The legal system we're currently living under has two features that are contrary to natural law. First of them is the use of incorporated entities as proxies. This allows for voodoo justice where straw men are put on trial rather than the individuals responsible. Examples of this is court cases against the state, corporations, and NGOs.
Incorporations allow for corporate rights that go beyond rights natural to individuals. The state is allowed to do things that individuals can't. The state is free to use force in ways that would have us go to prison if we tried the same ourselves. Examples of this is taxation, war and the draft. Corporations are also granted special rights, as are NGOs. They too can engage in dubious behavior without legal repercussions.
The other feature contrary to natural law is a general muddling up of sins and crimes. Few sins are crimes, yet all sorts of sins are made punishable. Hate speech is one such sin. Homosexuality, which is still illegal in many countries, is another example. However, there are only three types of crimes possible. They are:
- Crimes against a person's body
- Crimes against a person's property
- Fraud
This is why Jesus made a distinction between sins and crimes, and why he reduced all laws to a single principle; namely the golden rule. For something to be a crime, there has to be a victim and there has to be a perpetrator who acted carelessly or intentionally to do harm. Both the victims and the perpetrators have to be real people. God's Kingdom on Earth doesn't recognize corporate entities.
This makes for a simple and straight forward legal system that anyone can apply within their own circle of influence. All that's needed is common sense and a willingness to hear statements from both sides.
An important part of this system is the wide range of sinful behavior that's allowed to exist. For example, misleading someone is only a crime if it was done intentionally. Fraud implies intent. It's not fraud if the sinner acted in the sincere belief that the action was good. However, no-one is allowed to bundle coercion and force into this.
A doctor, sincerely believing that a vaccine with unknown long term side-effects is right for a client, is not engaging in fraud. But if that same doctor injects someone with a mystery serum against the client's will, a crime has most definitely been committed. The doctor cannot argue that the forceful injection was done in good faith. The golden rule does not allow for this kind of interpretation, because everyone has sovereignty over their body and properties. That's implicit in the golden rule.
On the other hand, if someone pulls someone's arm in order to save that person from some imminent danger, such as an oncoming car, that someone must be considered innocent of any harm done. But if the danger was mistaken, there might nevertheless be a case to be made. Things can get tricky. No two cases are the same. That's why there must be a judge involved. Someone with a good head on their shoulder must act as an arbitrator.
The arbitrator's job is to determine if there has been a crime, no crime at all, or merely a sin without a crime. If there's no crime, the arbitrator must dismiss the case. Whatever sin may have taken place is not for us to judge. That will be up to God, aka nature, to take care of.
It's not a crime to engage in sinful acts if there's no victim but ourselves and our co-sinners. But that doesn't mean that there will be no consequences. I have a brother in law who's gay. I like the guy a lot. He's funny and often brutally direct. There's something noble about him. He doesn't beat around the bush. But his lifestyle has landed him in trouble. He's in his sixties. He's tired and often ill. He could use some help. But he doesn't have any children, and he can't very well ask his friends and relatives to step in to help him with his many little troubles. This is similar to that which befalls other people who have chosen to be without children, and I don't see his sin as any greater than that.
The perception that crimes and sins are equivalent has led to the widespread idea that homosexuality is not a sin. There's also the counterargument that it's a sin and therefore something that should be made illegal. However, both camps are wrong. Homosexuality is a sin, but it's not a crime. My brother in law has no children. That's a regrettable consequence of his lifestyle. It's God's punishment, and it's not up to us to add to or subtract from this.
Forgiveness is a key element in God's Kingdom for a reason. We're all liable to make mistakes. No-one is perfect, so we can't go around criminalizing imperfections. Obsessing about sins is in itself a sin. Calling for laws to criminalize that which isn't criminal is a sin. Constantly worrying about every action we take is also a sin. It contradicts the golden rule, because no-one with a healthy love of life wants people to hold back on the experience for fear of making a mistake.
With law reduced to the golden rule and that which can be derived directly from it, personal responsibility becomes key. No-one can escape it. We cannot sue others for mistakes made by ourselves. We can only sue if there's physical harm through direct action or fraud. Running out to take a vaccine with unknown long term side-effects is a sin on our part. We cannot in retrospect sue anyone for this action. However, if there is evidence of fraud, there may still be a case to be made.
I've compiled a list of public figures who've promoted bogus vaccines. The vast majority of them have done so with no evil intent. They acted out of ignorance, and in the belief that their sources were sincere and well informed. However, some bogus statements look a lot like fraud. Facebook censors claim that the vaccine is safe and effective despite ample evidence to the contrary. Twitter censors are actively promoting this same idea. This means that there might be a future case to be made against the CEOs of these companies. But it will be difficult and probably a waste of time and resources for everyone involved.
The problem with a case against the CEOs of Facebook and Twitter is that it has to be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the CEOs were actively engaged in the fraud, and not merely mistaken. It must also be demonstrated that the plaintiffs were so taken in by the fraud that it prompted them to go along with it. That's such a difficult thing to prove that it's probably best to let God take care of it, forgive ourselves for our sins, and go back to living our lives as fully as possible.
 |
| An open window |
No comments:
Post a Comment