Haven't posted in a long time; the world and the Nation seem so tumultuous as to defy any reasonable discussion...on any level or any subject. But...I finally have come to believe that to do nothing is to approve of what is...even to encourage it. The other side of the coin is that if you do not have a better idea, then perhaps you should hold your criticism(s) until you do have something better to offer. Be that as it may, we all might want to at least be aware of and deal with the matter in my heading.
Each of us view the definition and needs of personal security differently, but the one universal seems to be that we value our personal freedoms and do not wish others to impede or subtract from the baseline that we currently possess. Consistency demands that we honor the converse: that we should not expect to invade others' space or interfere with their freedoms.
At some level each of us also value and have an expectation of truthfulness toward and from others, including our institutions (government, schools, Courts, business enterprises.
At the beginning of the last century, our business enterprises operated within national borders; their identified with the nation in which they operated and supported the general national interests, aligning with the national sense of patriotism. In the last 70 years that has changed. And the change poses dangers to the concepts of national identity and national patriotism.
The largest and most powerful business enterprises on the planet operate across national borders, most (if not all) making profits from both sales and manufacturing in disparate countries throughout the planet. They have no allegiance to any particular country. Oh, they claim to care; their public statements of their Owners, Officers and in their Press Releases claim allegiance...but to each nation in which the statement is issued. Clearly this is a propaganda issue, not a truth issue. Each company is concerned ONLY with profits. Anything that interferes with profits is their enemy. That means that ALL ELSE holds no consistent place of value. Clearly allegiance is toward whatever will positively impact profits...and is fleeting at best. Once the profit element has been secured, there will be neither allegiance nor memory of any such thing.
Under this set of unassailable facts, shouldn't EVERY nation-state consider that every business enterprise be viewed, regardless of national origin, as a non-citizen? Shouldn't each enterprise be required to meet criteria and standards in a proven way and not given the presumptive standing of "citizen?"
Enterprises such as Google, Micro-soft, Amazon and Nike (and many more) currently show more concern about the welfare of China than of the United States. But, you say, those are American companies (with the emphasis on "American"). Not anymore. Follow the money. Follow the power. And any payoffs are a threat regardless of size or scope; there is no such thing as being a "little bit" pregnant. Does anyone think that the proximity of Google, Amazon and Nike offices with multitudes of employees in the Northwest has nothing to do with main cities in that area harboring felons and illegals contrary to United States law? Those companies and their employees see themselves as superior to and having no allegiance to the United States of America. And other countries are having the same experiences.
As of now, each multi-national plays nation-states against each other to obtain financial and regulatory advantages. That is to be expected. But none of these countries are consistent in recognizing (and trying to control the effects of) the threat to their borders, to their government, to their citizens' freedom. Why?
It would be easy...and nice...to state that our governments just aren't as aware of this, or are preoccupied with more important things. Hogwash! Does anyone not question how one can run for public office with relatively low personal wealth, hold elected office for decades at a relatively low salary lever, yet retire with millions in assets? This state of affairs has existed for more than a century, yet the media doesn't care and clearly the governments' Inspector Generals don't care either, even in the face of public inquiries. Why?
One opinion would be that despite the wording of Oaths of Office, laws, and conscience, the awarding of money and/or power constitute bribes more powerful than the concepts of truth, honor, promises, and/or conscience.
So...the ultimate question is how strongly do citizens feel about allowing their freedoms and security to be eroded, dissipated and perhaps even at some point eliminated.
Logic would suggest that the American citizen (and citizens of all the countries of the world) demand of their governments changes that would first arrest and second deminish the power that multi-national companies now enjoy; that such business enterprises not be allowed to fly under the radar of public accountability and not the private accountability of being able to "pay off" those who stand in their way.
Government exists because WE delegate to it power and authority. Perhaps we should consider voiding that delegation and start over?
Showing posts with label illegal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label illegal. Show all posts
Monday, November 11, 2019
Saturday, December 17, 2016
A Government may be legal...and still be illegitimate
The United States has just gone through an intense election and the European Union is seeing its member nations involved in an almost universal crisis of confidence in membership in that union.
Most of us have been angry, disturbed or perhaps just uncomfortable with actions that have been judged by our respective national justice systems to be legal even as we "knew" that they were wrong. Sometimes this has been because of badly worded laws, sometimes because of very good defenses coupled with inadequate or inept prosecutions (or the reverse), and sometimes because it seemed as everyone was so very worried about the individual tree as the forest was left to burn or wither.
In America Free Speech, originally defined to mean that there could, with rare exceptions, not be prevention of the right to say something, has become defined as meaning that whatever and however something is said, there shall be no consequences for it. That is just a perversion of the original intent. No longer is it necessary to be certain that your speech is a truthful statement lest you be brought into court for libeling someone...say whatever you want. This may be legal...but any sane person would suggest that such action should be judged as illegitimate.
The legal system in America has become a tool to enable people to avoid consequences for doing and saying illegitimate things. Just one example is the treatment of those entering and remaining in our country illegally. Our Constitution is a contract between its government and its citizens; it basically establishes that the government will protect its citizens and the country's borders and the citizens will obey the laws that govern the land. How on earth does any person or group who has NOT obeyed the laws of the United States get the right to claim that the government provide them the protections promised to its citizens? Those here illegally come to the table as non-parties to the contract and, moreover, they come with unclean hands, having already broken the laws that a citizen, as part of the contract, agrees to obey and abide by.
In France, the people voted NOT to join the European Union...but somehow (who know by what technical legal maneuvers) they are a member. The fact that France's politicians have done something that they argue was legal, does not make it legitimate. All over the world, the increased ability to communicate without prior constraint by governments is revealing to the people that their governments are run for the self-defined elites of each country, that the citizens are being made to support the lives of elites who care not one wit for the citizenry.
Strange that the elites seem unable to understand why the people are upset, angry and growing closer and closer to violence each day. How quickly the elites around the world forget the lessons of the Russian and French revolutions, among many others. When the government(s) show contempt for the law or use it for their own privileged purposes, why should they not understand that the citizens will see that they need to act in their own interests regardless of the laws, in the same way that the politicians have done to mistreat the citizens, to regain control of their own lives.
Those in power can only avoid "consequences" for so long before they must account. And the longer they delay that accounting, the more extreme the consequences.
Most of us have been angry, disturbed or perhaps just uncomfortable with actions that have been judged by our respective national justice systems to be legal even as we "knew" that they were wrong. Sometimes this has been because of badly worded laws, sometimes because of very good defenses coupled with inadequate or inept prosecutions (or the reverse), and sometimes because it seemed as everyone was so very worried about the individual tree as the forest was left to burn or wither.
In America Free Speech, originally defined to mean that there could, with rare exceptions, not be prevention of the right to say something, has become defined as meaning that whatever and however something is said, there shall be no consequences for it. That is just a perversion of the original intent. No longer is it necessary to be certain that your speech is a truthful statement lest you be brought into court for libeling someone...say whatever you want. This may be legal...but any sane person would suggest that such action should be judged as illegitimate.
The legal system in America has become a tool to enable people to avoid consequences for doing and saying illegitimate things. Just one example is the treatment of those entering and remaining in our country illegally. Our Constitution is a contract between its government and its citizens; it basically establishes that the government will protect its citizens and the country's borders and the citizens will obey the laws that govern the land. How on earth does any person or group who has NOT obeyed the laws of the United States get the right to claim that the government provide them the protections promised to its citizens? Those here illegally come to the table as non-parties to the contract and, moreover, they come with unclean hands, having already broken the laws that a citizen, as part of the contract, agrees to obey and abide by.
In France, the people voted NOT to join the European Union...but somehow (who know by what technical legal maneuvers) they are a member. The fact that France's politicians have done something that they argue was legal, does not make it legitimate. All over the world, the increased ability to communicate without prior constraint by governments is revealing to the people that their governments are run for the self-defined elites of each country, that the citizens are being made to support the lives of elites who care not one wit for the citizenry.
Strange that the elites seem unable to understand why the people are upset, angry and growing closer and closer to violence each day. How quickly the elites around the world forget the lessons of the Russian and French revolutions, among many others. When the government(s) show contempt for the law or use it for their own privileged purposes, why should they not understand that the citizens will see that they need to act in their own interests regardless of the laws, in the same way that the politicians have done to mistreat the citizens, to regain control of their own lives.
Those in power can only avoid "consequences" for so long before they must account. And the longer they delay that accounting, the more extreme the consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)