Hmm. Humans. Highly hypocritical multi-cellular organisms. If you want to experience what being a human is like, just think of how it might feel to be hit over the head with a wet newspaper. The initial response may be adequately justified by your intrinsic and natural propensity to feel scared. Defense. As you subsequently notice, the experience isn’t as traumatic as it may have appeared to be at first. Getting hit in the head with a wet newspaper is a very melodramatic experience leaving the victim drenched in stale water, feeling slightly confused as to why this is happening in the first place. Well, so much for an introduction.
I found the above to be interesting enough to use as a segway into the continuation of the topics previously left undiscussed (in detail). Lawyers, and corporate/capitalistic consumption.
I’m going to attack the first, if not like a hungry dog picking at a three-week old bone, but like an overfed persian cat purring with satisfaction after noticing her territory has been invaded by toxic vermin, mice. Lawyers, yes, they’re everwhere, and for some unorthodox reason, some of us just can’t stand it. But what is that that we can’t stand? Is it possibly that some of them (not all) make truckloads of cash, that they are aware of the system and because of such are aware of how to subsequently manipulate it? It could be. The legal system is complex, yes, no doubt it is: to a person not fully aware of it. Laws are passed down from government, an elected body representative of the populace at large (justified by open and free elections). Those born to a particular system, as for example in Dubai or Sierra Leone, or Perth, Australia, are constrained by the extent to which the framing of the legal system has been designed to either encourage or discourage certain public and private behaviour. We elect, restrain. Without even attempting to attack the lawyer dilemma, it should first be mentioned that it is our first and foremost duty to be aware of the available statuatory law in our presiding constituency (i.e. country) – why bother living in a democracy, a fascist totalitarian regime, of right wing extremes would suffice your needs just as well, if not better.
Lawyers know the law, and how much money they make has to do with how much they know, a correlation, but not absolute. Instead of being dragged in infamy, they should be celebrated as protectors of democratic rights. I’m being abstract. The purpose of my rant is not merely abstract though. I am absolutely mind boggled at how many common day consumers pass through the market blindfoled, being picked on my large business and bullied into entering agreements they themselves have little knowledge of what they may entail. To further exacerbate the problems, consumers shy away at the idea of “corporate discipline.” Not punishment by force, but at a grassroot level, punishment by a whole host of other selective behaviour designed to indirectly affect the aggressors. It seems that growing teeth has become taboo in common society, that being bland, sheepish and subservient to big business, is acceptable and broadly (and handsomly) rewarded.
Government and legal institutions are on a broad basis, enable certain behaviour. When we say law is enabling, we’re only including half the picture. The other half is that it’s also disabling: that what it enables is a selective process, driven many times by statuatory regulations and are generally driven to tweak the market in order to achieve greater efficiency. What I sense, though, is a tendency towards making big business the winner, and the consumer (or the environment) the loser. Big business takes in the profits, consumers are mere means to ends, objects in and of themselves unable to break free from the grasp of problems.
Yes, we live in a capitalist system, understood. Yes, governments are going to promote the perpetuation of the aforementioned and disregard, or shove under the rug, the potential disaster hiding in the closet. What used to be the feudal lord, further the sovereign king and now the veil of democracy against which a plethora of monarchial business lords and their oligarch cousins reign supreme. Nothing new, right, nothing new.
The latest “media blowjob,” Paris Hilton, has already dumbed down this country/continent to a level of inconceived ignorance (the new credit) and dangerous insecurity leading to instability, volatility and mass hysteria. Business, legitimated by a pseudo-democratic process, is the new tyrant; but everyone seems to like it, if not loathe it (in which case, for king and country). Media and propaganda aside, it is only after the consumer understands his role and position in the market, their rights and the ways in which those can be enforced, notwithstanding demands made on the legal system to modify, include or extend potential deficiencies, that big business can attract a more ethical and moral approach to their current hoarding.
Regulation at the universal institutional level may work, but, when the government is pro business, it isn’t trivial. What furthers the problem is that the government has a duty and a responsibility towards the saftety and economic well being of its citizens, without mentioning basic human rights conditions. So then, how compelled is the government to disable some of its pro business enabling statutes and laws, or perhaps, the question is more applicable if one asks if the government should even attempt to deviate from this critical role.
More on that next time.