The empowerment of the internet? Justice and the law

*

If it wasn't for the internet, then the mass media would be able effectively to manipulate the Western populations with shamelessly distorted and dishonest reporting and evidence-free rhetoric.

But wait!...

*

The internet cannot - does not - keep the mass media decent and honest.

*

People need to cultivate their instincts; to use evidence from their own experience and observations primarily; not from mass communications.

Since we are all (supposedly) so concerned about justice - let's judge by common sense law

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/common-sense-law-versus-nonsensical.html

Political correctness has offered us a moral inversion, whereby we are most concerned to avoid the ‘prejudice’ of assuming that because a person is habitually dishonest, then they are likely to be lying in this specific instance.

Instead we focus on the fact that the habitually dishonest individual *might* uncharacteristically be telling the truth, for once – and this so obsesses us that that we construct systems which actually assume that knowledge about the past is an intrinsically misleading guide to the future.

Modern legal and other codes are indeed always biased against the people with a track record of sociable behaviour whom the early medieval codes would have assumed were ‘always’ in-the-right.

*

This is utterly typical of modernity. In the wish to set ourselves above and apart from our ancestors, we in the modern world have created social systems that avoid the specific and rare mistakes of the past at the cost of enforcing systematic error.

In order to avoid infrequent injustice against people of bad character, which happened in the past; we nowadays enforce routine injustice against people of good character.

*

So, if we retain the ability to judge character, we are able to judge without taking notice of the 'facts' provided by the openly-evil media; which means we can also dispense with the internet.

We can, we should, assume that people of good character are in the right, and people of bad character are in the wrong.

This is a much more reliable basis for justice than one which depends upon a specific and detailed objective historical reconstruction of precise behaviours and motivations compared with a precise template of laws, regulations and practices - many of which laws, regulations and practices are of evil intent, tending to the corruption and destruction of The Good. .

*

And if the judgement is, as usual, attempting to arbitrate a quarrel among thieves - an attempt of people of bad character to use justice in pursuit of their self interested evil plans - then we throw the case out of our court.

That's not the purpose of justice - justice exists to assist the Good and suppress that which opposed Good. If the law does not do this - if, indeed law is not even trying to assist the Good; then law is on the side of evil.

*

At any rate, we do not not need to subordinate the judgement of our own hearts to the injustice of modern legal process as reported by the mass media.

That would merely be to add another layer to the corruption.

*