Politicians, cops and godmen:The scum of the Earth

Ever wondered where we would be if there were honest politicians, cops and decent godmen? Well, I have. I am convinced that the reason there is so much turmoil in this world is because the scum that is meant to lead, guide and protect is as much to blame as fate. Think about it: do you know an honest politician? or cop? or godman? All wars are were either religious wars or wars started by politicians. Even Dubya's war in Iraq is a quasi-religious war, hence his good v. evil speeches.

How do we deal with these people. First, we must admit to ourselves that they are not superhuman. we must recognise that their charisma in no way makes them infallible or omnipotent. They are men (and women) who have the ability to inspire us to be better or worse. After all, how can one explain why the Germans supported Hitler or the Ugandans Idi Amin when it was quite clear that they didn't have the people's welfare at heart.

A pragmatic and emotionless approach towards all leaders or persons in leadership positions is the order of the day. That way when they stray, which they inevitably do, we can punish them appropriately without feelings of guilt.

My biggest beef isn't with cops, because there isn't an honest cop alive today. Therefore you don't have to worry when dealing with them. All have a price. No matter what they say, all policemen have a price. So you can trust them to be dishonest even when there is no cause to be so. Their dishonesty is oddly comforting. It reminds you that life is unfair and that the people meant to make it fair are the ones perpetuating unfairness. Thus, you don't have to play fair unless it is beneficial to do so. You can screw over everone guilt-free knowing that that is the code of conduct fo leaders and the led alike.

No, I have a bigger beef with politicians and godmen, and by godmen I include all priests, preachers, gurus and so forth. These are by far the most ruthless users of humanity. They make serial killers look like choir-boys. And the fact that they have so much power without responsibility makes it worse. They think they know better. They may be right, they may be wrong. They, however, don't have a right to dictate to us how to lead our personal lives. Someone must tell them, they can urge me not to kill, lie, cheat or steal, or commit any number of crimes, but they cannot tell me whom to marry, how to marry , what to think, how to protect my health, how to defend my castle when they fail to do so. In other words, things that affect me and me alone, I must be allowed to decide alone. The politicians and godmen cannot impose their will on me.

Think about it. If a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body, who gets hurt? And the argument that abortion is wrong because they are killing the unborn child is specious. Until that child is born, it is not alive but for the grace of the mother. If it could survive independent of the womb then it would deserve the full protection of the law. But it cannot. Therefore, it is upto the pregnant woman to decide. The same goes for homosexuality. If it caused injury to anyone, then it must be banned. The argument that it will weaken the institution of marriage is patently false.

The rate of divorce in most western societies is now around 40%, but the number of openly gay realtionships is still below 7%. So, there is at least statistical proof that all those failed marriages are not ending up in gay realtionships. The institution of marriage is bound to self-destruct all of its own. The fact that a person is gay doesn't necessarily make him a sexual deviant in another sense. The fact is, most of the sexual offenders convicted are heterosexual.

All I want, is the opportunity to lead a quiet life, without the posibiliity of coming into contact on an intimate level with politicians, cops and godmen. they would be the death of peaceful co-existence.

Abortion and Gays

Conservatives amuse me yet their cause is anything but amusing. Abortion and gay marriage are very personal, at least to people who want to carry out abortions or have a gay weddings. But, the so-called moral majority has a different plan. They intend to impose their will on other free peoples in the name of religion and morality. They would do well to remember that religious wars have killed more people than the two world wars combined.

But why oppose abortion and gays at all? I think it gives them a sense of power to believe that their views are the only valid ones. But let us take a moment to reflect: the world is not a monolithic entity with similar views or opinions. There will always be differing opinions. I dare say there must be those who do not subscribe to the same religious or moral values of the conservatives or Moral Majority. If this point is conceded, then it must also be conceded that the only way to co-exist without undue conflict is to agree upon a minimum standard of law, not morality or religion. Law is based, at the very least, on the concept of accepting the differing views of the common weal. However, the law also agrees that protecting the rights of the minority is as important as the views of the majority. However, because we are so different, the standard of law cannot be morality or religion, but the common good and the protection of minority rights.

In this case, the minority constitute women who want the right to choose what their bodies will be subjected to and people of an alternative sexuality. Subjecting them to discrimination on the basis of religion or some such other standard is not only immoral but also flawed. All religions preach tolerance, yet their interpretation by religious leaders is increasingly narrow and dictated by the logic of denial. They spend more time time telling people 'don't' rather that teaching them to be better humans. The world would be a better place if people were encouraged to treat their fellow humans more fairly and honestly rather than being denied rights that if enforced would not cause pain or suffering to anyone.

The Case for Narcotics

The US has a military budget in the hundreds of billions of dollars. If even a fraction of this money is spent by the Drug Enforcement Agency, the US must be a formidable opponent. Yet, the US is not winning the war on drugs. The worst ever evidence of this was when the US was obliged to arrest a serving Head of State by military force, that they had installed to serve their interests against the Soviets, because he had become the biggest drug-peddler into the US.

Europe on the other hand, has a more pragmatic recognition of the situation. They are taking baby steps towards a more realistic policy towards narcotics. To be fair, they still consider the 'hard' drugs to be a menace, but the steps towards the decriminalisation of marijuana are laudable.

We must take this process towards its logical end, that is, the complete legalization of all narcotics. In one fell swoop, resources otherwise employed will be released for more urgently needed programmes. And the revenue benefits cannot be ignored either.

A DEA study estimated that the global worth of the narcotics economy was around $300 bn. Now, even if this is a government statistic that has been underestimated, it represents a sum that can pull many Third World countries out of poverty. Imagine if such a sum was taxed at a rate of 16% annually, this would release $48 bn, an amount that is not to be sneered at.

George Bush would have additional resources to fight his wars, Blair would be able to wipe out poverty in Africa, India and Pakistan would find a reason to co-operate in Afghanistan, and Latin America would cease to be a warzone.

However, let us not ignore the fact that drugs have crucial side effects that are both long-term and difficult to treat. But by recognising this, governments shall be in a position to invest in research into the use and misuse of narcotics along the same lines as in pharmaceutical research. The involvement of the private sector in this area shall release a level of talent that shall guarantee both solutions and progammes for the long-term. The benefits far outweigh the costs of decriminalization.

Government and Morality

The Government, to survive, must at the very least provide for the welfare of the citizen. When the Government fails in this basic duty, it will fall. The Government is not a moral authority in as much as some of its actions are, at best, amoral. For instance, the death penalty is at its very core an imoral act, because it involves the deliberate taking of a life. But the state shall not hesitate to impose such a penalty if it is in the best interests of the citizen. Hence, morality has nothing to do with, rather, the selfish interests of trhe state are to be served.

In this, I will come into conflict with the members of the religious right, libertarians and sundry members of the moral majority. They shall condemn me for not insisting on a moral duty of the state and its government. But I would argue that the things we expect from the state shall be moral in their outcome but not moral in their creation.

It is the duty of the state to provide at least three things: security of the individual, the capacity to create private wealth, and the ability to keep and enjoy such private wealth. It is not the duty of the state to promote any religious agenda or moral programme. It is in providing for the former that the state acts at its most moral; when it seeks to interfere in trhe latter, it will eventually be deemed as immoral. Witness the theocracies of the Middle East; it is no coincidence that in their desire to fulfilla religio-moral duty thet they have failed to provide good government or even guarantee a standadised moral line to be adhered to by their citizenry. Indeed for a majority of them, the desire to break free from the shackles of imposed orthodoxy reveal the desire for government and not state-directed morality.

If you accept my hypothesis that good government is more important than moral government, then it folllows that morality shall be relegated to the private domain, with the guidance of the individual, religion and civil society. In this case, the government shall only be responsible for providing and safeguarding the tools for craetin and retention of wealth, and the citizen shall be responsible for his own happiness, which to a large extent is based upon his moral values.

To this end, the state cannot have a religion. It may, however, have a code of conduct. thsi code shall determine the behavior of the government but not its values. So, if the conduct of the government reduces the ability of the citizen to make, keep and enjoy his wealth, then the government shall have failed in its duty and shall deserve to be overthrown. On the other hand, if the behavior of the government does fulfil the beforementioned duty, the government shall have succeeded, regardless of whether such behavior is moral or not.

And it is in evaluating the impact of government behavior on the creation of wealth that the argument for or against a moral standard shall lie. The morality or otherwise of a government act shall be determined only after evealuation of whether in the end the citizens gained or lost. Therefore, it is in our own interests to obey a government that, to put it crudely, makes us money than a goverment that preaches on the evils of money.

Government and Morality

The Government, to survive, must at the very least provide for the welfare of the citizen. When the Government fails in this basic duty, it will fall. The Government is not a moral authority in as much as some of its actions are, at best, amoral. For instance, the death penalty is at its very core an immoral act, because it involves the deliberate taking of a life. But the state shall not hesitate to impose such a penalty if it is in the best interests of the citizen. Hence, morality has nothing to do with, rather, the selfish interests of trhe state are to be served.

In this, I will come into conflict with the members of the religious right, libertarians and sundry members of the moral majority. They shall condemn me for not insisting on a moral duty of the state and its government. But I would argue that the things we expect from the state shall be moral in their outcome but not moral in their creation.

It is the duty of the state to provide at least three things: security of the individual, the capacity to create private wealth, and the ability to keep and enjoy such private wealth. It is not the duty of the state to promote any religious agenda or moral programme. It is in providing for the former that the state acts at its most moral; when it seeks to interfere in trhe latter, it will eventually be deemed as immoral. Witness the theocracies of the Middle East; it is no coincidence that in their desire to fulfilla religio-moral duty thet they have failed to provide good government or even guarantee a standadised moral line to be adhered to by their citizenry. Indeed for a majority of them, the desire to break free from the shackles of imposed orthodoxy reveal the desire for government and not state-directed morality.

If you accept my hypothesis that good government is more important than moral government, then it folllows that morality shall be relegated to the private domain, with the guidance of the individual, religion and civil society. In this case, the government shall only be responsible for providing and safeguarding the tools for craetin and retention of wealth, and the citizen shall be responsible for his own happiness, which to a large extent is based upon his moral values.

To this end, the state cannot have a religion. It may, however, have a code of conduct. thsi code shall determine the behavior of the government but not its values. So, if the conduct of the government reduces the ability of the citizen to make, keep and enjoy his wealth, then the government shall have failed in its duty and shall deserve to be overthrown. On the other hand, if the behavior of the government does fulfil the beforementioned duty, the government shall have succeeded, regardless of whether such behavior is moral or not.

And it is in evaluating the impact of government behavior on the creation of wealth that the argument for or against a moral standard shall lie. The morality or otherwise of a government act shall be determined only after evealuation of whether in the end the citizens gained or lost. Therefore, it is in our own interests to obey a government that, to put it crudely, makes us money than a goverment that preaches on the evils of money.