Dear Friends,
It seems to me, if one party to a contract usurps the power to unilaterally change it at their whim, the other party by reciprocity has the same right, and if denied by the threat of violence, the contract becomes a surrogate for slave papers. The party that is enslaved by the threat of violence is subject to the morality of the usurping party, the party without ethics… else it wouldn’t use violence or even violate a contract in the first place. I think this is pretty obvious to most people when looked at in this clinical manner, yet when we are the aggrieved party, often we fail to understand objectively we are even aggrieved, let alone do anything about it. The reason we all understand at a gut level the truth of this, is because we all have a sense of fairness, and this violates that sense in a profound way.
If you bought a car, paid for it and the seller withheld the car doubling the cost, and unwilling to refund the money you have already paid, you would feel aggrieved. If he demanded the money and had two goons beat it out of you, you would feel achy the next day… and further aggrieved. If then, the car salesman only gave you the keys but not the car. You might want to get even but know he would have you beat to a pulp should you try. So most people just take the bus, their car keys poking their thighs from their pocket. In times and places where violence is the arbiter of right and wrong, this is ever the case. The sanctioned violent are always right. The “sanctioned” are those who’s faction, group or entity has captured the courts, media and bureaucracy, in short, they have political favor.
Much of humanity’s struggles have been fought around violated contracts, pacts and treaties. The US founding fathers understood this and said as much. Warning that treaties be avoided, but once entered into, be enforced. They took contracts seriously. Since then, an entire industry has sprung up to get cads out of commitments, the legal industry. Moreover, another of its primary functions is to use contracts to harm instead of facilitate. Zuckerberg screwing his friends out of Facebook for example. A lawyer’s role, is to exploit law to do as much damage to the economy as possible, to enrich himself and the legal industry. He who has the better lawyer wins… in a court of law, proving our courts are political. That’s why contracts that harm the elite get nullified, while those that harm the people, enforced.
Using a contract as substitute for slave papers is just malevolent. In the past courts have ruled that one cannot sign over their Constitutional Rights, to a corporation or individual. I wonder if they will continue to maintain that stance now though, under the corporatocracy they helped build. Corporatocracy doesn’t simply mean rule by corporations, but that all of society and the economy be marshaled under the state, to one end. It is how Goebbels defined his system, and the same idea as the World Economic Forum’s, Stakeholder Capitalism. Under these systems, or system, the individual is reduced to the chattel of the elite. A system where the elite make rules they themselves are not subject to. A system the ancient Greeks called… arbitrary rule.
This argument is never more true, than when the elite use a Constitution in this manner, not following a single tenet themselves, but using it to legitimize their tyranny. This sin is magnified as the elite are reduced to increasingly use violence, to enforce their rule, because they have abandoned the legitimate authority derived from the Constitution. One way to judge the reliability of a friend is to watch how reliable they are with others. A friend, or government, that lies to everyone else… also lies to you. To trust a proven liar, who abandons legitimate authority for the authority that flows from the barrel of a gun, is stupid, or done out of the fear of violence. Either way, it is submitting to a bully. Those who submit to bullies accept perpetual bullying, it is only those that stand up, who become free.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
