|
|
|
|
|
 |
THE NAKED POLITICIAN
Page 4
P: Well,
they need better rules.
D: Yes,
natural laws that determine property rights would provide the better rules. Your
government regulations have failed time and time again. They have usurped
market competition in the supply of money and in loans. Along with the vast
extortion you call ‘taxation’ and your other financial interventions, politics
is the major cause of the worst economic problems.
P: That
is not the way it appears to most politicians.
D: Yes,
because most politicians don’t even pretend to have any advanced knowledge of
economics. You usually pretend to be trained in the law. But you would all have
a better insight into the economy and society generally with a better knowledge
of economics. That would save you from some of your worst errors.
P: That
may be so, but if some of your more-extreme assertions about politics and
economics are true, then why isn’t anyone who espouses those views quickly
taken up by the majority of the relevant academics?
D: Why
should he be?
P: Because
in the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
D: One
the contrary, in the world of the blind the one-eyed man is a dangerous lunatic:
he embarrasses others with his heterodox assertions and threatens their status
and livelihood.
P: In
that case, you can hardly blame me for not seeing what most clever people have
failed to see for whatever reason. Even if all you have said is true, I don’t
know these things.
D: But
as you have said yourself, ignorance of the law is no excuse and anyone ought
to realise that aggressive coercion cannot be lawful.
P: What
about mens rea? A guilty mind. I was
never intending to do wrong.
D: Direct
intention of the bad consequences of your actions is not necessary for a guilty
mind. It’s enough that a reasonable person in your position should have
foreseen these things.
P: I
don’t think that a reasonable person should have foreseen them.
D: Then
how is it that you were told by many people in advance what would result in
many of the cases we have discussed?
P: Perhaps
those people were much cleverer than I was, rather than merely reasonable, or
maybe just somewhat lucky in their predictions.
D: No,
it was your flawed moral character.
P: What
evidence can you possibly offer for that?
D: Consider
just one example. You were a student doing a higher degree. So quite old enough
to show your adult character. You were staying at the flat of friends and
sharing the bills. When you all moved out there was one final bill. Your share
was not large. At first you agreed to pay it. “You’ll get your money,” you
said—and kept on saying. Eventually, you told people that it was a lie that you
owed it. In short, for a paltry sum you cheated and slandered a friend.
P: That
never happened. Not at all. It’s a complete and utter fabrication.
D: It’s
pointless lying to me. We can see the truth here as plainly as we can see you.
P: Can
you see all the truth?
D: Yes.
P: Oh
dear!
D: Not
all at once. For true propositions are infinite—though not as infinite as false
propositions, of course.
P: (Uncertainly.)
Er, of course.
D: But
we see the truth value as we focus on relevant propositions....
P: (Interrupting.)
Anyway, it was indeed a ‘paltry sum’ of money. He should have let it go.
D: Why
should he? You owed it.
P: I
had paid enough money already for living in that cold, damp flat.
D: But
you had agreed to pay your share and you owed it. Also, you had secretly put an
electric heater in your room that the others were in effect subsidising when
all of you were on low incomes. So, rightfully, you owed even more of the bill
than you were being asked to pay. I could go on.
P: All
right, all right! But that’s all so trivial. How can it really matter?
D: In
itself, it doesn’t matter much. The problem with politicians is not the
relatively small personal fiddles that they try to hide, even though these
fiddles sometimes exceed the salaries of most of their subjects, but the big
things they do in public and boast about. However, the point here is that if
someone can treat his supposed friends like that then how much worse would he
treat strangers in pursuit of his self-interest? It belies your famous claim to
be a straightforward sort of a guy.
P: One
has to be tough in politics. One sometimes has to cut corners. The greater good
is what matters.
D: Climbing
the slippery pole became an end in itself for you, as it does for almost
everyone in politics who gets to the top of it. At the beginning you did have
some moral aims, I admit, however mistaken you were about them or about the
best means to achieve them. But eventually you lost sight even of them.
P: So
that is my defence or mitigation, then: moral aims lost in the confusion of
practical politics.
D: It’s
not much of a defence. Consider only the one war to supposedly ‘liberate’ a
country from an unelected tyrant, whom you also dishonestly claimed to be a
threat to the rest of the world. Your administration lied about the evidence
and the reasons for going to war. You ignored any version of just war theory
throughout the whole of the invasion and occupation. More than one million
people died as a result. More than one million souls taken before their natural
time.
P: I
stand by my decisions. I did my best in the circumstances as they appeared to
me.
D STANDS UP SUDDENLY AND SLAPS P HARD ACROSS THE
FACE.
P: (Stunned.)
You slapped me. That is outrageous treatment. Why did you do that?
D: If
I were to slap you one million times across the face it would hardly be
outrageous treatment under the circumstances as they appear to me. I need to
make you see; to make you begin to appreciate the enormities for which you bear
a considerable share of responsibility—and what might now be done to you as a
consequence.
P: But
the facts have to be proven in court before I could be justly punished.
D: You
still don’t understand. We know the facts. The purpose of the trial is only to
see whether there can be any excuse, any mitigation.
P: I
refuse to participate in this farce any further.
P STANDS. D CLAPS HIS HANDS ONCE
LOUDLY. P LOOKS DOWN ALARMED AND BEGINS TO APPEAR UNSTEADY AND TERRIFIED.
P: Aaaaaaargh!
I’m on a cliff edge. I can see them far below me. I can feel the great heat!
They’re burning! Screaming! Burning!
D CLAPS HIS HANDS AGAIN. P SITS DOWN,
SHOCKED.
P: What
was that?
D: It
was a quasi-metaphor to help you understand.
P: Understand
what?
D: Your
position is precipitous, do nothing precipitant lest you precipitate.
P: What
do you mean by “quasi-metaphor”?
D: It
actually showed you where you will be going.
P: Is
there no hope, then?
D: (Pause.)
Let’s review in summary, shall we. (Looking at notes.) Extortion, on a vast
scale. Authoritarian rule, on a vast scale. War crimes, on a vast scale. No
mere gangster or serial killer begins to be in your league. When it comes to
evil, you are top of the first division. What do you think?
P: But
I never intended to do wrong.
D: Nobody
ever does.
P: What?
D: Nobody
perceives what they do as unambiguously wrong at the time that they do it. In
fact it seems the right thing to do at the time.
P: Mass
murderers must know that what they do is wrong.
D: You
didn’t, did you? Individuals and states have killed prostitutes, homosexuals,
Jews, Christians, Muslims ... name your group. They all regarded themselves as
making the world a better place. That is no excuse at all for the deaths they
caused; nor for all the deaths you caused.
P: But
those deaths were not intended, they were collat...
D: (Interrupts.)
Please don’t even mention the words “collateral damage” or I will give you a
much warmer close-up of what you have just seen. Foreseeability, not
intentionality, is the criterion of guilt.
P: But
if I hadn’t done what I did, then others would have done the same.
D: And
then they would have been as guilty as you. But is that really true? There were
others that were against many of the things you did.
P: Is
there no hope at all?
D: (Long
pause. Speaks slowly.) There is a potentiality of a possibility of a prospect
of a hope.
P: What
is it?
D: We
send you back to life.
P: What? But I’m dead!
D: Make
up your mind.
P: I
mean, you keep saying I’m dead.
D: That
would seem to be a prerequisite of resurrection.
P: But
the dead cannot come back.
D: You
mean they cannot go back.
P: Can
they?
D: Under
certain circumstances.
P: What
circumstances?
D: If
He decides that they should be given a chance to try to atone for some of the
wrongs they have done.
P: I
do want to try.
D: You
have a lot for which to atone. One might even say, a Hell of a lot. (Chuckles.)
P: Can
I do it?
D: Not completely. Not anywhere near completely. In fact, not anywhere within
sight of completely with a very
powerful telescope.
P: So
I am doomed.
D: Oh
yes. I thought that was understood. Doomed. Utterly, utterly doomed. Doomed to
be damned. For a very, very long time, indeed.
P: But
not forever?
D: Of
course not.
P: Why
not?
D: Because
you are not infinitely evil, unlike Him.
P: (Confused.)
Unlike Him? (Nods and points upwards.)
D: The
other Him. (Nods and points downwards.)
P: Oh,
of course.
D: We
are never unnecessarily cruel.
P: Only
necessarily cruel?
D: Precisely!
And precisely cruel too. Therefore the punishment is proportional.
P: Proportional
to what?
D: To
the number of years of life taken, money extorted, the amount of suffering
inflicted, and so forth, multiplied by your share of the culpability. It’s all
strictly mathematical.
P: So
if I were to save a lot of lives, lower a lot of taxes and prevent a lot of
suffering, by effectively combating their political causes, then that would go
towards offsetting what I had previously been responsible for?
D: More
or less, yes.
P: “More
or less”? I thought you said it was “strictly mathematical”?
D: And
so it is. And so there is also the contrition coefficient to be considered.
P: “The
contrition coefficient”?
D: For
instance, if you were to merely do it in order to lessen your sentence or for
some other non-moral reason, then it would not be so effective. Your degree of
contrition affects the outcome.
P: (Hopefully.)
Can really sincere contrition be enough on its own?
D: (Sternly.)
No! It can only decrease the severity or length of the punishment for your
damnable actions. In any case, a truly contrite person would want to do his
best to make amends as far as possible. And he would also wish to be punished
at least insofar as he could not make amends.
P: I
see. Of course. But how will my motives be clear? Is it possible to look into a
man’s soul?
D: Well
yes, frankly. And the view from here is far from salubrious.
P: Why
should I be granted this possibility; this second chance?
D: Because,
as we have seen, a lot of your behaviour was based on false empirical and false
moral beliefs. You are not an out-and-out selfish misanthrope or psychopath,
unlike many Earthly presidents I could mention.
P: How
can I act for the right motive when I now have a self-interested motive to do
the very same thing? That will add confusion, at least.
D: Oh,
you wouldn’t remember any of this. You would be granted the usual epiphany
about the behaviour concerning which the consequences should have been
foreseeable. And the rest would then be up to you.
P: “The usual epiphany”?
D: You
don’t suppose that you are the first person this sort of thing has happened to,
do you?
P: I
suppose not. Though I can’t recall many politicians, in particular, radically
changing their ways.
D: Once
succumbing to temptation becomes habitual, it’s not easy to change.
P: Well,
I hope to do better. So how does this work?
D: (Looks
at door.) You see that door over there where you came in?
P: (Looks.)
Yes.
D: Try
to open it. If you can, then your second chance might have been granted. You
just have to walk through it.
P: “Might have been granted”?
D: If
your contrition coefficient is high enough.
P: How
high is that?
D: Higher
than point five, of course.
P: (Unconvinced.)
Oh, of course! And if it isn’t high enough?
D: Sufficient
unto the day is the evil thereof.
P: What
does that mean?
D: It’s
nothing that need concern us just now.
P: (Gets
up and walks over to door. Tries it. It opens slightly.) It’s open.
D: Then
you are free to leave.
P: What
about the time that has passed?
D: We
are outside that physical time here. You will simply gasp for breath as the
defibrillator shocks you for the fourth time, and there you are.
P: Goodbye
then. (Hesitantly.) And thank you.
D: Goodbye
for now. And good luck.
P WALKS THROUGH THE DOOR.
You are going to need it.
PAUSE. LOOKS DOWN AT PAPERS.
Next please!
LONG PAUSE. THE SAME MAN RE-ENTERS. BEMUSED.
Welcome sir. Please take a seat.
P: (Sits.
Dazed. Looking around.) Where am I? I seem to recognise this place.
D: In
a conference room.
P: (Reviving
somewhat.) For what kind of conference?
D: For
a legal conference.
THE LIGHT GOES OUT.
END
Page 4
Top 50 books of all time : by Old Hickory:-
"I have limited the selection to the books I have read. I keep to the norm of not recommending to others books I have yet to read. Clearly, books I have not read by now suggests a judgement of some sort."
PDF version
of this article
Download
Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader. This is available
for free at www.adobe.com
and on many free CDs.
The Alternative
Bookshop
Which specialises in,
but does not limit itself
to, books on Liberty
and Freedom ... Book
reviews, links,
bestsellers, rareties,
second— hand,
best price on books,
find rare books.