September 2016

The number one corruption of law and government is non-uniformity, as shown by dictators and totalitarians. They execute their enemies to surround themselves with supporters.

Laws need to be uniform for predictability. Predictability is needed for people to get control over their lives. Dictators and totalitarians do not want people to control their own lives, because it would shift control out of their own hands. Unpredictability is how control is shifted from the people to the dictators.

Making laws uniform is very difficult, and continuous work needs to be applied to the task. But the middle of an election is no time to be changing laws. It needs to be done under more rational circumstances.

This fact jumps out as perhaps the most defining principle of the election campaigns. Quirk interpretations of law are being used to railroad the elections. Certainly, almost everything about the campaigns is repugnant, but repugnant cannot be translated into "lock her up." Most corruption is legal. There has to be a basis in law for acting upon law. Repulsiveness is not a basis for acting upon laws.

Laws have been written so that it is almost impossible for persons who control power to break laws, and impossible for powerless persons to not break laws. The reasons seem almost logical. Where there is power, intent must be shown, before a law is broken. Intent cannot be proven in the applications of power. But intent is seldom questioned for powerless persons, since their actions are viewed in isolation of social complexities.

The solution to that problem is not easy to define. It used to be the simple application of rationality, as judges had a lot of leeway. But that leeway has been stripped in the drive for "tough on crime" politics promoted by conservatives over the past few decades. Lock-em-up has replaced rationality.

Politics and diplomacy are almost outside of law for these reasons. There is somewhat of a necessity for placing politics and diplomacy above most of law, beyond extreme cases, because politics and diplomacy must account for all global forces, not just someone's personal concerns. You can't sacrifice global forces for narrow minded parochialism.

The clearest of examples is the recent claim that individuals can sue Saudi Arabia for 9/11 damages. Why does Saudi Arabia need to destroy two buildings in New York? Will it increase the price of oil or buy more military equipment from its closest ally? Idiots don't care. Rational persons do. Even the second major concern, as Obama pointed out, precludes such idiocy. It's what keeps anyone from suing the U.S. over several decades of shock-and-awe which destroyed several countries? When Bill Clinton destroyed a pharmaceutical factor in Sudan on the basis of false information, Sudan did not get as much as an apology.

The point is that the narrow concern of individuals cannot be placed above the global concerns that politics and diplomacy must deal with. International courts are certainly needed, but when they cannot produce justice, some idiot with two bucks isn't going to do so. Sadly, it was a judge who said to go ahead and sue Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia should be sanctioned in every way possible for its war on human decency to maintain its theocracy, but doing so has to be a political and diplomatic process, not a showdown in some parochial courtroom.

Stolen emails have proven to be nothing but gossip and innuendo exploited for political gain. Fakes are trying to frame the gossip in legal terms, where it doesn't fit. This is what invasion of privacy is all about. Normal activity attempting to advance normal purposes is framed as criminality, because the accusers have no stake in the matter. Privacy exists for this reason—because no one has a stake in private matters but the victim of the assault. It's asymmetrical attack. Truth does not exist in isolation from all surrounding realities. Private matters are isolated from all surrounding realities.

Courts allow public figures to be attacked as freedom of speech. But freedom of speech is not supposed to extend to private communication. The Supreme Court stated that emails are private communication and should not be publicized, even coming from one's own congressman.

It means the exposure of emails should be viewed as an invasion of privacy rather than a political football. The content has no respectable place in society until it is acquired in a justifiable manner. Picking the emails apart is to say everyone should be vulnerable to invasion of privacy. Protecting against invasion of privacy should be more important than the two bit accusations that are derived from the emails. Nobody is talking about the invasion of privacy.

Moving politics into the legal domain—making politics equal to criminality—never occurs, except when corrupters are attacking their opponents. If it is to occur once, it must occur always. Otherwise, the result is totalitarians destroying their enemies to advance their power. This is why the FBI said sloppy handling of emails is not a criminal act. Sloppy handling of communication is the rule rather than the exception in politics. To enforce a law against it one place and not everyplace reduces the country to totalitarianism.

It isn't that sloppy communication is acceptable; it's that corruptions must be prevented instead of used as an exploitive tool. Preventing problems and requiring standards requires a lot of rationality, and in government, a lot of regulations.

Corrupters destroy by fixing. They fix their enemies but allow no impositions upon themselves. It's called "double standard." To end or prpevent that problem requires objectivity. This means to define the requirements and standards, so they can be applied uniformly to everyone. Corrupters will not define for the same reason they will not accept regulations. They don't want to have impositions upon themselves.

When corrupters will not accept objective and uniform standards which apply to everyone equally, the problem is about them, not the supposed problem. Problems cannot be solved until the standards are fixed. Corrupters not allowing standards to be created is a major problem. It's about them, not someone else. To fight with them without setting uniform standards is a losing battle. The objectivity and uniformity of standards must be the first concern of conflicts.
 

Home Page	Science Errors	Sociology of Corruption