Solutions can only be considered once the problem is agreed upon.
When analysing problems and seeking solutions, it is essential to maintain a justifiable perspective. In other words, when considering what ought and ought not to be and the nature of right and wrong, it is essential to ask: by whose perspective is something justified?
For example, if an adult refuses to eat -- is it justifiable to force him to eat so that he doesn't suffer ill effects, including starvation and death? Is it justified to keep food from him? Is it justified to give him food for free? Is it justified to sell him food at an exorbitant price? Is offering him a degrading job in exchange for food justified?
The answers to all these questions will ultimately be related to who's perspective counts most. It would seem that "justification" depends on perspective, but then again, justification may well be entirely objective and completely mind-independent.
In other words, to understand what justification actually means, it is important to objectify it. Providing endless perspectives simply leads to an arbitrary and highly subjective accounting of events including aspects such as responsibility, culpability, guilt and blame.
To illustrate how flawed justifications are routinely being used around the world, I have taken the liberty of identifying four root problems that underpin today's modern society. A society that has seen its moral values shift over time through sequential government change and shifting consensus.
From problem to solution
As described below, there are four key problems underpinning modern society. Problems of both perspective and principle alike.
Let's go through these four root problems to see why they're causing such as mess in broader society.
|1| Intentions and Outcomes
When it comes to evaluating events, including people's choices, most people seem to miss what really matters and focus on what doesn't.
Today, people have become accustomed to thinking emotionally and have become habituated to judging people's intentions rather than the outcomes of their actions.
A good example would be the world's court systems and how they adjudicate various crimes. It is perfectly normal for someone to be in court because their actions led to the death of an innocent person, only to be set free after the defendant pleads good intentions and makes a compelling case for why they didn't intend to do what they did.
Currently, probably the best case in point would be how soldiers or private militia are judged based on their intentions, not their actions. If a soldier is trying to attack a guilty terrorist, but accidentally kills an innocent child, his actions are considered "regrettable" while the outcomes are labelled as "collateral damage".
 |
| Comparison of pro-Palestinian media (left) and pro-Israeli media (right) including the same root problems of justification. |
Pleading good intentions is also a common defence tactic employed by average citizens when explaining car and industrial accidents, machining mishaps, man-made environmental disasters and even financial crimes are all likely to be argued down and excused based on good intentions.
|2| Responsibility is not for sharing
Contrary to popular belief, sharing is not caring, when it comes to responsibility for one's actions.
As a simple thought experiment, imagine Andy giving Bob a brick and asking him to throw it through a window.
If Bob goes ahead and throws the brick -- is it only Bob who is responsible for the thrown brick/broken window or is it both Bob and Andy? Are Bob and Andy responsible the the same degree? Could there be someone else responsible? What if Charlie had given Andy the brick first?
The root problem is that most people think Andy and Bob are both responsible. Not only that, there could be cases where they think Andy is even MORE responsible despite not doing the act. Don't forget that according to pop culture ethics, it was actually the upper-ups in high command who were more responsible for the deaths of Jews in WWII, less so the people who actually did the acts (soldiers).
Good examples here could include soldiers (again) and extreme nationalism. When an individual soldier from one country does something harmful, it is considered completely moral to take revenge on any other soldier. This is because responsibility for the original harm is being shared and collectivised to the point of the group being considered as the entity that committed the action in the first place.
The same goes for gangs, family feuds and, nowadays, the whole notion of 'identity politics' is a perfect example of how responsibility for faraway actions is being shared among multiple people.
|3| The Power to Rule
As things stand, people believe the definition of Sovereignty to be "the authority of a state to govern itself" when it should be "the authority of an individual to govern their body". An alternative could be "one who is above the rulership or control of another".
As you can see, possibly even the biggest root problem of them all is the fact that people think it's entirely normal for people to be ruled by others. Despite this being completely perverse and undesirable, too many people continue to insist that government is a necessary evil that must exist.
The actual reality is that the only justifiable form of government is self-government (anarchy) whereby every individual sets guidelines (laws) for themselves only without interfering in anyone else's governance of their respective bodies.
Bottom line, no one should have power over anyone else. It isn't justified for anyone to force their Will on someone else, regardless of their utilitarian, religious or otherwise excuses and exclamations. Moreover, every adult should have the ability to say no to anything. If considered closely, it's probably not in your best interest to say yes to something, if you can't say no to it first.
|4| Property is King
Believe it or not, the vast majority of people on Earth do not actually own the land their homes are on. Despite paying off a mortgage or inheriting land, people must still pay property tax and given other tweaks of globally common property law, it means they still live like defacto serfs in feudalist times.
The fact remains that large old-fashioned landowners with lineages spanning back hundreds of years, including earls, dukes, royalty, the aristocracy and dark nobility own all the land while all the serfs, even rich ones that manage Fortune 500 companies, must still submit to their superiors if and when ordered to do so.
Feudalist times have not come to an end. Far from it.
In reality, today's property laws mean someone with access to money, can accumulate millions of square miles of land with ownership entitled in perpetuity. Combined with corporate and private law, the actual owners of huge swathes of land can remain hidden among funds, trusts, noble lineages, heraldic traditions, shell companies and private estates.
Over time, this clearly creates a problem in that just a few individuals and their families have accumulated all the prime real estate around the world over thousands of years. Meanwhile, the simple fact that the law allows people to own things they never see or visit means lords of the land can grow incredibly large, and incredibly fast. And stay there. To the point of all land being owned before any of us were even born.
Such monopolistic property laws need not exist. They are the confabulations of men, hellbent on dominating the world.
There is a better way and it could work by the notion of 'property' being given some clear distinctions and natural restrictions.
For example, we could live in a world where property is classified as something which is yours because you have a)obtained it without governing someone else, b)continue to actively maintain it through servicing it, c)you are responsible for it, and d)you are in visual sight of it.
Under these alternative property laws, it would be impossible to say that you own something if you are nowhere near it. It would also mean that if you were to walk away from your sandwich to the point of not being able to see it anymore, then you would lose your right to call it your property.
In other words, your claim over that property has come to an end because you abandoned it.
Big problems, easy solutions
Solving the four root problems of the modern day isn't that easy, but it's not that tough either.
It just takes a bit of honesty, a little faith in individuals' ability to self-govern, and for individuals to start taking responsibility for their actions. More broadly, it requires less collectivist thinking and a lot more self-governance which ultimately means people must start taking full responsibility for all their direct actions -- only. They shouldn't be held accountable for their thoughts, words or emotions. And neither should they be held accountable for what other people do, just what they did themselves.
Despite the persistent propaganda that governments are the bastion of safety and security, the harsh reality remains that governments have been the root causes of some of the biggest abominations in modern times -- namely terrorism, conscription, wars, imperialism and COVID lockdowns.
The most recent governmental transgressions alone should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that governments are not in the business of improving or protecting people's lives.
The aim of any government is to control the masses by restricting their natural rights and then forcibly parenting people as if they were still children. And all the while, continually fanning fears that a life without government could only lead to chaos and violence. The truth is entirely the reverse.
Governments create chaos through violence, and its prohibition leads to order and peace.
Written by George Tchetvertakov
