Justice… Among Men And Nations
Sections within this article:
1. Crimes & Misdemeanors
2. …and Justice For All?
3. The Dream of Social Justice
4. A New and Better Approach?
5. Summary & Conclusions
Do we give a damn about Justice, or is it a concept to which we pay high-falutin’, feel-good lip service and then conveniently ignore, rationalize around, and justify away?
It is a fair assumption that an overwhelming majority of Americans (both religious and secular) would be happy to join in the following prayer: “Grant us grace fearlessly to contend against evil, and to make no peace with oppression; and, that we may reverently use our freedom, help us to employ it in the maintenance of justice among men and nations.” (From A Prayer for Social Justice, The Book of Common Prayer.)
The cornerstones of the American dream, and perhaps all humanity’s dream, are Liberty, Justice and Opportunity (the last of which the writers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence termed “the pursuit of happiness”). It has often been argued that the success of our system of goverance (to date) is directly related to the incredible creativity and productivity which flows from the the human mind when it is free (liberty), secure (justice), and in pursuit of its own happiness (opportunity). Measured by the monetary and technological progress within the U.S. since 1776, the empirical evidence in support of this premise seems compelling.
Of course, these ideals are inter-related: How can we have Liberty if there is no Justice? How can we have Opportunity if there is no Liberty? What is Liberty where there is no Opportunity? What is Justice where there is no Liberty?
Far from esoteric philosophical musings, there are important practical reasons to take a critical look at the ideal of Justice, the imperfect (some might say blatantly corrupt) reality of our current system, and possible paths toward “a more perfect union”. After all, that IS what we want, isn’t it?
If we are serious about justice, then we must drop the willfully ignorant and lazy “we have the best system on Earth” non-argument, and get on with the business of walking our talk: Let’s root-out injustice and work hard to make the American dream a reality!
Crimes and Misdemeanors
Webster’s definition of “just” (the root of “justice”) is “right or fair; equitable; impartial.”
Note explicitly that a “just” society is NOT necessarily equivalent to that which is desired by some democratic majority or ruling oligarchy, nor is it necessarily in line with current fashion or philosophical leanings. For example, even if a majority of people voted democratically to enslave some minority such slavery would NOT be just, anymore than allowing a ruling monarch or corporate elite to craft laws which codify favoritism for the rich. Similarly, simply because many governments (and their citizenry) have rationalized involuntary military conscription (under penalty of prison or even death) does NOT mean that such laws are just, anymore than forcing Japanese-Americans into World War II concentration camps was just, or the absurd doctrine of “Manifest Destiny” was just.
Thus, the proper analysis of every society’s system of justice requires that we compare the definition of “just” with the actual laws and actions of that system. To the extent that the definition (ideal) and the reality diverge, we must make necessary corrections (or we are guilty of conscious hypocrisy and our ‘noble’ system is a sham).
Consider ‘Crimes’ versus ‘Misdemeanors’. There are relatively few true ‘Crimes’ in humanity, and these have all been codified for at least two thousand years: Murder, Mayhem, Rape, Theft, Fraud, etc.; all of which are labeled as felonies. No sane person would argue against severe societal punishment for such acts. On the other hand, many thousands of laws exist at federal, state and municipal levels which are essentially social fashion, cultural custom, extortive politics, or religious dogma writ large and powerful. These are paternalistic, ‘father knows best’, laws aimed at micro-managing human behavior rather than simply curbing harmful outcomes. Examples include: Forcing citizens to pay taxes which support wars abroad; Forbiding various sexual acts between consenting adults; Forbiding the cultivation or use of natural plant substances (marijuana, poppies, peyote); Forbiding gambling between consenting adults; Mandating that adults wear helmets or seatbelts; Forbiding the consumption of wine on a city beach; Requiring permission to build a home on your own land, and even legislating the aesthetics of private buildings; Requiring permission for adults to obtain available medications; and even patently absurd, but all too common quirks such as a Nicholas County, West Virginia, law forbiding clergyman from telling any funny story from the pulpit or a Springfield, Missouri, law forbiding the sale of buttermilk on the sabbath (whose ‘sabbath’ is presumed but not defined). Sadly, some of the aforementioned laws carry felony penalties, placing pot growers alongside murders and rapists, thus making a mockery of our intuitive concept of justice. Clearly, if all the manpower dedicated to enforcing this ever-larger and more-oppressive collection of laws were focused on solving and preventing indisputable crimes (such as rape and murder), then we would have a much safer and more just society.
This is NOT an argument for unbridled liberty for commercial interests. To the contrary, a clear distinction should be made: One of the few rightful roles of governments is the appropriate and necessary regulation of commerce to ensure that commerce is conducted in a “right or fair; equitable” manner. On the other hand, there should be few restrictions on the choices and actions of individuals, in pursuits of their own happiness, where those actions do not rob another of their own opportunity to pursue happiness.
This points out a perpetual problem within any system of justice: Political powers often care less about justice than they do about serving their own interests. While there is no simple or easy fix to this problem, the first steps require that we all take a hard look at reality of our system, confess our own biases, acknowledge the inconsistencies and injustices, and demand immediate reform: Namely, eliminate nearly all restrictions on individual liberties while eliminating the corporate shield which disconnects profits from responsibilities. In the face of the obvious and admitted injustices within our present system, if we do not demand such changes then we are effectively admitting that we do not care about justice.
…and Justice For All?
This point bears repeating: As per its very definition, justice should be ‘fair, equitable and impartial’. When a system fails to meet these criteria then that system is not just. In such circumstances there are only two choices: (1) We must honestly admit we do not care about justice, or (2) We must change the system!
Consider the injustice of so-called ‘Blue Collar’ versus ‘White Collar’ crimes and their related punishments. Walk into a bank with a banana in your jacket pocket and demand the contents of teller’s cash drawer, perhaps $2,000. Quite properly, for this crime you will be sentenced to five years or more for bank robbery. Now, consider ‘white collar’ criminals, such as Michael Milken and Charles Keating (as well as thousands of other defrauders of American taxpayers and investors), who steal millions or even billions each. Mathematically, in a just system, these people should never again see a free day of light… however, even if they are prosecuted they often serve just a year or two in low security ‘country club’ facilities. While lobbyists for the burgeoning Prison-Industrial complex love to publicize the early release of ‘blue collar’ criminals in support of building ever more prisons, they are intriguingly quiet regarding the massive injustice within a legal system which sends a non-violent drug user away for years while slapping the wrists of folks who have used stolen vast sums and then used those illicit funds to overtly corrupt our very democracy (which should be treated as treason).
How can we legitimately respect such an obviously unjust system? How can we excuse or ignore it? How can we fail to demand dramatic reforms?
From Greek philosophers to the framers of our U.S. Constitution one thing has always been made abundantly clear: We humans, and our systems, are corruptible. As the saying goes: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Therefore, if we desire justice, we must work constantly and vigilantly to separate, balance and constrain power. Failure to do so results in what we experience all too commonly: The finest ‘justice’ money can buy.
It should be obvious that creating a just society requires limiting the corrupting power of money. Instead, American policy explicitly allows monetary corruption via campaign contributions by corporations and other organizations, even transnational firms with no national allegiance. Of course, without exception, corporations are far more wealthy and powerful than any individuals. Not only do they possess shear overwhelming manpower, but their combined assets, cash flows, and power bases can exceed the resources and strength of even large and well-organized governments.
Further, in a convenient twist of logic, corporations have argued for and received many or more of the rights of individuals with fewer of the responsibilities or potential penalties. For instance, corporations (including their officers and directors) convicted of certain irresponsible offenses (i.e., fraud, corruption, environmental devastation, etc.) should be treated like their individual counterparts, but they are not. When involved in large-scale crimes, why aren’t they collectively jailed, and thereafter barred from employment, profit or investment in all such related businesses for life (just as sex offenders are jailed and then prohibited from a wide array of activities after their release)? Why aren’t corporations dissolved with net assets confiscated to pay retribution to victims and penalties levied to reimburse taxpayers for the costs of oversight and enforcement. Why aren’t officers, directors and shareholders held personally and financially responsible for liabilities and damages by the corporations which do their bidding for their private profit? True justice demands that individuals should have more rights than abstract legalistic creations, and that the corporate veil should not be allowed to dissociate profits from responsibility.
With state and federal legislatures composed mostly of lawyers, why aren’t such reforms demanded and immediately initiated? Since these people are surely intelligent enough to recognize these injustices, only a lack of courage, political will or honesty stand between our ideal of justice and the hypocritical reality of our present system.
The Dream of Social Justice
When pressed, most educated and intellectually honest individuals will admit that our so-called “Justice System” is a rigged game. Immediately, however, most will also lament, “But no system is perfect. We do the best we can. It has always been this way. We must accept these faults and remember that this is the best system in the world.” (Often, they will add, “Imagine a Turkish prison, or your chances for justice in Latin America!”) Of course, this line of argument avoids the point and the accompanying responsibilities: Regardless of how much worse the system can be, it is incumbent upon us to make it better so that we become a more just society. Far from being a Sisyphian task, it is truly a matter of culture: What will we define as acceptable? When we tacitly accept corruption and injustice then we will live within a society of corruption and injustice, if not then not. Thus, we should NEVER accept the argument that “this is as good as it gets” unless we are willing to simultaneously admit that we do NOT care about justice, but we only care that injustice is perpetuate against others, NOT ourselves. Anyone who has been trapped within the quagmire of an unfair IRS claim or frivilous law suit understands the profound fear and disgust which is visited upon the victims of injustice… so contemplate the horror of state-sponsored torture, war, and even imprisonment, perhaps for the so-called “crime” of cultivating and harvesting naturally occuring plants! If we prefer to insist that this only occurs in Turkey or other distant lands then we are willfully ignorant of the facts. Like education and socialization, true reform begins at home.
The reality of our legal system is that it has become a system of selective enforcement. There are so many laws and so many gray areas within those multiple (and sometimes conflicting) codes that almost anyone can be cited for something at any place or time. Law enforcement authorities routinely point out that could never fully enforce all of the violations of all of our laws, sometimes even true crimes. For instance, most auto thefts and burglaries, and even some rapes and murders) go uninvestigated; and only a tiny percentage of infractions (such as traffic offenses, building code violations, etc.) are prosecuted. Many officials admit that they choose NOT to enforce various laws which they feel are unfair or cumbersome (even though they have pledged an oath to uphold all the laws). The first conclusion that we can draw from this state of affairs is that there are far too many laws, various of which even the law enforcement officials realize are unjust. This also creates another more insidious problem: That bureaucrats and authorities can and do selectively enforce laws for personal or political reasons. In the end, this entire situation leads to widespread distrust of and disrespect for the law since most of us consider ourselves, our familes and neighbors to be law abiding citizens even when we know that we routinely violate laws (which we obviously consider to be unjust). Such selective attention to, and selective enforcement of, unjust laws is anything but “right, fair, equitable, impartial”, and thus is NOT a just system. Further, such a Byzantine system creates massive areas of ambiguity which unnecesarily complicates the issue of attaining true justice in our society.
Might it be possible to create a far more parsimonious and just system?
A New Approach to Justice
As with most important advances in history, building a more just, safer and more desirable society will require a paradigm shift in our typical patterns of thought. Just as the theories of Galileo, Newton, et al, required that rulers and subjects adopt a new personal perspective before they could understand the truth of a more realistic astronomical model, understanding the integrated concepts of ‘Liberty & Responsibility’ requires that we adopt a fresh approach to solving the protracted problems facing our humanity. Thus, we must now suspend our old assumptions regarding justice in our society in order to properly evaluate a more effective and progressive system. (Note: While this cursory discussion of such a new system is, of necessity, brief and non-comprehensive, the following discussion is sufficient to begin an open dialogue.)
Within the self-regulating, naturally balanced philosophy of ‘Liberty & Responsibility’ we can create a more just, elegant and efficient system which is also more secure and more effective… and we will NOT need esoteric and nearly unintelligible legal doctrine to understand it or teach it to our citizens. All we need is basic logic and intuition available to every adult (and most children). Here’s how:
Replace most “a priori” laws with Advisory Standards.
To begin the discussion we must recognize three clear truths: (1) That each Individual has the responsibility to reasonably avoid a violation of their own liberties by others (i.e., not to precipitate violation); (2) That each Individual has the responsibility to reasonably avoid violating the liberties of others; and (3) That society must develop (and each Individual must be given) guidelines as to what is accepted as ‘responsible’ action and what actions are deemed to put society at undesirable risk. We can call such guidelines “Advisory Standards” and they would be logically based upon the concept of ‘acceptable risks’ (since we know that risk is inherent in life, society should seek to minimize risk in accordance with common risks normally acceptable to the population, e.g., we know there is an array of risks associated with driving on the highway, or hiking into the wilderness, and we accept those risks in return for the freedom to travel or explore). Advisory Standards would replace most existing laws such as those relating to alcohol & drugs, traffic, weapons, product safety, employment safety, discrimination, building codes, personal and public conduct, and actions of governmental officials and corporate management. Only long-agreed ‘true crimes’ (murder, rape, theft, etc.) would remain absolutely criminal.
In conjunction with the elimination of the intent’ concept (see #2 below), replacing most ‘a priori’ (deterent) laws with Advisory Standards then shifts the court’s mission to a far simpler (and less subjective) task: Conduct fact-finding trials to determine whether a defendant’s actions were within the prescribed Advisory Standards when (and only when) a harmful outcome occurs. If they were, then any outcomes are presumed to be accidently. For any events absent actual harm there would be no chargeable offense or civil liability. This alone would eliminate massive courtroom caseloads, leaving more time and energy for prosecuting true crimes and violations of Advisory Standards where harmful outcomes have occurred.
Advisory Standards would be very similar to many of the misdemeanor and traffic codes now in force – except, they would be unenforcable in the absense of harm. Issues such as speed limits, possession of weapons, possession and use of intoxicating substances, building codes, and public safety regulations would cease to carry penalties in and of themselves… just like the old sports saying, “No harm, no foul”. Conversely, any harm caused in conjunction with the violations of Advisory Standards would be a de facto criminal act (that is there would be a conclusive presumption of willfull criminal behavior since the perpetrator chose to ignore society’s Advisory Standard). [Note: See #4 below to understand how this self-regulating system would actually significantly decrease the episodes of accidents and willful breeches of Advisory Standards and thus create a simultaneously more free, more just and more safe society.]
Eliminate the concept of ‘intent’ and focus only on actions and outcomes.
Another example of unnecessary obfuscation and confusion of justice is the issue of ‘intent’, a relic of ancient Western religious beliefs central to most of our criminal and civil justice systems. How can we expect to have justice in a system which relies on divining someone’s intent prior to and during an already past action, since no one (but God?) can know or prove someone else’s ‘intention’ to commit a crime? Circumstantial evidence may be presented and conclusions may be drawn but, in the end, it is all still speculation. The real question is this: Why should the issue of intent matter at all? Shouldn’t actions speak for themselves? Doesn’t such mitigating argument directly conflict with the basic legal theory that ‘ignorance is no excuse’ (as in, “I didn’t know it was illegal to rape that girl”)? The very process of trying to prove intent renders the legal system hopelessly complex and inherently inaccurate.
But can we really dispense with consideration of someone’s intentions? Shouldn’t someone who ‘intends to’ (and does) burn down your home be punished more severely than someone who ‘accidently’ burns down your home? Not necessarily. If the water heater manufacture chooses to ignore the established Advisory Standards for product safety, or the builder fails to adhere to the established Advisory Standards for installation, then a water heater accident which burns your house down might logically carry the same penalty as for someone who put a match to an oily rag and stuff it in under your eaves. In either event, you suffer tremendous damage. In both cases the cause of the fire was the willful act of an individual (i.e., the manufacturer willfully put you and many others at increased risk in order to save a few dollars). Whether or not the prosecutor can prove they knowingly or intentionally burned your home down is immaterial; we need only prove they violated an Advisory Standard; only the facts and the demonstrable outcome matters.
Eliminate all liability and criminal prosecution in the face of true ‘accidents’.
On the other hand, in the above example, if the manufacturer and builder took care to comply with all proscribed Advisory Standards (‘best practices’) then why should they be responsible for damages in a lawsuit stemming from a freak accident? In fact, they should not. True accidents and freak events do occur. A person or organization with the ‘deepest pockets’ which happens to be somehow remotely connected to a harmful outcome should not fear being made responsible everytime a truly unavoidable accident occurs.
Thus, under a more just system, no individual should have the ability to sue for damages due to accidents unless caused by a criminal act (including violation of Advisory Standards). We must be responsible for our own (and our dependants’) education regarding risks, actions, safety, etc., relating to life. Thus we should and will know and accept the inherent risks associated with using public or private lands, transportation, consumer products, or any other situation where all other parties are acting within the limits of Advisory Standards. Lack of criminal or contractual responsibility will require that all others be held harmless in case of true accidents. This system would further eliminate massive numbers of frivilous and over-reaching cases stemming from attempts to make someone else responsible for our own misfortunes.
Develop Severe ‘Psychological Cliffs’ to ensure Self-Restraint
Gravity does not negotiate and neither should society. Before dismissing this ‘Liberty & Responsibility’ system (Advisory Standards in place of most absolute laws) as so much lunacy, carefully consider it’s countervailing partner: The Psychological Cliff. Simply stated, the Psychological Cliff represents that set of terribly substantial penalties owed by a transgressor in cases where there is harm and therefore a foul. The development of appropriately severe penalties is of paramount importance in assuring the maximization of individual liberty and personal responsibility, so please follow along carefully and patiently. In such a system, justice would truly be blind since everyone would suffer the same penalties (without mitigation) in direct proportion to the size and severity of their crime or chosen risk.
When society sets an Advisory Law it does so based upon reasonably conservative statistical estimates. Given that we can not remove all risk from our lives, we must select acceptable risks for each area of concern. The Advisory Limits would then be established at that point where the probability of harm begins to be less than extremely rare, say for example .001% (one chance in 100,000). For risks of tremendous harm (i.e. loss of life or limb) society may set the acceptable limit much lower (say, one chance in 10,000,000). Rather than setting arbitrary risk levels, it is a simple matter to set these levels somewhat below the levels demonstrated to be historically commonly-acceptable within our society (i.e. highway driving, being struck by lightning, recreational sports risks, etc.).
Most of us should then ask, “If these standards are only advisory, then what will prevent all those suicidal and irresponsible nuts from strewning carnage across our highways? Or, what will prevent all manner of drug-crazed maniacs from gunning down law-abiding citizens on the streets?” The answer (and this is key) is that people will police themselves far more (and far more effectively) than they do under our current system!
Why? Simply, innate fear.
In truth, of course, a real suicidal nut can not be prevented from injuring or taking the lives of people in any society – free or enslaved, existing today or contemplated for tomorrow. As John F. Kennedy remarked, in tragic and truthful prescience, “I can not stop a man from trading his life for my own.” We can not eliminate all risk in our lives, but we can cause each person to properly monitor their own actions to minimize our collective risks.
How is this possible? By creating severe and non-negotiable penalties which form a proper ‘Psychological Cliff’ within each person we can assure ourselves that each individual will minimize the risk they present to society by consistently limiting their own behavior to safeguard their own interests. Just as nearly all of us avoid a dangerous cliff rather than tempting fate. Instead of routinely testing gray areas in the face of uncertain or minor penalties (as we all tend to do now), in the face of Psychological Cliffs we will establish large and comfortable margins of safety around us rather than risk the abyss of severe and non-negotiable penalties meted out by a justice system as blindly fair as gravity.
To understand a Psychological Cliff at work, imagine that you are told that you were free to go anywhere you choose (you are free), but warned you that their is a very dangerous cliff if you wandered too far in a given direction. In fact, you are told, this cliff is so dangerous that if you fall from it you will suffer extreme and unavoidable pain (loss of freedom): No argument will save you. Also, while some have been known to lean far out over the edge and were subsequently blown back safely by the fortune of an unpredictable wind, many others, who only walked near to the edge have slipped or tripped and fallen accidently over, or had the ragged ledge crumble suddenly from beneath them. With such information, how would you choose to conduct yourself? How close to the edge would you go?
This is not really a theoretical question since almost everyone knows exactly how they react to cliffs… they stand safely back away from the edge. Sure, some daredevils among us might stand brazenly along the edge, one foot waiving precariously over the chasm, laughing at the ‘absurdity’ of our fears. They might return safely. They might fall to their death. They may choose to leap out in suicidal anger, only to be vexed, saved by a powerful upward gust or, perhaps falling only several dozen feet to a ledge, thereby living for years in incredible pain and isolation. Almost all of us, however, would probably remain well back of the cliff, owing to the likelihood that we might suffer an accidental fall. We can witness this actual phenomenom at any real cliff or tall structure today. Most people would prefer to stay well away from the limit rather than suffer the potential risk to themselves. This, of course, contrasts ctarkly with our current system which tempts nearly all of us into playing daredeveil with an array of unjust laws thus lowering our respect for all laws and simultaneously decreasing the penalties for all law-breakers (even those who commit true crimes).
This is the self-policing power of The Psychological Cliff: Severe and frightening penalties, non-negotiably and swiftly applied in all cases, owing only to the factual position of the defendant in relation to our societies’ Advisory Standards and small set of Criminal laws. If, in the course of an action, actual harm is done to a Responsible Individual, the courts would hear evidence of the factual circumstances. If all parties were acting responsibly (that is, within Advisory Standards) then society shall presume and conclude that a true accident has occurred. No penalty will be suffered, nor will liability be incurred by any party. However, if one or more parties were acting irresponsibly (either Criminally or outside of Advisory Standards) then they will be conclusively presumed to have caused the harm, and will therefore suffer severe and mandatory criminal penalties as well as civil liabilities.
Notice, as well, that while others tend to avoid risk for themselves, they often tend to be a great deal less cautious with the life and property of others, especially if there is some perceived benefit (profit) for themselves. For instance, suppose we are given the choice of riding up 10-stories in a construction elevator (which had safety railings only along three sides) or walking the stairs to the top. There are 8 of us and only 6 could ride within the safety of the railing, we can not split up and no one can stay behind. You will most likely be willing to ride up – but only if you can have one of the safe spots. If given the opportunity you will be more inclined to let some others “take the risk” along the non-railed side while you ride to the top in relative safety, rather than insist on having everyone climb the stairs in the name of collective safety. This would probably be true even if you had the additional risk of a fine should someone be seriously injured if that potential penalty was smaller than your potential profit. This is exactly why many manufacturers (and their managers and employees) do not mind scrimping on the cost of product safety testing and quality control: They do not face personal risk based upon their decisions and actions.
Eliminate corporate shields and all other avoidance of personal responsibility.
To acheive justice we must make individuals fully responsible for the results of their choices and actions. Conservatives love to demand this from average citizens, and then run to hide behind the shield of limited liability provided for them by current corporate law. Liberals love to demand responsibility from companies and then hide behind the theories which make parents, teachers, television commercials, or society in general, responsible for the criminal actions of certain ‘disadvantaged’ individuals. We must demand that both camps drop these patently irresponsible arguments in favor of the truth: If we are responsible for the predictable consequences of our own actions (and only those) then we will tend to act more responsibly. If not, then not.
Thus, governmental officials, corporate executives and directors, and agents of organizations must all be held personally liable (legally and financially) for their decisions and actions. Further, shareholders must also be held financially accountable (on a pro rata basis) for the collective decisions and actions of the enterprises from which they intende to derive profit. When this occurs, shareholders will often strongly discourage management from taking massive public and environmental risks; manager will often refuse to undertake the risky activities encouraged by greedy investors; bureaucrats (including military and law enforcement officers) will decrease their arrogant, corrupt and whimsical use of authority. With this single stroke of reform, in rapid and sweeping measure civil liberties will be restored and maintained while safety and care will dramatically increase across our society.
Conversely, whereas many people tend to ‘feel sorry for’ (and therefore mitigate the penalties for) transgressors under the notion of “There but for the grace of God go I”, or even “We have too many oppressive laws and unfair penalties”, this system will actually make clear the operative concept: “There but for the wisdom of my own choice (to minimize risks for myself and my society) go I”, thus reinforcing both the appropriately severe penalty being suffered by the convicted transgressor, and the observers’ own commitment to future low-risk behavior.
Summary & Conclusions
The Philosophy of Liberty & Responsibility, which closely links our individual liberties to our personal responsibility, suggests simple yet dramatic means for thoroughly reforming our largely unjust justice system.
By recommitting ourselves to the American dream of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, by recognizing the flaws within our current system, and by demanding specific reforms we can transform our society into something far less hypocrtical and far more just.
The key concepts are (1) Replace most a priori laws with Advisory Standards, (2) Eliminate the concept of ‘intent’ by focusing only on actions and outcomes, (3) Eliminate all liability and criminal prosecution in the face of true ‘accidents’, (4) Create severe and non-negotiable Psychological Cliffs to eliminate ambiguities and perversions of justice by money, power or misplaced sympathy, (5) Eliminate corporate shields and all other avoidance of personal responsibility.
Finally, before we turn our attention to other distractions and forget the personal power we have to create a better world, let us consider the words of R.G. Ingersoll’s Creed (circa 1899):
“Justice is the only worship.
Love is the only priest.
Ignorance is the only slavery.
Happiness is the only good.
The time to be happy is now.
The place to be happy is here.
The way to be happy is to make others so.”
Thank you for your attention, interest and concern.