Dystopia || 21st Century Socio-Political Critique by Mr. Kaiser Basileus (Part 1)

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) 

(Subcategory Directory on Law and Order)

(Philosocom's Kaiser Basileus Articles)

(Part 2)

Article Synopsis by Mr. John Igwe and Co.

"Dystopia -- 21st Century Socio-Political Critique -- Part 1" by Mr. Kaiser Basileus is a thought-provoking examination of modern socio-political dynamics, challenging many assumptions and norms. The article covers a wide range of topics, from law enforcement and judicial practices to economic disparities and the influence of corporations. It offers a critical perspective, questioning the legitimacy and fairness of existing systems, encouraging readers to reflect on the structures that govern their lives and consider the necessity for reform.

The article's broad coverage of diverse issues such as wealth disparity, corporate influence, freedom of speech, and the judicial system allows for a comprehensive understanding of the interconnectedness of societal problems.

By questioning the status quo, the article promotes critical thinking and encourages readers to not accept societal constructs at face value. The use of metaphors and analogies between psychological states and political entities adds a layer of relatability and understanding, making complex political critiques more accessible and engaging to a broader audience.

In conclusion, "Dystopia" is a robust and stimulating critique of contemporary socio-political systems, challenging readers to reconsider their acceptance of current societal norms.

(Background music)

**********************

Mr. Rubinshtein's Description of "Dystopia"

Mr. Kaiser's "Dystopia" is a socio-political critique on contemporary society, covering many aspects of modern life. His unique perspectives offer a refreshing look on many features of our lives in which we learned to accept as completely legitimate. "Dystopia" is here to challenge our beliefs and expand our discourse in contemporary philosophy, from society to ethics to politics.

The original document given to me is extremely long and as such will be divided to several parts. I hope you will benefit from it. Enjoy.

***********************

Law enforcement officers don't study law, they study enforcement. The US judicial system both requires that they harm you before you may legally resist (standing) and that you pay for the litigation. A system that requires allowing them to harm you before fixing it cannot be legitimate. Funny how the founders explicitly added a clause that the Bill of Rights was a Minimum (9th amendment), and ever since, in direct opposition to their concern, it's been treated as a Maximum.

As soon as someone is 10x more powerful, wealthy, etc. as someone else, society is not free. Could you will someone to have 100x more of them than yourself for any reasonable purpose? Why would such a discrepancy ever be necessary or unavoidable?

Companies cannot have names that may displace meaningful normal language search terms. they should only be numbered and known by descriptive terms (the largest bed store in the county)(the bakery at 5th and main) (ice cream from all over), and they'd better take care to choose something meaningful in case, for instance, a larger bed store opens.

In social math, nothing plus nothing can equal something. Sponsored results are inherently immoral by showing people what someone else wants them to buy, which has no relation to their needs, instead of what they're interested in buying . Any government that doesn't respect freedom of speech is a tyranny, because they cannot even potentially know what their citizens actually need.

The metaphors of psychology make good substitutes for those of political malfeasance. Most states are narcissistic, etc. If there is no escape there is no freedom. A law that can be used to produce irrational effects will be used to produce irrational effects.

Freedom of religion enshrines a right to believe irrational things and inherently to use those beliefs to effect actual changes in the world. We cannot have civilization and religion at the same time.

Police should have more training than citizens, more responsibilities and more restraint, never more rights. Privilege is when you're integrated enough that things in general are going well enough, that the little things that can have major detrimental effects on other people don't matter. If you cannot escape an oppressive society, freedom is but a bigger cage.

The government that constrains the power of people to use their intellects to its best advantage in order to improve the world around them is directly working against everyone's best interests Only the wealthy are allowed to know how much wealth other wealthy people have. Since they have an unknown amount of resources and power, what chance has anyone else to change anything?

A society where you have no choice but to obey must first have perfect laws. Externalities - under-staffing, besides decreasing pay/work ratio, wastes many customer's hours unnecessarily waiting {currencies tend to require trust without trustworthiness. Any currency that allows speculation is inherently untrustworthy; Currency tagged to the average world currency value}.

The only weapon ordinary people have against too much order is chaos. "The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth." Those with the most informed opinions almost never concur with the majority, so democracy almost never produces the best option, and when it does it's in spite of itself.

Those in power dare not question the legitimacy of the system lest they inherently question their own. There is no ethical way to protect someone from themselves without prior, explicit consent. Democracy ensures the best ideas never get heard because the best ideas are never in the majority.

A government cannot be legitimate that grants itself the right to record anything it experiences, but denies that right to the people. That the supreme court had to issue a ruling that constitutionally protected activity (like taking video in or from a publicly accessible area) could not be considered suspicious. It proves that the entire court system below that level is inept. It is a minimum understanding of law that rights cannot be protected or considered protected if they are considered suspicious or treated as suspicious by default.

(Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Rights are best considered an obligation, rather than untrustworthy).

Property rights that allow degradation of anything wanted by others are immoral. The government can only be prevented from creating human rights constraints. Before the fact that most jobs require you to be bubbly, energetic, and hustle is a tragedy.

Let's try to build a world where people can relax at work, take time off as needed, and do the best job possible, not the most productive one.

Enclosure was a crime against humanity. So are usury, copyright, patents, and legal fictions and rent-seeking of every kind. Saying that people have a right to be unreasonable consigns reasonable people to hell.

The government needs to have greater transparency and accountability than ordinary people, not less for public employees out those on the dole to pay taxes can only be a waste of resources. When police ignore rights they are not acting as law enforcement, because the purpose of law is to ensure rights.

If they're uncertain, that's no less a problem. Legal fictions -- just like capitalists still get all the profit after they eliminate all the risk, cops still get all the privilege even when there's no danger.

Ignorant, oblivious, or numb are the only ways to deal with modern society. Intrusions may be rendered legitimate only by being both harmless and for good reason.

"You can't comply your way out of tyranny". -- Christine Anderson.

A conditional right cannot be interpreted differently from state to state or it's nothing more than a mere privilege.

The longer a technology is iterated, the more additional features are useless to the average person while core functionality degrades.

When a government grants itself illicit powers, they're never entirely reversed until there's a revolution.

The government cannot ethically require background checks because it is not more ethical than the average person and therefore not more capable of determining who is "worthy" of having a gun.

In fact many of the reasons it restricts are problems it caused, which is tyranny.

If background check criteria are hidden such that people can't have reasonable belief in advance whether or not they will pass, in order to save themselves the expense or to avoid undue government scrutiny, it is arbitrary and unpredictable if citizens see corruption where the police do not, the police are not adequate at policing themselves.

As long as anyone has less than their share, everyone who has the average has more than their share. Government qualifications indicate someone's readiness for something must never be taken to mean only government qualifications can confer that readiness. If you cannot afford to buy land you are a second class citizen.

(Rubinshtein's note: Through morality, resistance and altruism, many of the problems mentioned here by Mr. Kaiser can be fixed, or worked to be fixed and improved for a better, fairer, and less corrupt, society).