A Real Whodunnit
About you:
Classical ethics are an attempt to qualify the rational authority of public office in the sense that scientific reality must be the uncontested will of the gods, and interpret this truth to define what sets man apart from the beasts and justifies any one man or group of men ruling over any other. This means that no number of votes cast by the unwashed masses should be mistaken for the power to legislate contrary to the eternal truths of the natural universe. Traveled men know that the earth is round, and abusing the public powers granted to a rational authority to officially deny what can be predictably demonstrated by any two men of science, in any language, with no prior affiliation to each other, is antithetical to the basis for the power to do so. The power to mandate law over the public is tolerated only on the basis that its intended purposes are clear to the men voting on its ratification, having been debated in their presence by men qualified to do so.
Democracy is sometimes misconstrued as granting the authority to act against the public interest by obscuring the intended purpose of the law under superfluous and convoluted language which can be interpreted a number of ways to allow plausible deniability - the legal argument that the spirit and intent of the law was honorable and just but was misinterpreted in its enforcement, or that a politician was unaware of the purpose of legislation for which he voted and its consequences to the public. However it goes without saying that we could have done better than that without all the time, money, effort and drama of an election. Democratic authority is not absolute and irrefutable, it relies on the popular perception that the electorate are well educated and resourceful enough to act on behalf of a constituency with better uses for their time. This is further complicated by a lack of regulatory awareness of corporate, foreign, speculative, or hostile powers using economic pressure or criminal influence to manipulate the electoral process, thereby diminishing its integrity and creating a logical challenge to the assertion of authority by every member of that governing institution.
Regardless of the eternal and immediate divine rite of sovereign nobility, no public office has the legitimacy to undermine the rule of reason upon which their assertion of authority is founded, as having done so negates the logical premise for suffering any one man or group of men to rule over any other. This means that any elected official who rejects reasonable discourse, such as to persecute political opposition, presents a practical challenge to the authority of their institution of government and every office thereof in whose legislative power they share as individual parts of a system which only functions as a whole. The cultural satire normalizing buffoonery and desensitizing the public to the real and irreversible consequences of elected ineptitude in matters of state is not universally protected by our Constitution, and the rights to freedom of speech, religion and assembly are not subject to the failure of a sideshow government to guarantee freedom of our press. This should be viewed in anticipation of our prerogative to act on our own behalf if that freedom is not respected as exclusive to the marketplace. The power to enforce freedom of the press is derived from election by the voters who pay for the information they provide, so the media is accountable for allowing the subversion of democracy by holding the public enthralled and susceptible to exploitation in matters of government. There is a clear and unambiguous line between entertainment and current events, and the mass-media ratings system must not be left unprotected from the arbitrary manipulation of ratings to encourage sensationalism and attract an audience or subvert the democratic process. The government has to be trusted not to diminish the gravity of its own authority by enacting laws which are either or both logically paradoxical or beyond the scope of its power to enforce.
Since using public authority to intimidate the press or subvert its prerogative is specifically excluded from constitutional protections, the intent of the spirit in which it was written must be presumed to take for granted that the marketplace decides where to obtain information from and what to vote for. Any publisher considered untrustworthy by the political constituency making up its marketplace is accountable in terms of revenue lost in that marketplace, therefore foreign investment in the media outlets carrying election campaign coverage presents a violation of free trade and freedom of the press, which is protected by us here, on the land. Democracy is constantly and completely accountable to the voters of the land upon which the government is empowered to represent them, and not free to ignore any failure to protect free trade for the citizens from whom it derives authority by virtue of election, and upon whose tax revenue they rely regardless of campaign contributors. So freedom of the press is not a holy writ for hostile foreign and criminal entities to invoke in the intentional misinformation of voters for political or personal gain. Election campaigning is not a capitalist venture for investors to speculate in without being held accountable to the financial repercussions of losing the voters as customers. If the media can't compete in a free market without becoming a target for hostile takeover by parties not beholden to our protections, its trade protections are already being violated. In contrast to the artistic license enjoyed by the free market entertainment industry, freedom of the public press must not be mistaken for freedom to undermine democracy and free trade.
The Republic was established to prevent the popular majority from acting inadvertently against its own best interests, thereby protecting minorities from legislation which is more lucrative to apply universally. Individual public election, establishing consent of the governed, creates the premise for official participation in the constitutionally limited process of contributing to the law, it does not provide total diplomatic immunity for the duration of the term to fleece them on behalf of commercial enterprise. Any deviation from the inherent stipulations of democracy constitutes action outside the scope of its authority to enforce or protect, supporting a rational suspicion that some other form of authority is asserting a claim to this land. Such an authority is defined by our Constitution as alien to our people and not subject to the mutual protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It should be regarded as a challenge to the validity of the Declaration of Independence and imminently actionable for restoration to ethically defensible democracy by any conscientious means necessary which is economically viable toward the fair and meaningful guarantee of public credit and fulfilment of its treaties.
In other words, this system is not only ridiculous and embarrassing to be associated with, it is illegal, and liable to be held accountable to, and in accordance with, the spirit and letter of international law. Certain protections established by the Geneva Convention to prevent the international sovereign district where our government is hosted from the threat of military incursion, as well as eliminate that argument as a potential defense in a war crimes tribunal, may be argued to be obsolete and unenforceable by virtue of its apparent failure until such time as it may be restored to a democratic system such as the treaties were meant to protect. Providing any such action achieves that objective decisively and in a such a way as to be argued after the fact as less morally questionable than allowing this disgrace to continue in our name, no formal declaration of war is necessary under the language of the U.S. Constitution.
Comments
Post a Comment