Agamben’s state of exception notes the indispensability of law simultaneously outdated. Law’s acceptance without knowledge of its contents. Legislators right up documents and law enforcement studies up on the details but the average citizen has no idea. The electorate devise behind closed doors shoving pieces of nonsense into elongated documentation. The law is never simple and exceeds the jurisdiction of the constitutional format. The beuqacratic nightmare is heavily assaulted with unreasoned absurdity. The people never asked nor wished for this extensive package. The price of literacy and codification may be to blame for this extreme improvisation.
Society has its way of functioning. For man order is necessary for cohesion and advancement. That order may not be equal nor ethical but the logistical strata completes its cycle repeatedly. Monarchs no longer run the show, the law still acts as its supreme rulership. The law may not have a mind of its own but it does require obedience. The law demands respect as the pinnacle of societal order. For society to persist, the law must stand at the bedrock of civilisation. To ensure equity under the law, it is provided transcendent power. It can never be erased except through violence. Only through revolution, toppling the system can a new system take its place. Rebelling against the law will only lead to prison. Reform is a later consequence in favour of amending the law. Yet the law itself can never be amended. Its details can shift but not its totality. Then again, even if the law is toppled and new law takes it place, the law is still present. It may be not be in previous form but it is still the transcendence of society. It is still the tool of order. The monarchs wielded this tool for their own gain but at the same time were subject to the norms they commanded. The law bound them to their position. Privileged in their position but nonetheless sanctioned to the legal order of logistical uniformity.
Law precedes humankind. Law is the mechanism of intellectual repression. Humanity has evolved and can no longer be tamed by nature. The laws of nature have no effect so man constructs his own. He creates a dogmatic hierarchy of such systematic power. Principles that play into the favour of the legislated. Yet with this power, the legislators bind themselves to the order of the law. They may seem to control it but it in effect controls them. They must use the sword to cut the enemy but it is the sword that saves them indebted to its strength. The sword asks for nothing in return but its continuous use to defeat enemies appeases it. The law has no feelings but legislators do. The law is a concept but yet a realistic weapon. It cannot fight back conventionally but its use can never be impinged. As long as man seeks to unite, law will be enforced. Legislators see law as greedy people see money. It is a way of making life better at the expense of servitude to its process. A slavish impact to the almighty order. An order that will subject them when they leave office or expelled from it. It is a power that is enforced on others, where the enforced may not take too kindly. It is a gamble with serious consequences. Manipulating forces beyond their ken.
An ignorant citizenry may let the law dictate their lives. May allow their legislators to absolve themselves of their duties. Yet, the truth will come out. Some may be Scott free but others will be reprimanded. It may be arbitrary, it may just be that time of the year but it will occur. People will wake up and push back. Shackled slaves may not succeed but they will harm with little care for the ramifications. The power remains in the legislator's hand though he may be dead. His successor will uphold his doctrines but he will be no more. Is life worth the eventual bounty. Law is an instrument of society but its weaponisation can be one’s undoing. A monarch may follow in his father’s footsteps but be the sacrificial lamb to the revolution. He may have been a good monarch but the concept of monarchy has lost its edge and an example had to be made. His predecessors’ use of force was the downfall of the regime. At the same time, a noble family lose its prestige not from any wrongdoing but due to egalitarian concerns. Democratic awakening that coincided with the noble’s lifespan. Fate is tricky but it responds to the order. The law exists before and after mortal man. When the current shifts for a new master, the flexible law flows upstream. The law cannot be mastered, only be temporarily convoluted for exceptional reasons. The law that is ignored remains at bay. New strictures enforced are musings of legal extensions.
Law has become wrought with dubious incursions. Attempting to fit an agenda on the map. Law makers seek to improvise their own aspirations, an ego trip of personal regard. A law that lasts as long as the dynasty wishes to uphold it. Then again, the expansion of legal statues are never nullified. Only agonised in the case of conflict. Only protested by known legislators. The law has force by virtue of its inauguration into the system. The law isn’t easily removed though it is easily imprinted. The lack of awareness and scrutiny to legislation proves the incompetence of law makers. If it doesn’t oppose the legal order it is adequate. Yet this is the Hamilton-Jefferson debate. Whether law is anything not mentioned in the constitution or law is only that which is in the constitution. The former feared anarchy while the latter feared tyranny. The more legislation imposed the more power the government has. It isn’t so much what one legislator can do but the increased sovereign power of the institution. A lust for legal malleability takes away from the simple purposes of the authoritative apparatus. The goal isn’t to control people but to protect them. For Hamilton, law acted as a corrective to ensure societal cohesion. The more law the central power the more unity. For Jefferson law was a means of negotiation. Law ensured the treaty between government and people. The less law the less central power the more independence.
Legislation is often overlooked. Judicial branches mainly cover the high profile cases while regular legislation is permitted to flow through the channels. No oversight or scrutiny only furthers the issue. Law is not dangerous in of itself but it is the manner in which it is wielded. Law is an element of society and cannot be erased but can be utilised for discriminatory purposes. The American Patriot Act was seen as an important ascent of routing out possible terrorists hiding in plain sight. Subdued by their increased power, this legislation lead to a number of scandals. Illegal surveillance was exposed by Snowden and people grew angry at him. How dare he show us the truth of our ignorance. Typical dubious justifications followed. Well if there is nothing to hid then it is alright. Yet does this legislation have the people’s intentions in mind? Without further scrutiny did it reach problematic heights? Laws going into effect do not automatically exist as they do but morph over time. Permission was granted based on an illegitimate notion. No one gave permission to access citizenry data but the legislation provided that leeway if they could justify the threat. Expanding the principles beyond their original intent. The citizenry saw it only for terrorist agendas but the government went further than permitted and acknowledged. It subverted the citizenry’s trust and betrayed them. Obama claimed that he stopped terrorism when in reality it did nothing but gain information on citizens.
Governmental control is the signal of legal aptitude. Yet it’s primarily applicable in an age that sees equality as some light of hope. The constitution is the law but it is subject to change. The law is the foundation but that foundation can be altered by bi-partisanship. The idea is that a democracy of elected officials would only act in the public’s interest but they never do. The US government on its own accord overruled the supreme court and gave itself sovereign immunity during the founder's era. Anti-war and anti-war on drugs have been silenced and ignored. Officials can partake in insider trading without any issue and will always be absolved. Lacking accountability and profiteering their corporate friends. Law makers keep hoping for reelection so they do not lose their legislative privilege. Using tax payer money to build a new stadium or provide access to corrupted fiends. Law is an application for those outside the circle. Yet in many regards legislators should under the law as well. Their own covid doctrines should’ve applied to them yet they didn’t obey nor were they prosecuted. The law exists but has no significance if elites are never punished. If law enforcement turns a blind eye to the legislator’s own betrayal, then the law is negligible. It is forced on one side of the population but not the other. The terminological difference is explicit. Monarchs didn’t have rules but legislators do. Choosing not to and not having to are two different things. Citizen ire persists to those who deceive not those who are in charge.
Agamben’s state of exception meshes with a section of elites who are forced to be part of the law but then do not partake in their own legislation. Rules for thee not for me is a statement a monarch would proclaim but a legislator brands. It is an ignorance for rules not absence of them. For Biden’s son to not receive the punitive punishments for drugs that he enforced is not the lack of law but the lack of enforcement. Law exists and requires punishment, it is the measure of making an exception for a specific individual. The elitist exceptionalism undermines the gravity of democracy. The law is above everyone but the enforcers decide for ego reasons to turn a blind eye. When money and status can overturn or erase a problem, the state of exception is apparent. In hierarchical systems there were laws for different people. The law was relatively codified while democracy seeks to absolve the law. The law is ignored. Its force is apparent but its significance irrelevant. Coercive power for the few. The regulars and the weak. To prey upon those with little connections and prestige. The feudalistic archive is more nefarious today. The ability to subvert law only undermines its power. Selective persecution deems democracy a farce. The lie of democracy and of communism was the equity promised. The old age new way was in store. Annoyed but acknowledged. Today, the systems promise one thing but provide another. A kosher restaurant that serves pork.
The spectacle of democracy is handedly measured in the literacy output. Codified law is no longer the extent of capabilities but the extension of possibility. The age of orality was cultural. The legal codexes were summaries of axioms instead of regulations. Law was life. It was a traditional metric. Courts were unnecessary deciding fate amongst one another. Person A accidentally killed Person B’s goat, Person B compensates with either a goat of his own or pays a few coins. A third party may be privy to the event but it was more a house rules sort of venue. There are certain principles to follow. Not too complex and easy to comply. There was a hierarchical difference but the system was fluid and comprehensible. Law was in the nature of existence. Law was a way of being. A way of order and function. The advent of literary codes extended lawful life to the backdrop of central necessities. Codified order would be easily remembered as well as easily modified. Yet codification was hard to break. The canon was held tight with little wiggle room to manoeuvre. Traditions couldn’t easy be changed as the codified work was trans-generational. Power was centralised with the elite instead of the people. It was more governmental intrusion instead of subjugation. To easily modify difference across cultures, codification answers the unknown answers. Easy to look up and easy to understand. The oral switch to writing prioritised legal fluctuation and power in the ideological matrix of hierarchical might. Law was not life but control over the masses.
Codification nested itself in monarchical might. The original canonisers were liberalists. Law was to be codified to ensure equality. No person could redeem himself to hurt others. Privileges only went so far. If it is printed it is engraved forever. Complexity to change only heightened hopes for horizontal freedom. Yet the reemergence of monarchies only weaponised to their behest. Writing legal codes to control the masses. To ensure all was following the way of their vision. If the monarch stood atop the law, the codex was according to him. The sage had triumphed over the prophet. Able to manipulate law to his goal. Authority of life expression was by the whim of the the monarch. Legislating that which aided his cause. The onset of democracy sought undo this disaster. Placing the law in its esteem above all yet permitting the citizenry to make changes. Though in the same mishap as the Romans, the elected corrupted the system. The law although above all is a spectacle to the public. There are certain aspects that cannot be undone but many are trying to expunge. The law remains a tool for further legislation. More writing and more changes. Adding so many regulations that people cannot keep up. Law has become more obtuse and more obscure. Literacy’s infatuation with law has furthered the distance between life and law. Life is illegal without knowledge. Confusion and perplexity hound the public. Acting on intuition praying law enforcement is lazy.
Control is the new order. There is good control and bad control. Good control is logistically savvy but bad control is tyrannical penetration. Seeking to indulge more and more. The constitution is the great mind of order but its function acts differently for various groups. The legislators themselves are the worst criminals. Acting in bad faith for their own agendas. They are modern nobles with less morals. At least the medieval jerk was born into an asymmetric system fuelled by inequality. The modern jerk is a social climber hellbent on improving his odds. He is a selfish cunt who looks for his own growth at the expense of others. Seeking to use his position to unravel the tenants of democracy. He only likes democracy so he could be a tyrant. A jester with a cape. A liar with an elongating nose expanding after each public speech. Modern politicians have cultivated the state of exception by their own disregard for the law that enabled them to reach their spot. The seeming disconnect between the privileges and the obligations that follow. Such uncanny irony undermines the facets of hypocritical and narcissistic alignment.
No comments:
Post a Comment