Monthly Archives: July 2015

The rule of law

vigilance

It may seem at first that law is about hard power.  Hard power is not without it’s merits.  Namely it brings all people together under the lowest common denominator.  Force.  It seems that all animals that are capable of inference can comply behaviorally with Kolhbergs entire conventional stage.  That law, enforced by hard power brings stability and in turn inferred morality.  Yet while animals can display sympathy (relating to experience.) no animal society is considered even transitionally post conventional.  The simplest conclusion is that while at a glance advanced animal society may appear to respect freedom, that reversion to opportunism and alliance is inevitable.

Animals display many favorable efficient behaviors, even sometimes in large and complex groups.  But those come at a cost.  Constant vigilance.  Hard power must be ready to bare or golden opportunities will be exploited and the order upset.  This is the rule of law without symbolic codification.

Is codification what sets human beings apart?    Psychopaths can not only comprehend codification but can enjoy material success as professionals in law.   Psychopaths who share social behaviors with the animal kingdom can not ascend beyond the conventional stage.  To do so requires imagination, specifically empathy, which by definition they do not possess.  It seems as if the the rule of law it’s self it in place to protect us from psychopaths who consistently seek power as it’s own end.  Conventional law and order is a referendum on the psychopathic mind with hard power as best understood barrier.

In humans codification allows law at a distance where vigilance is at it’s weakest.  Why does it not fail catastrophically like with animals?  The virtue of law in any particular case is embedded in an individual’s risk assessment.  As discussed at length here, the conscience is a risk assessment engine.  So while law at a distance is aimed at restraining hard power obsessed psychopaths, it is more often followed by those able to assess risk the best, the empaths.

This difference in behavior is the source of corruption.  It increases with societal scope as distance causes the effect of vigilance to fade but conscionable people react to their own emotional state in the same way.  Even worse corruption is codified and becomes part of the rule of law.  Further, the corruption increases by another factor as psychopaths breed faster than empaths and their percentages increase.  The bigger the legal scope, and the higher the percentage of psychopaths, the more law works against the conscionable.  Valued for protection from the very people increasingly exploiting it.   Restraining only their not the psychopaths activity.

This is why the rule of law becomes the law of the jungle.  It continuously falls further short of morality as it’s society grows in size and age.  The civilization gene the mutation of superior risk assessment compared to mere jealousy allows people to live in relative harmony.  For a while at least.  Not because law is vigilant, but because intelligent beings with a conscience are.

LGBT tolerance education should be case by case

alone

The problem with teaching tolerance of sexual identity to kids, is that you can’t avoid sexualizing them in the process.  Instead, schools should focus on tolerance in general.

Parents know kids, even kids that will turn out to have alternative sexual lifestyles later, are not naturally thinking about sex. They can’t be prejudiced against their peer’s choice of partner, because while they may have a vague idea they DON’T have a lucid, explicit idea what a sexual partner is. There is sensibility to this obscurity. There is no denying the urges that will ultimately perpetuate the species, but sexual activity vastly expands a psychopaths opportunity to manipulate an inexperienced child. To trap them as their obedient ward, using their own chemical signals to reprogram their conscience against them. Spoiling the likelyhood of eventual self realization and the profits it provides for all.

There is a huge difference between punishing a kid for beating up another kid because he/she commonly refereed to as gay (true or not) and teaching kids how to be gay. I went to high school with an openly gay boy and he was forced out of school by violence. That is the real problem. Kids don’t have to like his lifestyle genetic or not, but they must respect the boundaries of his body and not socially interfere with his education. He (or she) is no one’s slave despite some’s obsession with a psychopathic hierarchy.

I’m not saying 16 year olds can’t or don’t have sexual urges, that’s absurd. I’m just saying institutionally rewarding them for that is regressive. The institution must indoctrinate the innocent in order make sexuality part of the curriculum. Instead schools should work against prejudice in general using what kids must know to be part of civilization.

The same kids that were violent with my gay classmate hated me too. Because I was different. This was the tell. It had nothing to do with his sexuality. It wasn’t even about bullying though most would stop there. It was about intolerance for people who deviate from the pack. The subconscious determination to attack any kid that doesn’t march in lockstep. That’s the problem. That was the problem in my school, in Columbine, and it’s still the problem.

Mandatory sexual indoctrination of the innocent doesn’t solve the problem, and it makes a new one. Prejudice with kids is usually about exposure and normalization of their parents conscience and their prejudices. Normalizing sex isn’t necessary. Instead normalizing tolerance has a better yield and forces no conversations some kids are not ready for. Focus on accepting, or as a better than hate fall back, at least keeping a distance from behaviour you don’t understand. The passive half of shunning. This covers bullying and better prepares children to reserve judgement until they are ready to seek the facts on their own. Only then can you guide them and answer their questions. A behaviour which practiced consistently not only stamps out prejudice, but prepares future adult citizens to be a functional civic agents of a republic. Tolerant, self resolved and driven to be passionately curious.

EDIT: Changed the title to reflect the suggestion, not the risk