents who wish to sway the "middle-grounder in question" may be themselves moral or immoral people, who will use guidelines to suit their own needs. While it is easy to see how a moral individual can use guidelines like the outlaw of murder to convince someone not to kill, it may be more difficult for one to show how those rules can be used to encourage someone to kill. Allow me to demonstrate: It is simply a matter of pointing out the hypocrisy in a governing nation's attempt to ban murder or (for the sake of contemporary issues) assault weapons. In pointing out the hypocrisy of the governing entity, the rule then can be dismissed as an agent of the hypocritical entity. This is how angry atheists tend to belittle those of faith.

Watch out, here come some high flying semantics...

Is it not ridiculous that Americans be given the right to bear arms, but that the government try to keep their arms at a consistently higher caliber? Is this not effectively disarming the public? I may say, "You can have a knife, but only I can carry a sword," to which you may disagree, but how heartily can you disagree when I am the one with the sword? If we are not to kill, then why is it that the government is allowed to deploy the army to kill? If you were to join the army and then slaughter a village in the name of patriotism, would you not be awarded some medal of valor? What makes a casualty of "extended-military-conflict" different from a casualty of war, or a murder victim? Consider for a moment the drone program. Is it not enough that we as a public can be drone-stricken at any moment, but that we must also not be allowed to fire more than ten bullets in a row?

Please keep in mind, that these are all stupid arguments only capable of swaying faulty-minded utilitarians, and those who already wish to break the rule in question. In no way do I believe any of the arguments I have just presented, I simply wish to demonstrate how one might use the hypocrisy of rules with a splash of semantics to encourage one to disregard the rule of law, using the rules in law. Killing is wrong. Murder is murder. I love Barack Obama and all his crazy ass death drones. See the first installment for more.

What we need is not more rules and punishments, but to cultivate within ourselves a trust in our Jimminy Crickets. Mr. Cricket, in the real world, is a much more vengeful spirit. We are all outraged by injustices. If you were to go out on a Saturday night and you saw an abrasive, drunk man push his wife or girlfriend to the pavement, most of us would experience a blood crawling urge to push that man back. However, it is the general rule, that the police are the party responsible for that abusive man's actions, and therefore any interference on your part is an obstruction of that justice. This is reality, and it is stupid. The police never arrive in time. The police may even be there, and choose to do nothing.

Story time: Once upon a time, I was walking home with my friend Tim. A small Asian man named Irwin punched me in the face while walking across the street. He then proceeded to throw his friends, who happened to be tiny Asian girls to the ground. (Let's overlook the part where a group of four Asian girls tried to defend my honor) As this is happening, a patrol car drives by. They did not stop. They flashed their lights and said through the megaphone, "Get out of the road." Then they drove on.

In respect to the area in which we live: The Bay Area is probably one of the greatest places in the world. However, it does contain some of the highest unsolved murder rates in the nation. We cannot rely solely on the police department to protect us in a time of threat. This is not an advocacy for gun ownership. Guns are silly. This is an advocacy for acting on that natural instinct to defend goodness itself. It is a power that seems to take very little energy, yet projects an incredible effect.

Story time: I knew a girl named Crystal. Several years ago, we were walking around town, and a guy cat called her from his truck. She was mid-sentence, and I wasn't entirely sure what was said to her (although from the tone, I could infer the gist). With no effort at all - the kind of reaction that takes place when you tap the knee with a joint hammer - she flung her whole body around and screamed at the guy that he could not talk to her in that way. It was an explosion that took me, and half the block off guard. I could feel the volume of her retort in the back of my spine.

These kinds of angry outbursts are, in hindsight, viewed as forms of courage. In another instance I was recently informed of, a good friend of mine was standing in line for coffee while a dissatisfied patron was verbally abusing the barista. Partially out of hunger, but mostly out of disgust for the treatment of the barista, my good friend Ellen not only stood up for the barista, but verbally accosted the dissatisfied patron back. Like Crystal, this action of verbal outburst, in this context, is an act of courage. It is an act of defense for something noble, whether it be dignity for a fellow human being, or the dignity of one's self. It would in fact seem, from my own personal experience, that withholding these kinds of defenses and calls to action, exhibit a greater amount of energy. It takes more out of a person to hold their tongue, and to allow an injustice to pass by.

In a similar respect, if a person were to intervene on behalf of the wife having been pushed to the pavement by her husband, they would be seen as a courageous individual defending someone from harm. There would be little to no public backlash if that individual were to administer a severe blow to the head, a blast of pepper-spray, or the shock of a taser. It was in the name of defending a helpless individual.

Conversely however, if the perpetrator had already been incapacitated, or offered no further resistance, and that force was re-applied, then it moves from an act of retribution and defense, and moves into the realms of grim indulgence in violence. There is the reality of individuals who join certain branches of the military with the sole intention of finding a legal means of exercising death. This kind of violence, even if administered against a heinous criminal, is wrong for it is done for the wrong reason. Yes, we should enjoy our work, but in dealing with justice, one must enjoy justice, not administering punishment. In regards to the abuses in Abu Grahib, the offensive components of the photographs came not from the strange stress positions the prisoners were put in, but from the perceived enjoyment the personal seemed to receive from administering that punishment. We as a public were well aware that far worse forms of torture and prisoner abuse had been in practice through the reports from Guantanamo Bay, and while there were no pictures, it would still seem as though that most of the offense could be attributed to the fact that the military police seemed to so enjoy the humiliation of the inmates.

There is no lesson attached to this segment. Good people will follow rules because they are good people. Bad people will break the rules because they don't really care. True "middle-grounders" will not be swayed towards morality or its opposite by the rules themselves, but by the agents which present a convincing enough rhetoric or life experience. There is no perfect government, because a government is a mechanism operated by its imperfect users. It is not the external tool we must try to perfect, but the agent and internal operator who must improve.