The Judicial Service Commission’s ‘transformation’ debate and Izak Smuts resignation is a red herring, obscuring the JSC’s ‘transformation’ agenda to (i) censor the Fraud and Failures of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence; while (ii) simply transforming South Africa’s Jurisprudence from a European Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric flavour to an African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric flavour. (Ref: White Men Can't Judge; JSC in talks on transformation; JSC's Izak Smuts resigns after transformation row; Why I'm resigning from the JSC - Izak Smuts.)
A Swahili saying predicts that “When two elephants fight, the grass suffers; and, when the same two elephants make love, the grass also suffers.”
When the patriarchal Capitalist and Communist Cold War elephants, and their ANC and Apartheid baby elephants, fought, or pretended to make TRC love; the ignorant South African citizens rights, nature, animals and the environment’s rights were trampled.
Similarly when the European Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurists fight the African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurists, the Failures of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence is trampled, silenced and censored; and so the ignorant South African consumers of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence continue to endorse their own trampling, by being emotionally blackmailed to believe that one of these Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Elephants has their citizens interests at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In this alleged ‘transformation’ dispute (like all other ‘transformation’ disputes, between the Eurocentric and Africanist Jurists, or Politicians, or Corporatists, all of whom endorse Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence); there is no question whatsoever as to the credibility of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence whatsoever; only which Patriarchal elephant is to be the profiteer!
This ‘transformation’ dispute has absolutely nothing to do with significantly ‘transforming’ South Africa’s system of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence benefiting the Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric elite; to a Credible system of Jurisprudence, based upon the results of that system, benefiting the consumers of the system: South African citizens, and the parties providing the ecological resources which are the foundation of all constitutional rights. Try reading the Constitution while holding your breath, and tell me which is more important, the Constitution, or the ecological resources that underpin it?
Any debate about transformation, must first (a) identify what the current status of the system is, (b) then identify its strong points and its weak points, that improve/reduce its credibility; and (c) finally identify how to transform its weak points to strengthen them to improve its credibility, with the consumers of the system.
When identifying the ‘credible’ strong points, those seeking to transform the system, should ask what is ‘credible’ in the experience of the consumer of that particular system, not in the eyes, of the controllers of the system.
Sincere Consumer Orientated Perspective to Juristic Transformation:
[1] SA’s current system of Jurisprudence: Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric.
[2] Credible Strong Points for Consumers: Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric ‘Breeding War’, ‘Consumption War’ and ‘Corporate Personhood’ Jurisprudence’s primary beneficiaries are Anthropocentric males and corporations.
[3] Failures/Weak Points for Consumers: Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric ‘Breeding War’, ‘Consumption War’ and ‘Corporate Personhood’ Jurisprudence’s primary losers are non-Anthropocentric humans and nature.
[4] Transform Weak Points to strengthen them.
________________________________________
SA current system of Jurisprudence: Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric.
“The basic idea is that all human societies face roughly the same problems, namely how do disputes get resolved and rights enforced. They have solved them in an interesting variety of ways and you can learn something from studying the different ways different societies have solved things. I like to claim that Iceland shows that the American legal system is a mere thousand years behind the cutting edge of legal technology, since their legal system had a simple feature, which I argue would improve ours.” - David Friedman, Legal Systems Very Different From Ours.
“As any cynic will confirm, money and law have a lot in common. But their ties run even deeper than most suspect. Money and law had similar origins: both arose spontaneously out of the undirected actions of individuals seeking common standards for mutual coordination. Money and law developed in parallel fashion, too: medieval Europeans enjoyed competition in currencies and legal systems until monarchies took over both fields. And state monopolies in money and law now present common hazards: they are imposed by fiat, inefficiently operated, and (as the cynics point out) jointly corrupting.” – Tom Bell, Policycentric Law
[1] SA’s Jurisprudence system is Patriarchal and AnthroCorpocentric to the extent that it regulates (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, culture, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts; for the almost exclusively benefit of Anthropocentric males and corporations.
[2] Put differently: SA’s Jurisprudence system is Patriarchal to the extent of its (a) failure to provide automatic legal personhood and rights to nature and animal and plant species; (b) disregard for the objective and scientific carrying capacity truth of the laws of nature/ecology; and (c) disregard for the laws of human nature; when they contradict the AnthroCorpocentric – breeding and consumption war – objectives of the holders of subjective AnthroCorpocentric Truth.
[3] What is Patriarchy?: War Against Nature & Women: Overview:
“Civilization, very fundamentally, is the history of the domination of nature and of women” – Primitivist, John Zerzan in Patriarchy, Civilization, and the Origins of Gender
[4] Patriarchy (pa•tri•arch•y):
[4.1] A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
[4.2] A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.
[4.3] A system of society or government, is Patriarchal to the extent that it regulates (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, culture, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts; for the (c) almost exclusive benefit of violent Anthropocentric humans and corporations.
[5] Patriarchal societies/cultures occur where men suffer from fragile ego's and are incapable of resolving issues related to their masculinity, by means of logic and reason. Put differently, they do not want to take control of their penis, either physically, by breeding below carrying capacity, or psychologically, by consuming below carrying capacity (social status symbols which psychologically are equivalent to their belief in an extension of their penis/virility). A patriarchal culture’s status symbols are related to their phallic-identity breeding war and consumption wars, where women and nature are sexualized as objects for plunder, with the final status symbol of superiority being physical violence.
[6] Capitalism and Communism are simply two different battalions in Patriarchal Civilization’s War (a) against nature, (b) for nature’s resources, (c) against indigenous ‘Leaver’ people’s, (d) against Leaver Pagan and environmentally based religions, (e) against Ecological Leaver Consciousness, (f) against Gender Balanced environmentally sustainable cultures such as the Mosuo, etc.
[7] A gender balanced culture based on logic and reason concludes that we live on a finite resource earth, and hence if we wish to avoid conflict from resource scarcity, then we must consume and reproduce at a level below carrying capacity. Put differently we do not have the right to ‘fuck’ and ‘consume’ to our hearts content. No patriarchal culture on planet earth has ever been based on logic and reason and required their tribe to breed and consume below carrying capacity. In a gender balanced culture the ultimate status symbols are honesty, honour, integrity, as values which co-create problem solving. For example: the Gender Balanced Mosuo culture in South West China have no police, no courts, no prison guards, no psychiatrists, no homeless, no mentally ill, no millionaires, no prisons, no mental institutions, no murder, no rape, no suicide! Their gender balanced cultural ‘logic and reason’ foundation is built upon the premise of procreating and consuming below carrying capacity.
[8] To test whether a man or woman consciously or unconsciously endorse Patriarchal violent problem solving or rule of law/reason and logic (root cause) problem solving, ask them whether they procreate and consume below carrying capacity. If they do, they ‘practice what they preach’ in terms of their support for rule of law/reason and logic. If they consume or procreate above carrying capacity, they may verbally pretend to support ‘reason and logic’, but in terms of their actions and lifestyle, they physically support – consciously or unconsciously – patriarchy’s preference for problem solving: violence! Whether it is the violence of individuals, tribes, or the AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence’s police, courts, and prisons.
[9] Colonialism is a product and symptom of Patriarchy’s addiction to breeding and consumption wars. Colonialism, whether it is the colonialism of Europeans conquering African tribes, or the colonialism of African tribes who conquered other African tribes, or the colonialism of both Europeans and Africans who conquered the gender balanced Bushmen tribes.
[10] All Colonialism, whether it resulted from the conquering wars of Columbus, Van Riebeeck, Shaka Zulu, or Mohammed, etc; were and are, a product and symptom of Patriarchy.
[11] A patriarchal society, or a society which does not address the causes of masculine insecurity, cannot and will not ever be sustainable. Any ideology, whether political or religious, founded upon masculine insecurity (patriarchy) will result in breeding and consumption war concepts of power and domination (to provide insecure males with social/psychological penis extension status symbols, their fragile ego's lack).
[12] Consumption wars require exponential expropriation of land, natural resources and knowledge. Breeding wars require a war against sustainable consciousness (ecological and political balance between all cultures, religions and races) to enable the production of surplus populations whose energies can be manipulated for the benefit of those managing the factory farming war economy racket. Colonialism is a symptom of Patriarchy’s addiction to breeding and consumption wars; i.e. consuming above carrying capacity, and then using the surplus population as cannon fodder to conquer another culture’s resources.
________________________________________
Credible Judicial System for Citizens and Nature
[13] What is a ‘Credible’ Judicial System:
[13.1] A ‘credible’ judicial system – like the gender balanced Mosuo in South West China who have no rape (not even a word in their language for rape, because it does not exist), no murder, no suicide and no unemployment; – is one which accurately applies the relevant natural or scientific laws, to attain a specific related required result of inter-human and intra-species harmony and balance; i.e.
A. the laws of nature/ecology, recognizing that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for regulating human procreation and resource utilization behaviour in accordance with the carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; and
B. the laws of human nature; where the relevant disputing parties cultural, religious, and ideological laws of human nature , are applied to achieve the greatest possible level of intra-species harmony and balance.
[13.2] For example:
A. Anders Breivik and Carlos the Jackal were ‘credible’ bomb making terrorists, in the sense of accurately following the recipe’ for the laws of bomb-making and detonation.
B. A chef who wants to make a Crème brûlée, is not going to have a ‘credible’ Crème brûlée, if he used the ingredients and recipe – i.e. cooking laws -- for road kill stew.
[13.3] South Africa’s System of Jurisprudence is AnthroCorpocentric – the Patriarchal Corporatocracy’s Anthropocentric Flat Earth jurisprudence – which is not credible, because among others – it:
A. Ignores the laws of nature/ecology reality that the Earth is NOT FLAT, and that resources are not infinite. Although a majority of the West’s problems - crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion are a consequence of overpopulation and overconsumption inducing scarcity, American jurisprudence fails to legally (a) define the difference between sustainable and unsustainable procreation and consumption behaviour; and (b) provide legal rights to sustainable practices, and legal penalties to unsustainable individuals, corporations and organisations.
B. Ignores the laws of human nature; by discriminating against culture’s and sub-cultures whose members practice brutal honesty, self sufficiency, personal responsibility, transparency and commitment to root cause problem solving, whose lifestyle’s do not contribute to overpopulation and overconsumption; whereas it legally rewards cultures and subcultures whose members practice political correctness, sycophancy, hypocrisy, parasitism, denial of responsibility, self deception masquerading as ‘privacy’ and ‘dignity’, and a focus on Public Relations Image Management parasitism.
[13.4] The socio-political problem solving system of the Matriarchal Mosuo culture in South West China is plausibly the most credible on planet earth. The people of Mosuo have no rape (not even a word in their language for rape, because it does not exist), no murder, no suicide and no unemployment; as a result of abiding by (a) the laws of nature and tribal control of population and consumption, and (b) the laws of human nature, in terms of public problem solving, and a socio-political focus on root cause problem solving.
[13.5] Metaphorically South Africa’s political, legal and academic Emperor chefs’ are following the cooking laws for road kill stew; while attempting to convince South African citizens entering their court rooms, that the Justice being served is ‘credible’ Crème brûlée justice; when in fact its just maggot filled road kill stew.
[13.6] The only people who consider South African Jurisprudence ‘credible’ are those who psychologically, emotionally and intellectually consider the cartoon bombs made by Wile E Coyote the Road Runner as ‘credible’ applications of the laws of physics related to bomb making. South African Jurists Jurisprudence should be taken as ‘seriously’ as Laurel and Hardy; in terms of its ability to accurately apply the relevant natural or scientific laws, to attain a specific related required result of inter-human and intra-species harmony and balance. If the consequences of American Naked Emperor Syndrome Jurists were not so tragic, it would in fact be beyond Laurel & Hardy hilarious.
[13.7] South African citizens do not know that there is, and have been, cultures who have and do regulate (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, and ideological conflicts; with a focus of balance between all human and natural entities; to create a culture where there is no murder, no rape, no suicide, no jails, no unemployed, no significant income disparity, no homeless.
[13.8] Comparatively South Africa’s jurisprudence has resulted in a society where the (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, ethnic, cultural and ideological conflicts; has resulted in a country where murder, rape, imprisonment, unemployment, and income disparity is amongst the highest in the world.
[13.9] It is not possible to create a society with no murder, no rape, no suicide, no imprisonment, low income disparity, no homeless, by continuing to following Patriarchy’s AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Recipe!
________________________________________
[14] Mosuo: Ecocentric Gender-Balanced Sustainable Culture with no murder, rape, war, jealousy, jails or unemployment:
[14.1] The Mosuo language is rendered not in writing, but in Dongba, the only pictographic language used in the world today. The Mosuo language has no words for murder, war, rape, or jealousy, and the Mosuo have no jails and no unemployment.
[14.2] Although the Mosuo culture is most frequently described as a matriarchal culture; in fact, its more accurate to refer to it as “matrilineal”, but still doesn't reflect the full truth. Accurately speaking have aspects of matriarchal culture, in that women are the head of the house, property is passed through the female line, and women tend to make the business decisions. Political power, however, remains in the hands of males, creating a gender-balanced society.
[14.3] Mosuo women carry on the family name and run the households, which are usually made up of several families, with one woman elected as the head. The head matriarchs of each village govern the region by committee.
[14.4] As an agrarian culture, much of the Mosuo daily life centers around tending to crops and livestock, with villages and households bartering between them for basic needs.
[14.5] A typical Mosuo house is divided in to four separate structures around an open courtyard. Traditionally, families share the building with livestock, and the living and sleeping areas are communal.
[14.6] Mosuo families have an incredible internal cohesiveness and stability; and Mosuo women do not (within their culture) face many of the struggles and barriers that women in many other cultures do.
[14.7] Probably the most famous – and most misunderstood – aspect of Mosuo culture is their practice of “walking marriages” (or “zou hun” in Chinese), so called because the men will walk to the house of their ‘partner' at night, but return to their own home, within their own tribal family, in the morning.
[14.8] The Mosuo generally live in large extended families, with many generations (great grandparents, grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, etc.) all living together within the same house. For the most part, everyone lives within communal quarters, without private bedrooms or living areas. However, women between certain ages, after “coming of age”, can have their own private bedrooms.
[14.9] Traditionally, a Mosuo woman who is interested in a particular man will invite him to come and spend the night with her in her room. The man will walk to her house after dark (thus the description of “walking marriage”), spend the night with her, and return home early the next morning.
[14.10] Although it is possible for a Mosuo woman to change partners as often as she likes – and in fact, having only one sexual partner would be neither expected nor common – the majority of such couplings are actually more long term. In fact, few Mosuo women have more than one partner at a time, described by some anthropologists as “serial monogamy”.
[14.11] Even when a pairing may be long term, however, the man will never go to live with the woman's family, or vice versa. He will continue to live with and be responsible to his family, and the children of his sisters and nieces; she will continue to live with and be responsible to her family. There will be no sharing of property.
[14.12] Significantly, when children are born, the father may have little or no responsibility for his offspring (in fact, some children may not even know who their father is). If a father does want to be involved with the upbringing of his children, he will bring gifts to the mother's family, and state his intention to do so. This gives him a kind of official status within that family, but does not actually make him part of the family. Regardless of whether the father is involved or not, the child will be raised in the mother's family, and take on her family name.
[14.13] This does not mean, however, that the men get of scot-free, with no responsibilities for children. Quite the opposite, in fact. Every man will share responsibilities in caring for all children born to women within their own family, be they a sister, niece, aunt, etc. In fact, children will grow up with many “aunts” and “uncles”, as all members of the extended family share in the duties of supporting and raising the children.
[14.14] The result – as different as it may be from other systems – is a family structure which is, in fact, extremely stable. Divorce does not exist …there are no questions over child custody (the child belongs to the mother's family), splitting of property (property is never shared), etc. If a parent dies, there is still a large extended family to provide care.
[14.15] One particularly important result is the lack of preference for a particular gender. For example, in most Chinese and patriarchal cultures, the female will join the male's family when she gets married. The result is that if a couple has a lot of female children, they will lose them after marriage, and have no one to care for them in old age; but if they have male children, their sons (and their sons' wives) will care for them. So, in poorer populations in particular, there will be a strong preference for male children.
[14.16] However, among the Mosuo, since neither male nor female children will ever leave home, there is no particular preference for one gender over the other. The focus instead tends to be on maintaining some degree of gender balance, having roughly the same proportion of male to female within a household. In situations where this becomes unbalanced, it is not uncommon for Mosuo to adopt children of the appropriate gender (or even for two households to ‘swap' male/female children).
[14.17] Additionally the other focus is population control, avoiding overpopulation of the family, since the family is unable to kick the children out of the home, and wash their hands, as to the sustainable future of those children. The family matriarch has the responsibility to make sure that the family does not procreate beyond its capacity to support the entire family through difficult times.
[14.18] Children are also raised with a gender neutral focus, where all the children dress the same and are treated in a gender neutral manner. At around the age of 12-14 years, the important event known as their coming of age ceremony occurs, where girls are given skirts, and men are given their pants; thus called the “skirt ceremony” for girls, and the “pants ceremony” for boys.
[14.19] After coming of age, Mosuo females are entitled to their own private bedroom; and, once past puberty, can begin to invite partners for “walking marriages”.
[14.20] According to patriarchal macho Argentinean writer Ricardo Coler , who decided to find out what it was like to live in a non-patriarchal culture, and spent two months with the Mosuo in southern China: “Men live better where women are in charge” and “Women have a different way of dominating.”
[14.21] Coler asserts that while he expected an inverse patriarchy, he experienced something totally different, because women have a different way of dominating: “When women rule, it's part of their work. They like it when everything functions and the family is doing well. Amassing wealth or earning lots of money doesn't cross their minds. Capital accumulation seems to be a male thing. It's not for nothing that popular wisdom says that the difference between a man and a boy is the price of his toys.”
[14.22] What astonished Coler the most, was that there was no violence in the Mosuo culture: “I know that quickly slips into idealization -- every human society has its problems. But it simply doesn't make sense to the Mosuo women to solve conflicts with violence. Because they are in charge, nobody fights. They don't know feelings of guilt or vengeance -- it is simply shameful to fight. They are ashamed if they do and it even can threaten their social standing. [If there is an altercation] The women decide what happens. Some of them do it more strictly and others in a friendlier way. They are strong women who give clear orders. When a man hasn't finished a task he's been given, he is expected to admit it. He is not scolded or punished, but instead he is treated like a little boy who was not up to the task.”
[14.23] The Mosuo economy is largely agrarian, and they are capable of producing most of what they need for daily living; and consequently are by and large self-sufficient. In the past, Mosuo men would take trading caravans to other parts of China, to buy/trade products they could not produce locally.
[14.24] The traditional Mosuo religion worships nature, is called Daba, with Lugu Lake regarded as the Mother Goddess and the mountain overlooking it venerated as the Goddess of Love. The Mosuo also practice Lamaism, a Tibetan variation of Buddhism. Most Mosuo homes dedicate a room specifically for Buddhist worship and for sheltering traveling lamas, or monks. Their focus is their close relationship to the land that supports them and with their neighbors, who also support them.
________________________________________
Fraud of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence: Primary Beneficiaries: Anthropocentric males and corporations; Primary Losers: Non-Anthropocentric humans and nature.
[15] The draft TYGAE Report: Credibility Failure of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence, provides extensive examples of how and why Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence’s primary beneficiaries are Anthropocentric humans and corporations; and its primary losers are non-anthropocentric humans and nature.
[I] AnthroCorpocentric Legislator’s/Jurists Despotic Failure to Recognize their Legislative / Juristic Freedoms are limited by Laws of Nature/Ecology and Human Nature:
[A] Conflict with Laws of Ecology: Finite Resource Reality: Inaccurate Assumption: NNR Abundance:
[B] Conflict with Sustainable Security Military Doctrine advocating Overpopulation & Consumption induced Scarcity as a cause of Conflict:
[C] Failure to implement Sustainable Security Military Doctrine, to apply laws of Nature/Ecology to legally differentiate between Sustainable and Unsustainable Procreation and Consumption behaviour.
[D] Failure to implement Sustainable Security Military Doctrine, to legislate credible International Peace Treaties which confront Scarcity induced Conflict to legally differentiate between Sustainable (Peaceful) and Unsustainable (Scarcity Combatant) Procreation and Consumption behaviour.
[II] AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudences Endorsement of the ‘Control of Reproduction’ Human Farming Poverty Pimping War Economy Racket.
[A] Masculine Insecurity: Foundation of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence’s Human Farming ‘Control of Reproduction’ War Economy Racket.
[B] Legislation of Occupational Licences for hundreds of occupations, sometimes even from children for lemonade stands, required to allegedly protect those occupations consumers from incompetent service and products.
[C] Total Legislative Failure to legislate Breeding / Parenting licences, to (a) protect the rights of unborn and unwanted children, from unloving and incompetent parenting; and (b) prevent overpopulation.
[D] Failure to Legislate Breeding/Parenting Licence, an endorsement of Masculine Insecurity’s use of the Control of Reproduction as a Weapon of War.
[E] Profiting from the absence of Breeding/Parenting Licence, and their Control of Reproduction of a Surplus Cannon Fodder Population.
[F] Profiting from the absence of Breeding/Parenting Licence, and their Control of Reproduction of a Surplus Vote and Poverty Pimp Fodder Population.
[III] Corporate Influence and Control of Anthropocentric Jurisprudence
[A] The Hidden History of Corporations and Corporate Personhood.
[B] AnthroCorpocentric Influence on Judicial Decision Making.
[C] Corporate Cultural Imperialism, Cultural Identity and the Eurocentric ideology of Ecological Destruction and Compulsive Development.
[D] Melting Pot Multiculturalism: the ideal Egotist Consumptionism Ideology of Multinational Capitalism.
________________________________________
Transforming a system of Jurisprudence from Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric to Æquilibriaex: equal & balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law.
“The law locks up the man or woman who steals the goose from the common. But the greater villain the law lets loose, who steals the common from the goose.” -- 17th century protest against English enclosure
“To prove a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who stole it.” - Lloyd George
“Land monopoly is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies -- it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly.” - Winston Churchill
“If you think the environment has nothing to do with the law; try counting your money, writing a brief, making a legal argument in a court, while holding your breath. In the absence of the environment, and the resources provided by nature, anthropocentric law is totally and utterly irrelevant.” – Lara Johnstone
[16] Æquilibriæx is derived from æquus (equal), libra/æ (balance), libri (books), lex (law). Æquilibriæx – i.e. Equal & balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law/jurisprudence occurs as Equilibriæx Jurisprudence which adheres to the laws of nature / ecology, and Aquilibriæx Jurisprudence adheres to laws of human nature.
[17] Æquilibriæx jurisprudence occurs when Legislators and Jurists recognize that their Lockean “social contract” duties - that their legislative/adjudicative freedoms are limited by (a) the laws of nature/ecology, which dictate that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for regulating procreation and consumption in accordance to the carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; and (B) the laws of human nature; where the relevant disputing parties cultural, religious, and ideological laws of human nature , are applied to achieve the greatest possible level of intra-species harmony and balance.
[18] Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence recognizes all Leaver beings, species, individuals, corporations, families, tribes, etc., rights to legal personhood; but based upon the principles of CommonSism, distinguishes between Sustainable Leavers who are recognized and legally rewarded for their contribution towards Æquilibriæx inter and intra-species harmony, and Unsustainable Takers who are recognized and legally penalized for their contribution towards Æquilibriæx inter and/or intra-species disharmony and discord.
[19] CommonSism, or Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons, is inspired by -- among others -- the Taker vs. Leaver and Leaver Law of Limited Competition ideas of the gorilla Ishmael, in Daniel Quinn's books: Ishmael and My Ishmael; Tragedy of the Commons ideas, as expressed by Garrett Hardin, and the Order of Melchizedek ideas of Yakov Rabinovich, as expressed in Stairway to Nowhere: Chapter 8: Melchizedek — Ecological War.
[20] CommonSism asserts that a majority of society's problems - crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion and scarcity are symptoms of Ecological Overshoot, resulting from the AnthroCorpoCentric Consumptionist Left and Right Wing's war against nature, and the absence of Ecocentric Jurisprudence combined with the failures of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence.
[21] Ecological Overshoot is a consequence of all other ideologies and their AnthroCorpocentric adherents failure to legally (a) define the difference between sustainable and unsustainable procreation and consumption behaviour; and (b) provide legal, including voting rights to sustainable practices, and legal penalties, including denial of rights, including voting rights, to unsustainable individuals, corporations and organisations.
[22] Guerrylla Laws (A) simply and very specifically clarify the difference between the consumption and procreation behaviour of an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) vs a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent); and are (B) used in courts to (a) provide legal rights and socio-political rewards of recognition to Sustainable Leaver's for their Heroic lifestyle choices and practices; (b) confront Taker Scarcity Combatants of their Breeding / Consumption combatant behaviours aggravation of Scarcity induced socio-economic problems, by means of aggravated legal penalties, in accordance to their 'Taker Scarcity Combatant' status. An organisation or corporation who only employs Leavers is a Leaver organisation, and one which has one or more Takers, is considered a Taker organisation.
[23] The Tragedy of the Commons is an ecological concept that refers to the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to their long-term best interests. Ecologist Garrett Hardin famously explored this social dilemma in “The Tragedy of the Commons”.
[24] Social Trap is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation in which a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains, which in the long run leads to a loss for the group as a whole; such as for example overfishing, energy "brownout" and "blackout" power outages during periods of extreme temperatures, overgrazing on the Sahelian Desert, and the destruction of the rainforest by logging interests and agriculture. Social fence refers to a short-term avoidance behavior by individuals that leads to a long-term loss to the entire group.
[25] Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) Principles: Finite Limited Resources: Limited Rights:
“We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.” - Former Municipal Court Judge Jason G. Brent, Humans: An Endangered Species
“Every right must be evaluated in the network of all rights claimed and the environment in which these rights are exercised. If we hold that every right, ―natural" or not, must be evaluated in the total system of rights operating in a world that is limited, we must inevitably conclude that no right can be presumed to be absolute, that the effect of each right on the suppliers as well as on the demanders must be determined before we can ascertain the quantity of right that is admissible. From here on out, ours is a limited world. Rights must also be limited. The greater the population, the more limited the per capita supply of all goods; hence the greater must be the limitation on individual rights, including the right to breed. At its heart, this is the political meaning of the population problem.” – Garrett Hardin, Limited World, Limited Rights, Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA
[26] Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons, 1968 essay focussed on clarifying how the population problem was a moral problem, and required a moral solution. Hardin showed why Adam Smith's laissez-faire doctrine and belief that the invisible hand enables a system of individuals to pursue their private interests which will automatically serve the collective interest; is flawed.
[27] Hardin’s key metaphor, the Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) showed why Smith was wrong. Hardin argued that when a resource is held "in common," with many people having "ownership" and access to it, a self-interested "rational" actor will decide to increase his or her exploitation of the resource since he or she receives the full benefit of the increase, but the costs are spread among all users. When many people think this way, the tragic result is the overexploitation and ruin of the commons. Similar to the herdsman, couples expect to experience a large benefit from having a second child, or consuming above carrying capacity, without having to bear the full social and ecological cost of their choices.
[28] Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons Assumptions & Solutions:
[28.1] The world is biophysically finite.
A. The more people there are, and the more they consume, the less each person's share must be.
B. Technology (ie, agricultural) cannot fundamentally alter this.
C. We can't both maximize the number of people and satisfy every desire or "good" of everyone.
D. Practically, biophysical limits dictate we must both stabilize population, and consumption.
E. Both steps will generate opposition, since many people will have to relinquish their procreation and/or consumption behaviour.
[28.2] Over-population and overconsumption are example’s of the tragedy of the commons (ToC).
A. Commons are un-owned or commonly-held "pool" resources that are "free," or not allocated by markets.
B. Hardin's ToC model assumes that individuals are short-term, self-interested "rational" actors, seeking to maximize their own gains.
C. Such actors will exploit commons (have more babies, add more cattle to pastures, pollute the air, overconsume) as long as they believe the costs to them individually are less than the benefits.
D. The system of individual welfare insulates individuals from bearing the full costs of over-reproducing, and corporate welfare insulates corporations from bearing the costs of overproduction.
E. When every individual believes and behaves in this manner, commons are quickly filled, degraded, and ruined along with their erst-while exploiters.
F. A laissez-faire system (letting individuals choose as they like) will not "as if by an invisible hand" solve over-population and/or overconsumption.
[28.3] The "commons" system for breeding and consuming must be abandoned (as it has been for other resources).
A. In other words, something must restrain individual reproduction and consumption.
B. but it must not be individual conscience; appealing to conscience will only result in fewer people with conscience in the population (assuming here that it is genetic, or perfectly transmitted by learning).
C. It should be accomplished by "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon."
D. Sacrificing freedom to breed and consume will obtain for us other more important freedoms which will otherwise be lost.
E. "Coercive" restrictions on breeding and consuming could take a number of forms.
F. The "right" to determine the size of one's family and socio-economic consumption status, must be rescinded.
G. This will protect the conscientious traits in the population.
[28.4] The problem is then to gain peoples' consent to a system of coercion.
A. People will consent if they understand the dire consequences of letting the population growth rate and consumption growth rate, be set only by individuals' choices.
B. Educating all people about the ToC, its consequences, and the alternatives to it, is necessary.
C. Then various restraints and incentives for low reproduction and consumption, below the commons carrying capacity limits, can and must be instituted.
[29] Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Tragedy of the Commons Rights and Penalties:
[30] Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Taker and Leaver Rights and Penalties are designed to remove the AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence breeding and consumption war incentives to violate the Commons carrying capacity. If or when an individual chooses to procreate or consume above the Commons carrying capacity (be a Taker), they thereby make their own voluntary decision to deny themselves access to the Commons social contract’s protection of rights to liberty, life and property, etc. They choose – by their decision to overbreed and overconsume -- to no longer be entitled to the social contract protections to life, liberty and property, etc.
[31] Right to Life: Leavers are entitled to state social contract protection of their right to life, since they are living a lifestyle which respects all other species social contract right to life (within the law of limited competition). Takers are not automatically entitled to the ‘right’ to life, since their procreation and/or consumption lifestyle deliberately violates the ‘right to life’ of nature and animals and plant species. For example: If or where a Taker is murdered, either by another Taker or a leaver, it is for the Takers’ family to prosecute the matter as a civil matter, and attempt to convince the Jury how or why the Taker should be given an exemption access to the Leaver’s right to life. If the accused (Taker or Leaver) can prove to the court, that the person who was murdered, was – in terms of their Taker procreation and consumption behaviours – committing murder of Leavers, and nature, by denying and stealing their land and access to their habitats, then the murder of such a Taker, would have been beneficial to Æquilibriæx harmony, since the murdered Taker was creating disharmony by his procreation and/or consumption greedy practices.
[32] Property Ownership: Leavers are entitled to social contract protection of their property rights, since they are living a lifestyle which respects all other species social contract property rights. Takers are not automatically entitled to the ‘right’ to protection of their property, since they are living above carrying capacity and deliberately violating the property rights of nature and animals and plant species. If Takers allege their property has been damaged or stolen, they can prosecute the matter as a civil matter. For example: If a robber robs a bank, and is again robbed by another robber outside the bank, who steals his ‘stolen property’, he has no ‘right’ to claim that it was his ‘lawful property’. Similarly any individual who is living above Commons carrying capacity, cannot claim that his ‘property’ is his own ‘lawful property’, because in violating the Commons Carrying capacity, he is stealing property, liberty, and life from other species and nature; hence his property is ‘stolen property’.
[33] Right to Vote & be Employed as Civil Servant: Leavers are entitled to social contract right to vote, and to be employed as a civil servant, including the right to legislate social contract laws, since they are living a lifestyle which demonstrates their competency to respect all other species life, voting and property rights, in accordance to carrying capacity principles. Takers are not entitled to the ‘right’ to vote, or to be employed as a civil servant, since they are living above carrying capacity and deliberately violating the life, property and voting rights of nature and animals and plant species, demonstrating either their incompetence or moral delinquency.
[34] Right to Freedom of Speech, Liberty etc: Similarly, leavers are entitled to these social contract rights; whereas Takers are not entitled to these rights. If or where a Taker considers any such ‘right’ to have been violated, they are however entitled to prosecute the matter as a civil matter.
[35] Penalties for Civil Prosecutors acting for Takers: If or where an Attorney chooses to proceed to prosecute a civil matter on behalf of a Taker’s grievances, and fails to convince more than 40% of the jurors of his Taker client’s argument, his first penalty is to lose access to Leaver status for his entire life, and his second strike penalty is to receive the ‘Tragedy of the Courts Commons’ death penalty.
[36] Equilibriaex (Ecocentric) Principles:
[36.1] Equilibriæx Jurisprudence groups Human’s into Unsustainable Takers (Scarcity Combatants) and Sustainable Leavers (Eco-Innocents) cultures and societies.
[37] Sustainable Leavers follow Ecological Law of Limited Competition:
[37.1] Daniel Quinn defines the Ecological Law of Limited Competition as such: you may compete to the full extent of your capabilities but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food, i.e wage war.
[37.2] Essentially what this means is that you cannot claim ownership of all the food. You can compete for the food that you need, but you cannot say "all the food is mine and no one else who wants any can have some." You can fight for food but you cannot act in a genocidal fashion, setting out to kill those who compete with you merely because they compete with you.
[37.3] A lion and a hyena may compete with each other to determine who gets to eat the dead antelope. However the lions may not rally together and set out to eliminate hyenas lest they challenge them for any of their kills. To do so would be to operate outside the boundaries of the law.
[37.4] How The Law is Self Eliminating: If the lions did rally together and kill of all the hyenas then there would be more food for them. Their population would increase and their territory would expand. But there would still be other competitors for their food. So the lions set up a special task force to go out and eliminate other species that compete for food and living space.
[37.5] Elimination doesn't occur instantly. It takes place when there is nowhere left to expand, no competitors left to destroy. If a species destroys their competitors then there is more food available to them. With more food they can support a higher population. And with a higher population they need more living space so they expand their territory. But as they expand their territory they meet more competitors who are eating food that could be theirs. So they destroy them, taking all the food in the new territory. With all this new food population expands again and so does territory.
[37.6] And then it happens all over again. This way of life works for a short period of time. It doesn't eliminate the species instantly. Elimination only takes place when there is nowhere left to expand into, no competitors left to destroy.
[37.7] When this happens the way of life implodes. So many competitors have been destroyed that the biodiversity of the ecosystem has been fatally weakened. All that the landscape now supports is the lawbreaker and the lawbreaker's food. With biodiversity gone and the food chain destroyed the food supply of the lawbreakers will fall apart and when the food supply falls apart the lawbreaker is eliminated.
[37.8] Quinn argues that humans are the only species to have broken this law, beginning with Agriculture, 10 000 years ago.
[38] Law of Limited Competition Principles: “You may compete but you may not wage war.”:
[38.1] Takers exterminate their competitors, which is something that never happens in the wild. In the wild, animals will defend their territories and their kills and they will invade their competitors' territories and pre-empt their kills. Some species even include competitors among their prey, but they never hunt competitors down just to make them dead, the way ranchers and farmers do with coyotes and foxes and crows. What they hunt, they eat." When animals go hunting—even extremely aggressive animals like baboons—it's to obtain food, not to exterminate competitors or even animals that prey on them."
[38.2] Takers systematically destroy their competitors' food to make room for their own. Nothing like this occurs in the natural community. The rule there is: Take what you need, and leave the rest alone".
[38.3] Takers deny their competitors access to food. In the wild, the rule is: You may deny your competitors access to what you're eating, but you may not deny them access to food in general. In other words, you can say, `This gazelle is mine,' but you can't say, `All the gazelles are mine.' The lion defends its kill as its own, but it doesn't defend the herd as its own." "Bees will deny you access to what's inside their hive in the apple tree, but they won't deny you access to the apples."
[39] Two Agri-Cultures: Sustainable Leavers and Unsustainable Takers:
[39.1] World Food and Human Population Growth, describes how food supply drives human population growth, and how human population growth adversely affects our environment and our ability to sustain our culture. This began with the agricultural revolution, a cultural change which advocates continually increasing food production. The consequences of Agricultural expansion are: * decreased carbon sequestration (80%), decreased soil nutrients (20%), decreased base stream flow (30%), and decreased species biodiversity (80%).
No comments:
Post a Comment