The existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is a completely different matter. I do not understand the current state of things, I really do not. I am straining my mind hard to try to encompass the necessity of what today passes for civilised society in terms of law. The theory of the law goes that the state administers a law that should avenge those it has been unable to protect; it is a system of
quid pro quo. If you commit a crime, the state will exercise a vengeance on you, on behalf of the victim. You are the perpetrator and by that vice you have a victim by definition. But here comes the pickle, we all become perpetrators sooner or later due to the sheer volume of things which the state deems unlawful - and by the same token, what we deem unlawful by virtue of our representative democracy. But it appears that more things have become illegal at an accelerated pace over the last few years - naturally, I will not insult your intelligence by explaining why this is, I am sure we all know.
The state rules with a love for order combined with sheer ignorance of mankind. The modus operandi of the western human being appears to be the following:
Get an education, Get a job, Get a wife, Get a house, Get a few kids, work for the about 40 years, Get your pension, trot around doing nothing for 10-15 years, Die.
It seems harsh when put plainly in those words, but that, sadly, is the aspiration of many but they do not know it. Eventually though, most will end up there due to it being the equilibrium solution of the western lifestyle. This is said with no attachments of benefits or drawback, it is an observation, that is all. Now, the above 'life', if you will, is defined by the laws in which scene of operation it exposes itself. Think of it as a funnel.
It used to be that in Britain you met the state, as it were, only twice in your life at the turn of the century; at birth and and at death. That was the way life was then; you chose it defined rather by what class you were in rather than what laws were administered, of course each social class had its own unwritten laws attached to it. The hypothetical judicial funnel back in 1900 was tiny by todays comparison; the slope of the funnel walls was tiny. In fact they were almost flat and most things spilled out rather than pass through the funnel, at which end you would find your life path laid out before you in a similar fashion to that described above.
Today however, the slope of those funnel walls are very different. They have a very large gradient, are viciously guarded so that nothing, god forbid, should spill out and give scent to a notion of nonconformity on the horizon. Today by comparison nonconformity, lawful or not, is bad by definition for one has then spilled out of the funnel. If the funnel spills that means that it is badly designed which means that, it in turn, needs to be improved. It is improved by increasing the gradient, which means, if you did not follow the symmetry and symbolism; more laws. The state today does not administer a law for the benefit of its citizens, good or bad, it simply administers it for the purpose of displaying an authority which sits high up on a pedestal looking down at the unfortunate cretins who happen to be on a lower echelon than the law itself.
New Labour has created more than 3,000 new offences since it came to power in 1997, that is almost one per day. Of all the laws made in the UK somewhere between 75-85% come from the EU. This means that not only is Parliament making laws to stifle the very semblance of meaningful life so too is the EU - our real government.
Are we really that dangerous? Have we evolved from relatively benign creatures, in the social sense, to murderous, 24/7-revolutionary, guerilla fighters? If that were so then perhaps then there would be a justifiable argument to extend state legislature to such a degree. But... we are not reincarnations of Stalin, Che or Nicolae Ceauşescu we are just normal people who want to be left alone.
We all know the official reasons for creating all these laws but an ulterior motive might be to halt the possible inception of a new Lenin - or a person who is independent minded enough to stand up to the dogma and actually bring and end to the destruction from within, which seems to be the only creative exercise going on in this country today. But do they not see, what they are doing is defeating the object of their ulterior; not only are they not preventing the inception of people of that particular pedigree, they are actively accelerating its come-about because they are making each and every one of us so apoplectic with rage, whenever we are reminded by their mere existance.
