I noticed years ago that rules are created to make society, or components of a society, function. The paradox is that when people say they are going to work to rule it means they intend to stop society functioning. America says it is a nation of laws. These were written to make the society function, but now they are used to ensure the society doesn’t function or worse, is easily controlled by an elite few. Why did they only need ten commandments while the US needs thousands of laws? Why does America have more lawyers than the rest of the world combined? Who are they serving and protecting? Most people cannot afford a lawyer, especially “a good” one, that is one who knows how to beat the law whatever it says.
That last comment was underlined for me by a former student who became a lawyer. He took a course in contract law from one of the best contract lawyers in the country. The professors opening comment to the class said, ‘If you sign a contract there is no problem. If you don’t sign a contract, there is no problem. Now we will have a course in contract law.’
The lawyers provided the ideal environment for technocrats, by destroying the keystone of society, trust. A few years ago, a Canadian newspaper ran a contest for the best humorous description of a Canadian. None of the winners was funny, least of all the runner-up. It said a Canadian is a person who will stop at a stop sign at three in the morning even though nobody is watching. Not only is this not funny, but it speaks to the very fabric of a law-abiding society. Each citizen trusts that every other citizen will obey the law when not watched. The legal profession says you don’t trust anyone. You need a contract to guarantee trust. As some people ask, whatever happened to the solemnity and trust of a handshake?
The collapse of trust created a devastating side-effect. The attitude among many and certainly most of the young is that you only broke the law if you get caught. Then, even if you get caught, the wealthy technocrats hire the best lawyers, often with other people’s money, to avoid the law.
The technocrats who construct and control the technology need to control the rules, and so they co-opt the law through the lawyers. This gives them far more control than people can imagine. Lawyers are the most prevalent profession of those in politics. Even if the politicians are not lawyers, it is the lawyer as a bureaucrat who writes the laws. The entire legal profession is a closed shop. They run the law faculties at the universities from top to bottom as Presidents, Deans, and other officers of their faculty.
The incestuous nature of the hierarchy continues in society at large. All recognition of a ’good’ lawyer is determined by other lawyers. The Founding Fathers tried to prevent this by having Senate confirmation hearings, as we witnessed at the recent Kavanaugh Hearings. I watched that hearing and other Senate Judiciary Committee hearings of Administration appointees to Federal courts. In all cases, the majority of the Senators were lawyers or even former judges.
There is little danger of lawyers replacing the technocrats because they are almost exclusively Arts majors. I wrote about this bias in an earlier article. The classic example of technocrats abusing climate science with the aid of lawyers using laws they wrote to accommodate involved the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The State of Massachusetts lawsuit, was probably in an arrangement against the EPA. It accused them of failing to fulfil their legislated duty of protecting the citizens of Massachusetts against a ‘harmful substance’ CO2. EPA lost the case, and after reading some of the case, I believe deliberately lost. This guaranteed its consideration by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS).
Justice Scalia asked why a science issue appeared before a court that knew nothing about science. He then said he had no choice in the ruling because it came under Administrative Law. The technocrats got the lawyers to write them back in the 1940s to protect what they were doing. Basically, it says we as ‘experts’ set the rules and define the laws, that always makes us the authority. In this case, Administrative Law said the EPA must control a “harmful substance.” What Scalia and the Justices didn’t know was that the EPA determined that CO2 was a harmful substance. So, the EPA wrote the definitions and the laws all to give them absolute control over CO2. As Scalia said, he had no choice in his ruling.
If Trump wants to do something meaningful beyond abandoning the Paris Climate Agreement, he should get the EPA to remove the ‘harmful substance’ designation from CO2. It is a valuable gas essential to plant growth and does not cause warming or climate change.
If he wants to take back much of the control of America by the technocrats and their slaves, he can stop the lawyers by eliminating Administrative Law. He can use the abuse of the law to demonize CO2 as the perfect example. If you eliminate the biased rules, then they can’t be used to control society.