People just do not trust any individual or his moral principles, or wisdom, or sense of balance. In plain simple words- people don't trust people.
We doubt that if we leave it to the individual wisdom, he'll make a mess of it. We make a rule for every situation. Otherwise he'll not do it right.
In tribal society elders did it. In Kingdom, king's word was the rule. In Brahmin society Manu's word was taken as the rule. In democracy we give that power to the people. Or to the representatives of the people- the people we trust will not harm us. But the whole idea of the rule is not to trust the individual. He'll not act rightly. And that is exactly what happens. The representatives never act rightly. The power to represent should never have been given. You started with mistrust and mistrust was confirmed.
Nevertheless rules are made. But all rules are for future. That from now on when a situation arises- which everyone is quite sure that it'll arise- the individual, the person in question will be bound by this rule. That'll be the path that he'll have to tread. The steps to follow. The consequences to take.
But all this is controlling the future. In a sense it is kind of writing the future. As if it was history! Future is all imagination. It is not there. Even if it is there it is something we know nothing about. Its all veiled. Unintelligible.
So why decide for something that you know nothing about? And make an un-informed decision? That's what foolish people do. One must wait for the right moment. And when the moment comes a decision will be made. And it will be made right in that moment of situation to which the rule applies to. Like in case of a crime, say murder, someone kills the other. So for this situation a law was enacted in advance. But the justice is done retrospectively for the crimes committed in past.. Either future or past? Either memory or imagination. Nothing is real. What about present? In the situation? What of that?
Rules have no meanings. 'No rules' means total freedom. If you can't have 'no rules' then have as less rules as possible. And let people be freer. It is not the right or wrong law that oppresses us, it is the law. Law is the bondage. Law does not empower people. It takes the power away from the people and invests in itself. There should be no laws. No rules.
You say that if there were no rules. Strong will oppress the weak. But that is the law of the nature. It is destiny of the weak to perish. And do not assume that democracy protects the weak. It does not. It again oppresses the weak. Democracy is the game of numbers. Whoever has large number turns strong. Laws are made to protect the larger group not out of some compassion but because of the nature of democracy. Dalits are protected by law because they have certain numerical strength. Had democracy not been there, do you think any lawmaker would care for the plight of Dalits? Ruling class will protect its own interest. Mind the words- ruling class!
Nature has a law. It is relatively benign. It is relatively peaceful. Why burden ourselves with more laws? We are injured enough, why have self-inflicted injuries?
***
1 टिप्पणी:
It's somewhat contradictory article.
In first half you questioned and in later part you answered.
Eventually you ask, no, you seek for a lawless state.Ok.
But when I see around, I always found that ruling people was always aware of that sense. As you say, "Ruling class will protect its own interest. Mind the words- ruling class!" ( means, they know there is no law) So where is the rules and who cares about that. Like in a jungle, in benign nature law, one who has that sense, in other words one who has power to compete does rule over the rest, weak people who don't know the benign nature laws. It's up to them. Mark the Darwin's theory.
An I think this is what happening in all over the world.
Ain't the present state of affairs is what you should be satisfied?
I am sure you already know what I am writing, but that's why I was bit confused why you asked for a lawless state. I thought it is.
एक टिप्पणी भेजें