Democracy Lost.

As a society, we appear to have abdicated any rights to critical thinking by allowing the law to become the only arbiter of right and wrong. If something has been done that is technically legal, then its correctness is apparently also ensured. We are burdened by the requirements of democracy and have decided to individually submit to a tyranny so complete that I am not sure it will be possible to reverse course. Nevermind that those in power are there for reasons that would not qualify as representative no matter the model. The laws that are created have become the ultimate arbiter of human behavior; breaking those laws the only information required for condemnation. We have surrendered our minds and we worry about the possibility of losing our guns?

We would willingly accept genocide under the guise of legal action and condemn the theft of bread to feed hungry children in the name of the law. The only question asked: did they do anything illegal? If the answer is no, then no matter how unacceptable the behavior in the context of a civil society, it must be tolerated.

What hope is there for Good if it can’t be recognized?

It is for law enforcement to uphold the law, it is for the people to condemn moral offense. Recognizing wrong does not require code, it requires thought, consideration, empathy, insight, creativity, and communication.

They may not break the law, but that should not stop the people from drumming the bastards out.

To be Economically Rational

Ethics: it’s what separates us from the animals – even if they got a hold of some thumbs and a sense of humor and even some heavy machinery.

With the ability to choose to do wrong, there is also the ability to choose to do right. I’m not suggesting that solution is that we all gather on a hillside to eat carrots and hug, but we could start small, say, cut out denying people access to health care when they are dying and have children to support.  I don’t care about the economic rationality of universal health care; that is not the ultimate standard by which all must be judged. 

The more the religious right screams about morality, the greater the erosion of our personal standards of ethics. Maybe it’s because they think that god is in control, wealth = cleanliness and so all is right with the world (those who are suffering deserve it), but I believe that no matter the existence of a god or not, we have an obligation to allow ourselves to be the community-oriented and socially-engaged creatures that we are without sacrificing all of that in the name of competitive profiteering. 

It’s not economically rational, but fuck economic rationality. 

Yay for humanity, boo for pirates.

To Be Disobedient

Americans are a very obedient people. I wouldn't really have known this if I hadn't traveled and if I didn't have to explain to my husband sometimes why it is people will put money in an envelope to pay for parking when there is nobody there to check. I will wait at a red light long after it has become clear that it must be broken and that my children will tell stories of growing up at a red light rather than cross it even if the road hasn't had any cross traffic in living memory. 

One of the reasons that people are so angered and intransigent about "illegal immigration" is that in the American mind, the existence of a law is all the reason that you need to follow it. This, of course, is a gross over generalization - I obviously don't mean it to apply to corporations, despite their status as people.  However, I hear over and over again people resorting to the argument that the fact that something is illegal is how we know it is wrong. That we have to follow rules, even if they are not good rules, simply because they are rules.

That's an error though. We make things illegal that we at some point (or at least those who make the laws) thought were wrong; it's not the illegality that makes it wrong, it's the other way around. Again, gross over generalization, but it's a blog post for heaven's sake, buy my book if you want me to go into it all (note to self: write book in case anyone calls my bluff). The wrong that I am referring to is the wrong done to power by the violation of the law. Then, we the people, internalize this set of rules as simply wrong. 

Marijuana is a perfect example. Many people are horrified by the idea of marijuana being legalized because it must be wrong because it was illegal. Meanwhile, the real wrong was that which was perceived by tobacco when they saw that marijuana sales could negatively impact their own.  Or the wrong was that hippies and young people didn't seem like they were scared enough of the government and this was a great way to get some of that fear back. Or it could be more sinister still but...none of these are moral wrongs, these are damages or benefits to money and power.

In any case, my point being twofold. The first, made above, is that illegality (or legality) doesn't determine right from wrong. It's not meant to prevent, it's meant to create a system to punish rule-breaking. Nobody truly believes that making murder illegal is actually preventing murder; it simply gives us a thing that we can do when murder has happened so that we aren't left reinventing the wheel every time. It also encapsulates our already existing idea of what is unacceptable, it didn't make it unacceptable.

My second point is this: we have not just a right, but a duty to disobey the law when it is wrong. It's written in to the Declaration of Independence that when in the course of human events things are really f*cked up, then we the people should change them. I'm paraphrasing, but it's pretty close. When people sat down at the Woolworth's lunch counter, segregation was the law of the land. Many would have argued that no matter what, people should have obeyed that law simply because it was the law. That kind of logic and we would still be waiting for the gods to show us the future in the entrails of chickens. 

Disobedience is part of democracy; it requires the ability to critically evaluate. I can't break our shared set of rules for my personal gain (again, I hope some corporation is reading this blog so they can take this to their very human-like heart), but I can violate them if they are unethical. If we don't practice this, it atrophies and we become timid and democracy loses whatever it had to offer. If the people have no will, there can be no possibility for a government to be guided by it. Also, if we don't practice it, we don't know when it is appropriate and so we rebel without direction often causing damage. Law then loses its moral authority and becomes simply authoritarian. 

If we do not practice disobedience, it is substituted by apathy or blind ideology. The face of civic life becomes completely smooth and impenetrable, without hand holds or possibility for interaction, like a sheer wall of polished granite. If we wait until then, it will take a visionary to chisel even the smallest impression upon the stone and the rest of us will spend our whole lives pushing it with our shoulders to no avail.

To Speak Out of Turn

Every time I have spoken to power, it has been out of turn. It seems, that there is no place for my words on the roster of voices, while you have unlimited access to loud and clear speech. Apparently the most shameful thing that we can do these days is disrupt order, even if that order takes food from hungry children, endangers the lives of women, sacrifices our freedom to [not] worship however we choose, sells our work to enrich others, and dismantles our civil rights. The response to outburst is indignity on the part of those who hold the reigns. 

There is a protocol, a form to be filled out, a turn to be eagerly waited for, a time slot to be grateful for, and an answer of silence. We can wait our turn to speak, if such a glorious opportunity is granted, but just because we speak does not mean that you will listen. You have days and weeks and months of unlimited communication in which to make decisions that impact lives profoundly and we have 30 seconds or 3 minutes to plead to closed ears as you wait for the clock to run out in order to get back to business. 

The 'proper' channels of communication are uni-directional. They are meant for the exit of decrees not the intake of ideas. By the time I sign up for a spot to speak, it is already too late to have a say. If you determine the format, we do not meet on equal footing. And our polite speech is co-opted:

"Thank you for your input, we listened to the concerns of the people and it is purely a coincidence that this time we have decided to do exactly as we had already announced we would."

Speak out of turn and the substance of my argument is not addressed, simply the form in which I chose to present it. You choose the platform from which to look down upon me and should I be so ungrateful as to profane it, I will be sacrificed without a hearing. 

"Why must you be so rude?"

Because you have made me so. You have left me with no other opportunity than to shout you down and assault you with the words that you wished to have only in your arsenal. You do violence to me by enslaving my communication and then pretending it is for my own good. I would rather not stand up during the meeting and yell; I would rather not shout from the balcony as you talk; I would rather not picket and protest and rally. But you will not listen to those you know you have already subdued.

Speech is a right, and language is the location for battle as it requires no permission and is the only weapon left to the people in the face of a ruling body that operates in service of vested interests. I am armed with words, my ammunition is endless and I am skilled. Do not ask me to lay them aside and wait until you are done firing at me with your clumsy lies and shabby logic. Do not ask me to work within an etiquette designed to shut me out and shut me up. 

Whether you want to or not, you will hear the sound of my voice.