The root causes of dystopia are beset by false principles.
Depending on who you ask, the answer to the biggest
questions, such as the nature of right and wrong, what can be justified, and what people ought to do, is always varied. When pressed, most people will mention that
the answers to all the above are relative to the individual and that there are
no objective rights/wrongs/justifications/oughts. However, those same people
will then pronounce that “the greater good” is the most important of all and the
greatest possible good to the most number of people is a noble aspiration.
Without realising it at first, most people will claim that
morals are relative but will then behave like they’re objective while expecting
everyone else around them to acquiesce to their desired ethical system – most
often derived from historical precedent and government legislation. Often,
those historical precedents are misrepresented, misconstrued, or flat-out
fabricated because, as is often the case with macro conflict: history is
written by the victors.
Despite the difficulties in deriving an accurate macro
narrative of worldly proceedings, the myriad of concepts and their
interconnections can be carefully broken down and dissected -- to reveal some
ugly truths about the modern world and expose the architecture that underpins
modern slavery (dystopia).
To begin, let us review the present status quo and how,
seemingly, everyone around the world considers particular concepts to be
self-evident and obvious despite the diversity of religions, politics, cultural
norms, and historical interpretations of events.
Sovereignty
The definition of “sovereign” is having supreme power over
something. In the case of personhood, sovereignty refers to a person’s ability
to have supreme power over their own physical body.
To most people, however, the notion of sovereignty only
applies to groups, nations, and collectives.
It is common parlance to say that a King has authority over
his subjects in a sovereign nation. Meanwhile, subjects (individuals) must
sacrifice their natural rights for the greater good of the nation.
Individuals are prohibited from self-governing because
individuals are considered “social animals” that must live in a large
society under the auspices of the government. It is posited that governments exist
by the people, for the people – but for this to be possible – all individuals
are forcibly included in a social contract they cannot opt out from.
As all experienced legal counselors will know – any contract entered without explicit consent or under duress cannot be valid. However, despite this obvious fact, the social contract is something that every single human being on Earth has entered into at birth, with no ability to opt-out. This means individuals do not retain power over their bodies (sovereignty).
They cannot control their bodies as they see fit
through self-government. They are governed by external authorities, including
government officials, politicians, civil servants, and the like dictating what
actions are permitted, what activities are deemed safe, which endeavors
require permits and licensing, and so on.
Excellent examples would be the ability of an individual to
decide what they can consume, what they can manufacture, and sell. If an
individual does not comply with the dictums of government (democratic or
otherwise), the individual is punished and penalised.
Through a monopoly on force, governments worldwide
have taken up the role of parent for billions of adults. The reasoning is that
people would behave chaotically if the government didn’t exist to stop them.
Most people, regardless of culture or creed, have been convinced that governments
are essential to preserving peace and prosperity, when in fact, governments
violate everyone’s innate natural rights to self-determine, self-govern, and the
right to be left alone.
By convincing people that the interests of “society” are
greater than those of any one individual, manipulative elites have collectivised
swathes of people into shunning and stomping on people that refuse social
norms, the social contract, and collectivism. People who refuse to abide by
government laws, including taxation, licensing, intellectual property, and accepting
nationalistic fervor, are scapegoated as criminals instead of freedom lovers attempting to refuse illegitimate oppression of their innate natural rights
(sovereignty). People are punished for trying to be free.
True Natural Norm: In objective mind-independent terms,
Sovereignty exists only on an individual basis. Only an individual can have
supreme power over a body, and only an individual can own something. Therefore,
supreme power over one’s body can only rest with the individual, and not the
collective like elitist authorities have led everyone to believe.
Every individual must have the ability to retain supreme power over their bodies, and therefore, self-govern as opposed to surrendering their supreme power (sovereignty) to an abstract concept called government. Losing the power to control one’s body is akin to slavery while retaining that power ensures freedom i.e., the ability to carry out a natural right at any time.
Morality/Natural Rights
Most people believe that “rights” are granted by governments
rather than something that exists innately in Nature. When asked whether human
rights are determined or discovered, most people believe rights to be
determined through the most viable form of government people can establish at
the time.
Whether it be religious people thousands of years ago or
atheistic people of today – they all accept that governments (including kings
and queens) are justified in creating and adjusting rights for all human
beings. Therefore, they’re justified in taking them away.
By convincing religious people that governments have been
placed on Earth by God while convincing atheists that governments need to
exist to control chaotic animalistic humans who will resort to all-out chaos – elitist
manipulators have convinced the entire world that natural rights should be
restricted by governments through violence. Without even realising the absurdity
of the notion, most people believe that governments are justified in using
violence to create peace.
True Natural Norm: In fact, natural rights are granted by God through Nature. A natural right is any action able to be completed by a human being that does not violate the sovereignty of another innocent living being. All human beings have innated natural rights which can only be taken away but can never be granted by someone else.
All natural rights lead to “good” moral actions, while an
immoral action cannot be a natural right.
Importantly, any individual can only be responsible for
their own actions and can never be responsible for the actions of someone else.
Culpability/Responsibility
When it comes to personal responsibility, most people seem to believe that an individual is capable of being responsible for and culpable for, the actions of another person. For example, both religious and atheistic people have accepted the notion that if an individual incentivises another person into committing an immoral action – then they’re also, to some degree, culpable for that immoral action despite not actualising it themselves.
Moreover, most people also accept the notion of limited
responsibility if the immoral action they committed was accidental or unintentional.
In other words, when it comes to accepting personal responsibility for their
actions, people are being held to account for what they wanted to happen, as
opposed to what did happen. All courts, whether religious or atheistic
– accept the notion of shared, limited, and diminished responsibility based on a
flawed understanding of how personal responsibility operates.
All individuals are only responsible for their physical actions only. Period. The words they say are not actions, while the thoughts and emotions they harbor are, likewise, not actions. People cannot be held responsible for what they think, say, or feel – they’re only responsible for what they do.
Accepting collective responsibility means all
people are somewhat responsible for the actions of everyone else. Religious
people such as Christians have accepted this flawed principle in its entirety
and often preach how Jesus Christ died for their sins (the very epitome of
shirking personal responsibility and ensuring someone else bears the
consequences of their actions).
If we look at how all modern courts operate, regardless of
nation or law system, we can see that “intention” is what all judges, juries,
prosecutors, and defence lawyers argue about. Instead of focusing on
judging the outcome, all courtroom participants are, instead, focused on what
the defendant intended to happen.
A good example of this concept can be demonstrated with a
thought experiment involving a car accident. Suppose an individual hits an
innocent person while driving their car. In current common law, the prosecution
would be seeking to present a narrative of dangerous driving and incompetence and
to lay as much guilt at the driver’s door as possible. Meanwhile, the defence
attorney will seek to play down any claims of incompetence and point to factors
that diminish responsibility, such as bad weather, faulty brakes, etc. The judge
and jury will be fully ensconced in trying to understand the driver’s motive,
state of mind at the time of the accident, the driver's intentions, and broader
character, to gauge “guilt”. Once the laborious process of analysing
all the “evidence” is complete, the driver will either be guilty of:
a) manslaughter
b) first-degree murder
c) second-degree murder
d) third-degree murder
e) innocent
To what degree the driver is guilty will depend entirely on pieces of information relating to the driver’s intentions.
For example, if the
driver had sent an email to a friend the week previous to the accident that
they were upset with something and intended to commit a hit-and-run on someone –
then this tit-bit of information would be pounced upon by the prosecution and
used to make the case that the driver should receive the maximum penalty of
first-degree murder, given that the crime was premeditated and was not an
accident. Conversely, if a nefarious murderer plans and commits a murder in a
premeditated hit-and-run, there is a strong chance they could – supposing they
were well funded – argue that the car malfunctioned or that the driver had a
medical condition and see their charge reduced from first-degree murder to
unfortunate accident (innocence).
With this approach, it becomes clear why prisons are
full of underprivileged poor petty criminals while wealthier and smarter
criminals simply avoid prison with expensive defence counsel that is expert at
arguing down punishments based on intentions and what the offender intended to
happen. Excellent real-world cases would include OJ Simpson and Oscar Pistorius
– two cases where the current system’s focus on intentionality was used to reduce
blame/culpability for the offender.
In Nature, under the Law of God, justice administered among people must ignore intentions in their entirety. Courts
should simply deliberate on the outcome of the offense only and leave intentionality
out of it. When intentionality is valued higher than the outcome, offenders
will always lie about their intentions to reduce their sentence.
In the case of a car accident, this would mean a
charge of murder is levied (and quickly proved), given that someone has killed
an innocent person. Whether it was an accident or premeditated would be
considered completely irrelevant. Under this system, personal responsibility
would be expected for all endeavors at all times, with no exceptions. Such a
system, although seems draconian on so-called accidents, would ensure
that malicious actors couldn’t take advantage of intentions to avoid
accountability.
On discrimination
When it comes to “discrimination”, most people have been led to believe that discriminating against someone based on some factors is wrong, while on other factors, it is entirely right.
For example, people are told they
are OK with discriminating based on race when it comes to their personal dating
habits, but when it comes to doing business with someone, it is unethical
to discriminate based on race. The same goes for employers. They are OK to discriminate
based on education, intelligence, past experience, and language ability but are
unethical to discriminate based on race or sex.
The reality is that discrimination, i.e., the freedom to associate
with whoever, whenever, is a natural human right. Any individual can discriminate
against any other individual based on any criteria they choose. This basic
human right is currently being assaulted on all sides and in all countries, with
notions of “racism” and “sexism” being hailed as examples of poor quality human
beings that are venting “hate”. These so-called bigoted racists are simply voicing
their preferences with free speech and freedom of association and should not be
insulted or threatened for doing so.
As the famous adage goes: Sticks and stones can break your
bones, but words can never hurt you.
On shared responsibility
As is the case in all courts of law (and in religious dogma), it is the individual who is judged for their personal actions – not the actions of other people. It is completely absurd to judge a group for something because it is only individuals who are capable of “action”. Therefore, an individual cannot be held responsible for someone else’s actions.
For example, most people currently assume that if an individual
incentivises someone else to commit a crime by giving them money – then they
are also held at least partially accountable for the crime committed. Although
this may seem intuitively correct, the reality is that by accepting this
notion, one must also accept “collective culpability” – a situation whereby it
is possible for everyone to be partially culpable for everything that happens
to everyone. True collectivism.
To demonstrate the point, imagine a bank robber, who upon being
caught for their crime of theft and violence, explains to the police how he was
given a gun by his friend called Michael, was then driven to the scene by his
friend Steve, was given bullets by his friend Tom and who was given a place to hide
from the police by Rob and not forgetting Tony who helped the bank robber hide
his loot. According to the modern-day understanding of responsibility, not only
would the bank robber be culpable for the bank robbery, but his band of associates
would also be considered responsible, and therefore, everyone would be liable
for prison time.
In reality, it was only the bank robber who was responsible/culpable
for anything because he did the direct action of stealing. All his so-called accomplices are being bundled into guilt and sharing in the bank robber's unitary guilt.
Property rights
Currently, most people believe that to own something and for it to be justifiably one's "property", one must obtain a deed/title to the object, which is therefore considered theirs. If one wants to own a new bicycle, one will have to procure a bicycle legally and without harming anyone. The acquisition can occur through money or an alternative means of exchange. The bicycle could be gifted, donated, or even re-claimed after being abandoned by its previous owner. It is important to note that ownership is simply ascribed to the individual who bears a receipt, a deed, or a title to the item. The current status quo effectively allows one individual to own multiple bicycles and, therefore, applies to all other items.
In the case of real estate, one must obtain a title deed for
each property they own and could potentially own multiple properties worldwide
without ever even setting foot in any of them.
The status quo for a property is that individuals can lawfully
own millions of hectares of land and, thereby, obtain effective control of one
of the most essential parts of human life -- one's home. The status quo allows
wealthy property owners to buy up increasingly more land, with economies of
scale serving as a multiplier effect. With such a system, all individuals are forced
into a property arms race, with most poorer individuals necessarily
losing out to the few richer landlords.
Importantly, the current system prevents individuals from
occupying new land because all land has already been claimed and is technically
“owned” which means trespassers are justifiably removed and prevented
from settling.
As an alternative approach, property rights may simply be an
extension of an individual’s sovereignty. In other words, an item can be
claimed as legitimate “owned” property if, and only if, the item is morally
acquired and actively maintained, the individual owner bears responsibility for
its use and is in the physical presence of the item.
This would mean that land (or any other item) can only be claimed as rightfully owned property if an individual is physically present and can see its entirety. Therefore, individuals could not claim more than what their eyes could see, or their bodies could reasonably maintain. A farmer seeking to grow crops could claim as far as the horizon in all directions as a maximum property claim. If the farmer were to vacate his farmhouse and leave the vicinity, even for a brief period, then their property would be unoccupied and could be claimed by someone else. If the individual would like to retain his land holding, he could leave a guard dog or a friend/family member who would take on ownership of the property until it is returned to the original owner upon their return.
For Whom the Bell Tolls
In current times, four specific misconstrued concepts serve as the foundations for dystopia:
- Collective sovereignty
- Shared responsibility
- Man-made rights
- Artificial property rights
Noticeably, all four pillars have been accepted by all cultures, religions, and governments throughout history. No nation has seen an alternative approach to the four principles above. Not a single philosopher or political leader even bothers to debate these concepts because of the assumption that they’re non-debatable accepted facts of life.
Anyone who questions the pillars of dystopia is considered kooky and worthy of ridicule. Systems of government that have lasted thousands of years and that have caused innumerable problems to millions of people are propped up by these foundations.
Most people consider these foundations to be essential for prosperity, security, and order, when in fact, they are the bedrock of the dystopia plaguing the world.
Written by George Tchetvertakov
